Made by a young pair of brothers, Divided the movie is the film version of the Family Integrated Church propaganda. Careful oversight was given by Scott Brown, of the NCFIC, and he was also interviewed extensively in the documentary. The film follows the research of Philip Leclerc into the fruits, philosophies, and history of the youth ministry church model.
Divided consists mostly of interviews. It begins by talking to the authors of Already Gone, Britt Beamer and Ken Ham, who discuss the statistics about youth leaving the Church and at what age they stopped believing orthodox Christianity. One problem they identify with modern youth ministry is the lack of substance being presented in lessons and sermons at events. This leads to man on the street shots of students after a Christian concert, and surveys of various youth leaders and conference directors for youth pastors, showing the pervading philosophies of being relevant and giving the students an emotional experience – intentionally not dealing with points of Christian doctrine beyond Jesus’ love and sacrificial death.
Some former pastors and youth leaders are interviewed about why they left the youth ministry model (much as the filmmaker’s parents had chosen to do). An enlightening testimony suggested that teaching the “right things,” worldviews and Christian theology, still resulted in a majority of students leaving the faith by the end of high school. This presents a contrast to the first segment, where the flawed worldview of average youth ministry was uncovered. One church planter stated that if you just read the Bible, you would not think of doing church the way we do it today; his church is trying to function more biblically, and one aspect of that is to eliminate youth ministry.
Next is what I see as the strong point, the most useful part of the documentary, dealing with the history of age-segregated church, beginning with the origins of Sunday school classes for children. The rest of the movie seems unlikely to enlighten or persuade anyone, as the philosophies of each side (pro-youth ministry and pro-family-based discipleship) are not tested against a biblical standard.
Afterward, Philip Leclerc interviews a series of leaders in the Family Integrated Church
I found a few things lacking in Divided. At the end of the movie, I felt that the criticism against youth ministry was directed at its fruit: people who abandon belief in God and the Bible. But the alternative put forward is not judged by the same measure. I remain curious how successful family-centered discipleship and family-integrated churches are at retaining the next generation. The filmmaker’s mentors are full of ideals which they claim are biblically based. If the fruit is different from what statistics show for youth in the past several decades, this gives us hope. If the fruit is the same, perhaps more is going on than negligent parenting and segregated churches.
The movie relies on the worldview of its audience to refute the postmodernism of most youth ministries which is put on display in the first half of the film. Though presented as the unwanted results of age-segregated ministry, we are left to judge what is wrong with the youth interviewed based on our own notions – whether we would judge them for their style of music or dress, for their poor communication skills, for holding to false doctrines about creation, for caring about authenticity and relationship, for lacking discernment, for laziness, for postmodern relativism. And if we only notice a couple of these, perhaps we are absorbing the rest of their subtle messages as true – or maybe we are judging everything they say as wrong because of the other things they are packaged with.
This highlights the next difficulty I had with the movie: some of the youth and youth leaders made really good points about what is valuable to people, what they expect – even need – to find at church. When a student says he is looking for people who will tell him the truth and be real with him, and that he values a mentor for being involved in his life, surely the Church could learn from those needs. A woman who leads training for youth pastors points out that they need to be relevant to the everyday lives of kids. True – who has more relevance to the ins and outs of a young person’s life than the family he lives with? Who is more real to him than his own parents? But this point was not made, this challenge not extended to parents who are choosing to take up the biblical mandate to be spiritual leaders to their children. Also, those concerns recognized by the representatives of youth ministry are really universal needs, not applicable just to teenagers, but also to adults.
Throughout the movie, the experts skirt the issue that the way we do church is fundamentally unbiblical. We have not sought God’s design for our gatherings and Christian life. The Church that was intended to be a community has become an institution full of programs, and people fill slots and categories and statistics instead of being directed by needs and gifts in the Body. Perhaps parents are abdicating their spiritual roles because the Church isn’t allowing discipleship to happen among its members, leaving parents ill-equipped to train their children – but also leaving pastors ill-equipped, unsupported by the edification they are supposed to receive from the rest of the Church.
Finally, there is the question of whether people who are middle school, high school, and college age ought to be considered adults, invited and expected to contribute their spiritual gifts (if they are believers*) to the unity and edification of the whole church just as the rest of adults ought to be (but often are not). I say “the rest of” because until the last hundred years, people in their mid-teens and beyond were counted adults. In the very least they were not considered children. And on the assumption that youth ministries are dealing with children rests the crux of the argument made by the Family Integrated Church
And even if they are children, if they are saved*, they are members of the body of Christ and the instructions about Church should apply to them. They ought to receive instruction and admonition from any believer who is so gifted and led. Parents are responsible, and not to shirk their duties towards the children God has entrusted to them, but they are not alone, and do not own exclusive rights to their child’s discipleship. Perhaps they ought to do “catechizing” and “worldview training” at home instead of expecting it to be done at church.
I appreciate the call Divided puts out to parents to fulfill their God-given roles in the family. The documentary shows the variety of people who believe in family integration, and the different reasons people practice it. Exhorting the Church to be unified by ending age segregation is a great start. When asked about children whose parents are not believers (the original target of Sunday schools), Family Integration proponent Scott Brown suggested an intense, personal solution: sound families should bring those children into their home during the week to witness to them and disciple them (sending them back to their own families with deference to the parents’ authority), and have those children sit with their family during church meetings. The family is upheld as an important player in education and morality. Ultimately, Divided exalts God for designing well, however dismal the results of man’s corruptions of church and family.
To God be all glory.
*If a child is not yet a professing follower of Christ, should he be required to attend Church gatherings with his parents? Should he be allowed to participate if he is there?
