Growing up, I was involved in a co-ed youth group. My best friends were a group of 3 guys and 3 girls who went out several times a week. Our Bible studies were mixed, our retreats were mixed (the rooms weren't), and only one event the whole year separated us by gender (the True Love Waits seminar).
Going to college and since, I've seen a lot of dividing young men from young women. Now that I'm in Seattle, there are next to know Christian churches with young people; but if there are, the church has different ministries for the young men and for the young women and none that bring them together.
So, I was curious, are all the churches across America falling into this wicked sin of segregation or just the churches in Seattle?
yes, that is very wicked, and so shocking to be in church (of all places). i mean, why separate us when God wants us together? it doesn't make sense. i was recently in youth, and they were all one big group; they just separated by grade while teaching. and the services are the same; everyone is together. but i have a question for you: why do you think the churches are doing this? it seems a bit odd to me.
Here is a short story from my experience. We had a new campus pastor arriving at the seminary where I teach about a year ago. Guess what was the first thing he did? Well, se separated the prayer group into males and females and asked them to have separate sessions in separate prayer rooms. This applied to the married couples as well!!!
Anyways, he is no longer here maybe things will get back to normal :)
They are probably worried that too much interaction will encourage familiarity and quicker exposure to sex. I wouldn't call that type of worry a sin, since there are kids as young as ten having sex with others their age now.
However, separating the married partners seems a bit over the top.
Anything not of faith is sin. There is no compromise on this issue.
When a church organization takes it upon itself to exercise authority for the purpose of preventing sin, this body is sinning. Discipline follows wrong doing and only for the parties involved in the sin. To make a preemptive strike is to say that God and His ways are flawed. If that's not a blasphemy that embarrasses us, then we ought examine our faith more carefully.
For example, if you lived in the Deep South after the Civil War, would it have been acceptable to segregate out the black members of your church because you worried it might entice the KKK to burn down the church? To be certain, it has the appearance of wisdom to remove temptation; but it does not address the sin in the heart of the tempted member and it sets a wrong standard to other member.
In Collosians, Paul addresses a similar issue where the church was being taught to uphold old traditions of what not to eat or touch. Paul points out quite clearly that such ordinances have the form of wisdom but are entirely worthless in address temptation.
In the same way, if you want to encourage men and women to have healthy, Christian relationships then help them build such relationships. Otherwise, you promote the opposite behavior, that if such young men and women meet, they expect to get physically intimate.
Can you tell me how their separation disagrees with the Faith?
--Discipline follows wrong doing and only for the parties involved in the sin.--
You consider the separation punishment?
--To make a preemptive strike is to say that God and His ways are flawed.--
God establishes authority, whether that authority is wrong or right, & from what I have read encourages a preemptive strike. To not read false religions and so on is an example of avoiding the temptation to stray.
--For example, if you lived in the Deep South after the Civil War, would it have been acceptable to segregate out the black members of your church because you worried it might entice the KKK to burn down the church? To be certain, it has the appearance of wisdom to remove temptation; but it does not address the sin in the heart of the tempted member and it sets a wrong standard to other member.--
You're being unfair in that example. Comparing a church that is in fear of attack on them verses a church that is afraid of sin among them. One is a coward and one wishes to obey the Bible. One says that they do this out of fear for their building and physical attack, and the other says that they do this to protect the youths from sin. One encourages the mentality that giving up to the sins of others is fine and the other encourages others to not sin. One creates distraction from the Word and the other removes distraction from the Word, as long as it is not done in a way to put down one gender or the other.
--In the same way, if you want to encourage men and women to have healthy, Christian relationships then help them build such relationships. Otherwise, you promote the opposite behavior, that if such young men and women meet, they expect to get physically intimate.--
I had to reread your post and do agree that they should provide instances in a Christian atmosphere to mingle, or at least a chaperoned time. Would you feel the same if they were teaching Christian principles concerning courting, providing chances for them to mingle at times and allowing those who have married to stay together?
