Thoughts on Tradition and Learning Styles

King Amos, Queen Lydia, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Tradition can be a fine, fine thing. We can learn from traditions, benefit from traditions, pass on traditions and these can all be good things.

But tradition itself does not guarantee a practice is a good thing. There are good traditions and bad traditions and those in between.

I say all of this because I was recently reading a person on the internet who was wrong. (ha!)

This person (and there are many like this person - again, it's the idea that I'm speaking of, not the person) was bemoaning the fact that churches don't tend to keep children in their church services. Instead, they coddle them by taking them out for their own "special service," and thus deprive them, they contended, of the benefits of learning to sit through and endure a church service that means very little to you.

The reason, of course, this person wanted to see kids sit through church services was because the Bible is so clear on the point. "Thou shalt keep the little ones in the synagogue, yea even though the little ones are bored out of their skull..."

No, wait, that's not right. In fact, there is no biblical demand to keep children in a service or, in general, to treat them as adults to make them learn by sheer repitition the value of sitting through something that makes no sense to them.

No, the reason that this person wanted children to sit through services was because of all the pedagogical studies that show the benefit of forcing children to sit still and listen to stuff that makes no sense to them in the learning process.

Wait, that's not right, either. There ARE no such studies.

In fact, as far as I can tell, there was one reason and one reason alone that this person wanted children to remain in their church service: It was the way they were brought up and if it was good enough for kids back then, it's good enough for kids today.

Tradition.

This person said...

I come from an older generation. When we were kids, we went to church with our parents. We sat quietly and listened or doodled or something, but we sat there.

Me, too. I'm from that generation, as well. I remember that tradition.

But what is the logical or biblical or pedagogical reason for this? None, so far as I can determine.

I mean, the reasoning is, "IF they learn to sit through this and be still now, while they're kids, then they'll be able to sit through boring sermons in the future, too."

And there IS some value, I think, to learning patience and to endure through things, even things that are extremely boring and irrelevant to you. But is forcing kids to sit quietly through a service a good way to do this?

I don't think so.

This person reasoned...

I don't believe it's because the kids won't understand the preaching. I think it's because the kids will disrupt the preaching. I don't think it's because the children aren't mature enough to understand. Nor do I think it is less than valuable for them to remain. It's my conviction that the primary reason children are dismissed from church services at the edge of the sermon is that they lack the discipline not to be a distraction to the people around them. It's not a maturity problem or even that kids are better taught at their own age level. It's a parenting problem.

Of course.

This person goes on to concede...

You know, under the age of 1 with nursing and all, I can imagine the need for a nursery. I was thinking more of the age where kids are being taught, not simply present.

So, at 18 months, apparently, this person thinks that children can be effectively taught something in church services and they lament that parents no longer see the value in raising children as this person was raised.

The thing is, EVEN THOUGH, learning to sit and learn can be a good thing, we don't ask five year olds to sit through a physics class, insisting they be relatively still so the adults around can learn what is being taught. We don't ask two year olds attend and sit quietly through a medieval history class. There is the concept of age-appropriate material and teaching styles that are suited for children of particular ages.

When we force most kids to sit through class after class (in a church service or a school or wherever) and endure something that is being taught in a manner that is over their heads, time after time, most kids DO learn something: They learn, "BOY! That's boring! I don't want NOTHING to do with that!"

How much better to take children out of a church service (or other adult-themed class) and teach them something they CAN learn in a teaching style suited to children, not to adults? My concern would be that we're teaching kids the wrong things when we teach them in the wrong way.

There is something to the concept of age-appropriate teaching and just because it isn't in your tradition to have age-appropriate teaching does not mean that your tradition is right.

I think a good question to ask is, "Is there any logical, biblical, study-based, common sense reason to believe this tradition is a good one?" and if the answer is No, then perhaps it's time to let that tradition go, or at least quit suggesting that people are wrong for following a tradition simply for tradition's sake.