ust 150 years ago, our attitude toward time drastically shifted this was the result of societal circumstances coupled with evolutionary theory. Before the mid1800s, time was arranged according to significant events. European history, for example, was seen in terms of ruling families: the Stuarts, Hapsburgs, Bourbons, etc. Today, by contrast, we speak of the fifties, sixties, and seventies.
Before the last century, the phrases on time, ahead of time, and behind time meant nothing. The industrial revolution forced a new concept of time upon us. Railroads ran on schedules and factories paid hourly wages rather than performancebased wages. In 1884, representatives from 25 nations met in Washington, D.C., settled on Greenwich, England as the prime meridian, fixed the exact length of a day (for the first time in world history), and divided the globe into 24 time zones. We have been carrying Father Time on our shoulders ever since.
This new spotlight on time, though beneficial in many respects, shone in areas it shouldn't have, particularly in the new stress on individual age. Prior to the midnineteenth century, birthdays were neither mentioned nor celebrated. Age wasn't even included as a category in the 1850 census it wasn't considered important. It wasn't uncommon to graduate from a university at age 17, or age 28, or any age between. Students matured at their own rate. What's more, there was no impetus to segregate based on maturity level; the oneroom schoolhouse was the norm. Even in social gatherings, children, who were considered to be miniature adults, mingled with people much older than themselves.
Horace Mann changed this first in the classroom by fastening students to a fixed learning pace. Consistent with the onset of evolutionary thinking, progress had become synonymous with the passage of time. For the first time ever, students were segregated by age. Based on some demographic norm, they would be judged "ahead" or "behind" their peer group. "Normal" was an arbitrary standard superimposed upon the wealth of data that indicates wide disparity between rates of maturation.
In 1904, G. Stanley Hall's multivolume tome, Adolescence: Its Psychology, and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education was published. Using social applications of Darwin's work in biology, Hall suggested that individuals evolve through the same stages through which human history has evolved. He associated infants and toddlers to presavage periods of history; he thus counselled parents and teachers to leave their young children to Nature and encourage play which fosters motor development. A crisistransition period led to the adolescent years of 8 to 12, which were likened to the early pygmies and other savages; these children could be drilled and disciplined in school. He claimed that another period of crisis came at adolescence, which he considered the most critical period in one's life. This time in life was seen to be so important that it separated teens from those older and younger to them.
In short, G. Stanley Hall invented adolescence.
Like most evolutionists, Hall also taught that each generation is or should be superior to the previous one, and therefore needs to break free from those which precede it. In practical terms, this thinking has come to mean that rebellion is youth's destiny, and is a natural characteristic of adolescence.
John Dewey, Hall's most renowned follower, put these theories into practice in the public school system. Dewey's prescriptions were implemented in classrooms all over the country.
In order to isolate the "crisis period," high schools were created to segregate the teens from other children and from adults. Within a generation after Dewey, we saw, for the first time in the history of the Western World, an adolescent subculture. By the 1950's, teens had their own music, literature, styles of dress, language and etiquette. Generational differences hitherto unheard of became obvious. (Hall, of course, had noticed the "peer orientation" of adolescents at the turn of the century: he forced young people to study and associate together and then pointed out that they were doing so.)
Tragically, the modern evangelical church has followed the trends set by Mann, Hall and Dewey. We have developed AWANA programs for young children who later move on to junior and senior high youth groups. Seniorhighs graduate to the college/singles group; when they marry, they join the young couples group. Bible studies are structured for parents of toddlers, parents of teens, and "emptynesters." Elderly women congregate to quilting groups and elderly men are left out, wondering what kids these days are coming to.
In other words, evangelical churches have honored divisions which have no basis in either Scripture or common sense. These divisions breed immaturity, for they prevent younger people from associating with and learning from their elders. The prophets and apostles didn't assume such a state of affairs at all, but seemed rather to assume that all ages would interact together in harmonious fellowship within the church. The Scriptures contain directives which promote crossgenerational interaction; consequently we should avoid any cultural patterns which may hinder our obedience to such directives.
Bearing this in mind, we need to reconsider the structure and methods of the modern phenomenon of "youth ministries." Many churches have them, but few have built them according to biblical patterns for the church. This will be specifically addressed in the next issue.