I agree with Bush - you make a very good point. I want to add, though, that I think there needs to be a balance. The youth group I volunteer with sets it up like this: we spend the first 1/2 hour or so as a large group. The youth pastor discusses the lesson for the day and asks questions and has the students do certain activities (guys and girls mixed). Then, we break up into small groups (MS guys, HS guys, MS girls, HS girls). That's when we get deep and personal and ask students to open up about the issue at hand. Most people will not open up like that in a mixed group - I think that's why some churches separate them. But, as I said, this has to be balanced because there are positive outcomes to both the coed group activities and the separated activities.
In regard to gender edification, the Bible instructs women to be silent in church and to learn from the men in their lives. I suppose if one were going to pull the orthodoxy card, that's one Biblical bias one could pull. However, the separation of the sexes, the races, and even the age groups isn't a Biblical notion.
Does that mean it's always wrong to partition the church? As Ms Prov31 pointed out, there are some people who are inept to hold accountability in front of members of the opposite sex. Many of us have a hard time being accountable to people of an immature age.
Though to presume that such arrangement is normal is a myth. Many people have no hardship in opening up to others in a loving environment. At one point in my high school youth group, I knew the struggles of the majority of the boys and girls because they found it easy to talk to me. It's the love that makes accountability special and not the ability to just dump private sins.
As I said, anything not of faith is sin. When leadership takes it upon itself to prevent sin, it's not acting in faith. Instead of teaching, encouraging and disciplining its flock, such leadership says that nothing will keep people from sin except breaking fellowship. Perhaps not in your church, though certainly in the ones in Seattle of this wicked practice, the men and women have become so full of fear that the young men and young women never talk.
Paul makes my point very clear for me when he rebukes the false religion of the Corinthians. He explains to them that his command not to associate with those practicing lawlessness was in reference to alleged christians; he explains that otherwise, the Corinthians would have to remove themselves from the world. Such false doctrine is detrimental to the body, and its sin was evident when Paul wrote his letters.
(For the record, God establishes the governmental authorities. Authority in the church rests in the Bible and never in a man or group of men. When Peter sinned by not associating with the Greek believers, Paul rebuked him publicly with the Scriptures even though Peter was esteemed of men to be the higher authority. This is a sore point with me after reading the open heresy from John Bevere.)
As long as a church has healthy male-female dynamics, the organization there of doesn't offend me. However, in the Seattle churches, the practice causes young men and women to avoid interaction lest anyone think him unpure (deliberate spelling choice). At several of these churches, after becoming known, it was near impossible to hold conversations with the young women (and as you can see, it's not because I'm terribly handsome, that's not a blessing I have to bear); each time, I would notice that the pockets of people were always men with men and women with women. Conversations about this strange behavior always wound up at the idea that the separation was to keep everyone holy to God.
Under such madness, one has only to forget that only Jesus makes you holy before Almighty God; and then the division makes sense. However, the Christian is not justified through anything except faith in Christ. Obedience is a natural consequence of faith and not the other way around. This is the reason that different treatment of the genders is the heart of wickedness. After all, if you cannot have healthy relationships before marriage, you will not have magically healthy ones in marriage.
Going back again to the personal examples. In the small group I lead with young adults, married and single of both genders, once someone feels Christian love in the group, there hasn't been any difficulty in sharing personal hardships, whether as private as lusts and sexual temptations or as unembarassing as efforts to quit smoking. Bonds won't instantaneously form; though when they do, only the Love of Christ Jesus sustains them and not any other fading barrier.
No, the analogy of racial tension was adequate for this argument. Sin is sin before the eyes of a Holy God. James tells us quite plainly that to break the law in one part is to be guilty of breaking all of the law. If temptation arises to commit sin, the church is not tasked to be your moral police to prevent your disobedience. Though after it happens and becomes known, the church is commanded to address it with the aim of restoring the sinner; lacking repentance, the church is also command to expel willfully sinful people.
This comes down to faith. Either our faith is that the Lord can keep up as change us, or we believe that the cross was empty gesture and that our own machination must make up the difference between God and man. Jesus words were not "by your obedience to wisdom of purity the world will know you as my disciple". The very notion is ludicrous. Instead the command was to love another, bear one another's burdens, and to give preference one to the other.
It's our continued faith in ourself as the initiators of goodness that continues to provide Satan such easy access to our pulpits. If you can be guilted into thinking your behavior is sinful, then Satan can easily create schisms that the congregation will then be forced to rationalize away from the Bible and into useless traditions. If the Bible has been so fruitless, why do we call ourselves Christians? If God is a liar, is every truth sufficient?
