Is Sunday School Really From the Pit of Hell?
Pete Hurst
Granted, there have been more than a few Sunday School lessons from the pit of Hell, and sermons too, for that matter, because teachers didn’t honor our Triune God and His Word; but does that mean Sunday School itself is from the pit of Hell? One leader in the patriarchy movement thinks so and has declared that when we ask the church where Sunday School comes from, “the pit of Hell” is the only right answer. Another informs us that even though the Bible mentions teachers, it doesn’t mention Sunday School teachers; that wisdom nugget ought to save us all a trip to our Strong’s Concordance. For others, Sunday School, or a youth group meeting are viewed as obstacles to a son or daughter maturing into adulthood; therefore, children should never be separated from their parents whenever the church meets. Essentially, everyone should always be together all the time to promote family unity and not be fragmented into classes based on age or interest, thus succumbing to the influence of modern individualism.
The logic behind “The pit of Hell” reasoning seems to be something like this: Hell gave us Darwin’s evolutionary theory, evolution with its stages of animal development influenced education, education divided children by age, Sunday School divides children by age, Sunday School is from the pit of Hell. Since we as Christians must apply what we believe to all of life, this would mean that many other things like sports leagues, scouting, clubs, etc. would be from the pit of Hell as well. Are we to presume, then, that when church historians deal with the church’s slide into liberalism and apostasy, Sunday School will be one of the Church’s greatest enemies? Isn’t the real problem what is being taught in the pulpit and practiced in worship, not that there’s a class of junior high school age students?
What about children and the maturation concern, that age division leads to a child’s failure to mature? Developing maturity for children should be a way of life, applying God’s Word to children no matter what their age, certainly rejecting all the foolish ideas that others advance about the “terrible two’s,” or a son being “all boy” or withholding discipline for a temper tantrum because a child doesn’t understand, or various adolescence theories, excuse making for what is nothing less than sin. It would be nice if keeping our children with us all the time was the pill to the maturing process, but it really doesn’t work that way.
Other arguments are just downright silly, like the point some make that parents depend on the church’s Sunday School program to be the spiritual provider for their children. If there are parents who think this way, then correct their thinking, but don’t trash Sunday School because a few are out to lunch in their understanding.
Should a church have a Sunday School program? It’s up to the leadership of the congregation to decide. If a church has a program, should families be required to put their children in the program? I don’t think so; our church doesn’t; the leadership can address this issue as well.
Finally, there’s an element of reforming culture, exercising dominion over God’s creation, redeeming things by God’s grace that many in the patriarchy movement seem to fail to appreciate.
Sometimes the argument is advanced that Sunday School as it is today is not what it was 200 years ago, that it began as a tool to teach poor children to read, evangelize them, clean up their lives, etc., and because that isn’t what we have in our churches today, therefore we shouldn’t have it. So what? If the name was changed to Lord’s Day School or Christian Sabbath Study Time, would that suffice? Can we give it a different name and continue to use it as an educational hour for the church?
Some purists in the patriarchy movement like to boast of how they only have and do those things for which they have explicit commands in Scripture. They reject things of man’s invention in doing the work of Christ’s Church (so much for pew Bibles, communion trays, overhead transparencies, etc.); however, I presume most are not consistent. For instance, almost all of them probably celebrate Christmas, but nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. In fact, there was a time when my wife and I did not, and history records many Christians who were opposed to such celebration. Christmas had its beginnings in the Church’s attempt to draw people away from pagan celebrations.
My wife and I in later years began celebrating Christmas because of verses like Zechariah 8:19: “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, ‘the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts; therefore, love the truth and peace.’”
Here were fasts the people observed that God had not appointed, and God’s Word to them was not condemnation for their observance, but that He would redeem them.
What is wrong with something being adapted over time? What is wrong with taking something that is bad or even questionable (and I don’t think this is what Sunday School is) and redeeming it? While the world celebrates Halloween, how much better that Christians get together for Reformation Day celebrations or Harvest parties of fun and games and thanksgiving to God.
Sunday School can be an excellent opportunity for educating God’s people. Where it needs improvement, improve it. Churches fail in many things, but some still take teaching and learning seriously. Contrary to what some might conclude, the pit of Hell is not from which their Sunday School program comes.
| 
