H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
I Affirm This
The Nashville Statement
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
The Buzz

Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
Email Me
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Age Segregation in the church: Culture vs. Scripture.
Every Sunday my family and I congregate with our church family. When we first arrive, the children go downstairs to the "Sunday School" rooms and attend Sunday school in classes that are segregated by age; meanwhile, any adult who isn't teaching a Sunday School class is free to attend the adult Sunday school class in the auditorium.

On judgment day, every Christian parent will have to give an account of himself or herself with regards to how he or she answered the clear directive for parents (especially fathers) in bringing up their own children in the admonition of the Lord.

It is true that Sunday School teachers will have to answer for anything false that they might have wrongly imparted on some Sunday morning, but the job of instructing children is biblically assigned to parents, not Sunday school teachers. The one will answer for their failure to disciple, the other will only answer if they add something wrong to the mix.

I think every church that runs Sunday School programs gives vocal assent to this: Parents, it is your job to raise your children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord; Sunday school is not meant to be a replacement for this. Yet for all that, the local church then immediately forgets what Sunday School actually was invented to do.

Remember that Sunday School was originally intended, not to educate the congregation's children - but to educate the children of those who were outside the church - a program intended provide biblical instruction to children whose parents were not Christian.

Somewhere along the way, Sunday School stopped being about the unchurched, and became the way we "churched" our own children.

But this post isn't about Sunday School, it is about what came in riding on the coat-tails of Sunday school: Age segregation.

Now, for must of us who were educated in the public school system, age segregation is about as natural as watching television every night. We tend to reason that since we were brought up that way, and we turned out alright (why do we always presume we turned out alright?), that the notion that there is something wrong with this is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot - a small thing, so small in fact that we can dismiss it and disregard it without even thinking about it. It is "obvious" we say, that age segregation is fine.

In fact, people go much farther than being indifferent, they even begin to demand age segregation.

Why should I have to put up with crying kids sitting next to me when I am trying to hear the sermon?I recall reading a series of snide comments on another blog years back now, about this very thing. Why should I have to put up with crying kids sitting next to me when I am trying to hear the sermon? Who do these people think they are, bringing their unruly children into this sacred assembly to disrupt what goes on here by their endless distractions? How dare they!

Seriously, you would think they had paid admission to a concert the way they imagine themselves to possess a god given right to "hear the sermon" in perfect, undisturbed, tranquility. I suspect it hasn't occurred to these "church is here to edify me only" sorts, that the purpose of our congregating might actually be bigger than hearing this Sunday's sermon.

Seriously, you would think they had paid admission to a concert the way they imagine themselves to possess a god given right to "hear the sermon" in perfect, undisturbed, tranquility.I bring my children with me into the morning service - all four of them, the youngest being three, the oldest, 11. Guess what? The eldest sits through the whole service, attentive, and without my having to constantly goad him to be that way. In fact, I haven't had to correct his behavior in years. My second oldest is going to be nine in a few weeks, and she too knows how to sit still and listen, my five year old is an unchained, boisterous ragamuffin, who couldn't care less about the service, and her little brother, now three, hasn't got a clue.

Do I think my children are getting anything out of the sermon? Pfft. Of course not. I mean, my oldest is sometimes edified, and is always thoughtful, but he is mostly there because he has to be. My eldest daughter is more concerned about where she sits than she is about what is said, and my two youngest are hardly aware that a sermon is going on at all, except that they are restrained during the sermon from being disruptive.

So why do I put them through it?

Well, perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think the sermon is the main point or even the highlight of our time together. My children are learning from my wife and I what is important to us. They are learning what it means to sit as a family, they are learning what it means to respect others, and they are learning that they are part of the church family no matter how old they are.

There is that old pithy line, the youth in Christ are not the church of tomorrow, they are the church right now. See, I don't think of that as a nice catch phrase that we all can nod in agreement about then toss out as if we never said it. I take that as truth. My children, the ones who are in Christ, are as much a part of the body as anyone else in the assembly - they are called to congregate with the whole body, and not just those in the body who are there own age. This notion of segregation did not come from the bible, it comes from man's wisdom, and let me tell you my opinion of man's wisdom: it isn't very wise.

As I have said, my children go to an age segregated Sunday School, but this takes place before we assemble as the body of Christ. When we assemble, I prefer not only my children to be there, but everyone else's too. Let 'em cry, let 'em fuss. I am not there to watch a show, I am there to fellowship, and to share my life with all of them, not just those who are mature and able to sit through a sermon without distracting others. I am there because I am called to be there with all of them - and anyone who would put the children, or the elderly, or the women in a room by themselves so as to make the hearing of the sermon more pleasant for the remainder, either doesn't understand what they are there for, or they they are "doing church by default" - that is, falling into cultural habits that seem right since that's the way we do everything else.


posted by Daniel @ 4:02 PM  
  • At 7:36 AM, April 22, 2009, Blogger Unknown said…

    Well said.

  • At 9:52 AM, April 22, 2009, Anonymous David Kjos said…

    So true. And you got to use "pithy" again.

  • At 10:42 AM, April 22, 2009, Blogger Daniel said…

    I try to keep the pithy count upwards of one or two a week. ;)

  • At 9:26 PM, April 22, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    When we summon the courage and strength to attend, my husband and I usually end up in the cry room with our two girls, 25 months and 11 months. They're not bad kids, just wiggly and don't understand using quiet voices or sitting still for a whole hour. While we get to hear the sermon and service, it's through windows, segregated from the body - like lepers.
    Thanks for the encouragement.