I would encourage an examination of Galations and Paul's rebuke of both Peter and the Judiazers. No matter how much since it makes to follow a pattern, nothing but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can make you right with God or men.
Personally, I've never had the gender split in any church, but I have heard of it, so I know that it isn't typical.
--As I said, anything not of faith is sin.--
I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying separation is sinful? That separation is not used in the Bible for His purposes?
--When leadership takes it upon itself to prevent sin, it's not acting in faith.--
What of a parent who takes those precautions? What of the verses concerning how someone goes out into the world and returns worse than he did leaving? What of the verses speaking of avoiding temptation, avoiding false doctrine?
Now, I obviously do not see the worry as far as simple separation to a degree, but by the description you used for those, which have complete separation and fear being the main factor of Biblical obedience instead of honor and love and faith, I can see what you mean. My question is: Do you have a problem with partial separation as long as it does not stunt social growth and understanding.
--(For the record, God establishes the governmental authorities. Authority in the church rests in the Bible and never in a man or group of men.�
Which they have come to be the latter and thus why a lot of people don�t like many of them.
--Under such madness, one has only to forget that only Jesus makes you holy before Almighty God; and then the division makes sense.�
Bush, they are trying to encourage proper behavior. If a parent said for a teenager not to go to a brothel so they will avoid temptation, that parent is not being sinful. You are replacing the desire to follow the Word with sinfulness. Most Christians avoid murdering people and would stop those that try, not because they think it will save them from Hell but because they wish to obey and keep others from sin. You have one group that sins regardless of the Bible because they think they are saved and you have another that attempts to obey the Bible even though they know it won�t save them. There is certainly another that thinks that their actions will save them, but are you saying that this church is doing that? How about all other churches with this separation?
--If temptation arises to commit sin, the church is not tasked to be your moral police to prevent your disobedience.�
The Bible gives the family of God the task to prevent, assist and discipline sin throughout all factors of life. If you do not consider a church to be a part of that family, then I can understand where you are coming from. However, last I checked we are brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.
I am not arguing that God�s will on our hearts doesn�t change us to do right. I�m arguing that this is an example of their attempt. They may be going about it too zealously, but it is not sinful for the separation, again as long as it does not stunt discerning development and social bonding.
--Jesus words were not "by your obedience to wisdom of purity the world will know you as my disciple".�
You will know them by their fruits. I think that verse would disagree with you.
P.S. Why was the spelling choice intended instead of �impure�?
Hmm...tough one...I've never seen a church where youth groups or study groups were separated by gender, but I guess there is one so...I'd say thats a little overboard, as is most of that stuff...but it's also important to be extremely careful, ESPECIALLY when it comes to youth(as in children/teenagers)...parents also have a moral responsibility for their children until they are mature(or at least become independent...maturity seems to be relative lately)...it's very important to teach them christian conduct toward the opposite sex...even more important today.
So I guess what needs to be decided is when children/teenagers are responsible enough to have healthy romantic relationships? Or maybe they should wait till they are young adults? Is that possible? But I have some stuff to say...one is...and no offense...but you might be careful about what you start calling sin...think about 100 years ago...was the world more sinful? I'd say it was less...why is that? Was there more or less "separation/supervision"?
You can come up with your own answers for that, and I'm not saying we should go back...but lets think about this...the church is only as strong as it's weakest member...if there is anything that is a stumbling block for someone, in a perfect church(none are...but they should be trying to be), every member would cater to that weakest member. If it was lust, all the men/women would cater to him/her and so on. It's not possible for someone to make someone else sin...they have to choose for themselves or it isn't a "sin"...but it is possible to throw something in their way for them to trip over. That seems like prevention to me...
Anyway...separation of the sexes...I don't think it is a sin in itself. I'd say supervision would be a better answer though. I think the separating of supervised youth groups in church is a little much, but comparing that to Paul and the Jews/Greeks isn't exactly accurate, and calling it sinful isn't too great. It's not the church preventing sin I'd be worried about....maybe the church deciding what is or isn't sin would be...