  • At 8:10 AM, April 23, 2009, Blogger Breaking from the Pack said…

    Thank you Daniel for this post. I have been very discouraged with the way churches, in general, handles families. In the modern church, both parents work during the week. Their children, during the week, are either in school or daycare. In the evenings most families don't spend a lot of time talking with each other. They eat dinner, watch TV, the children do homework or an extracurricular activity, and then it is time for bed. On Sunday, when the family is finally together for a short time, the church splits up families by having different classes for different ages and, in many churches, a service for the adults and church for the children. We wonder why divorce is so prevalent. We wonder why children leave the church after they grow up. The church, through its actions, doesn't seem to be at all concerned with keeping families together or encouraging parents to teach their children or be active in their upbringing.

    I get the dirtiest looks from members of the congregation when my children are in the santuary if my children make a peep. How about encouraging me by telling my children that they should sit quietly and obey their father? Where are the older members, who have already raised children, helping the younger members with young children? When people get upset at me, in my mind I think, "Why is it so important for you to hear the sermon? You aren't going to follow it anyway." Instead, I take my children to the cryroom.

    My experience with church, now that I am a father, is that church is not for families with young children and young children are not considered part of the body of Christ.

    ***As a follow up for anyone reading this comment, my wife does stay home full-time and my children are not in daycare during the week. We also will be homeschooing the young children. My statements above were about the average modern churchgoer and what I see happening in the church.

  • At 9:37 AM, April 23, 2009, Blogger Daniel said…

    BFTP - I joined the "leadership team" (basically an elder board) for my assembly almost five years ago. We had a very good group of men - guys who were willing to follow God's word over social culture.

    One of the first "problems" we had as a young congregation was the enormous number of children we had. In order to provide an age segregated "junior church" we needed to recruit about one third of the congregation to be teachers.

    But God saw fit not to gift us that way...

    Now at the time I was not with the leadership, but part of the education committee, and had some input into the whole process. I forget how it all came out, but I recall talking to the pastor and other leaders in the church and saying, "Look! We don't have the spiritual resources to be doing what we are trying to do, nor do we have a biblical case to do it. We are following our culture, and not our Lord!" Seriously, we had new converts as our nursery staff on Sunday during the service - the people who most needed to be fed, unsure of what they ought to be doing to serve in the body, willing to go where the people who were in charge said there was a need - and immediately spiraling downward in their once growing faith.

    When I joined the leadership team, we began to seriously look at this practice, and when our pastor resigned, I took over the pulpit for almost a year. In that year our leadership shut down the whole junior church thing - and not without some concern amongst some of the congregants - but here we are a couple of years later, and frankly, the children are hardly ever disruptive, and when they are, it is pretty minor, and sometimes even comical.

    Having children present to hear the words of God with the rest of the assembly is biblical, as Deuteronomy 31:12-13 illustrates, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law. Their children, who have not known, will hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as you live on the land which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess."

    Even Paul, addressing his letter to the saints at Ephesus, later addresses the children specifically, "Children obey your parents" - mean, these epistles were read when the church was gathered together. If Paul was addressing children in the epistle directly, it follows that Paul anticipated Children being in the general assembly when the letter was read - that is, Paul expects children to be there, with their parents, and the rest of the church, whenever the church meets.

    There are several other examples in scripture. It just boggles my mind how people, especially those who grew up in churchianity, think that just because other churches do it, or they did it when they were growing up, or because it is so popular - it is therefore, not only "okay" but even "better" or <UGH> right.

    Thanks for the comment. I appreciated it.

  • At 5:43 PM, April 23, 2009, Blogger Lisa said…

    Your post has served as a blessed reminder of why I so dearly love my church family.

  • At 5:06 PM, April 26, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    I thought I'd write a follow-up to my previous comment. BTW, I'm married to BFTP. :)

    This morning we went to church and prepared ourselves for the comments, stares, and inevitable trip to the cryroom with our two little girls. Miraculously (because this was indeed a miracle, as all answered prayer is), our girls made it through the service with hardly a sound. The service was even longer than usual because of two guest speakers representing two different ministry organizations.
    As if that wasn't wonderful in and of itself - I can't remember the last time I was able to sit through an entire service - the older couple sitting in front of us turned around and engaged our youngest, asking her age and calling her "a blessing." They told us not to worry about any noise they made; they loved to hear the sounds of little ones.
    I very nearly cried.
    Thank you for your post because I spent a lot of time the past week praying and preparing for church today and wondering if our girls would ever learn to behave. You gave me courage to confront anyone if they suggested I remove the children. I'm so glad I didn't have to go there. :)

  • At 6:36 PM, April 26, 2009, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jennifer - I am thankful to the Lord that your littles ones could sit with you as a family, especially given the added length of the service - and what a joy that the couple before you was not only older, but mature as well. May God bless you, BFTP, and your children richly, and through you, your church body.

  • At 10:42 PM, April 27, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    We recently left an assembly of believers because, as you say, only lipservice was paid to families growing together and alongside each other. The dark room, (nearly) rock music, and consistent stares/glares when we had our little ones with us, along with the idea that Sundays were for nonbelievers just became too much, despite the other excellent things happening there.

    We are in a small congegration now that isn't nearly as 'hip' (you might even say downright 'square') and not without it's issues, but we've received so much encouragement to follow the Lord as a family, as well as helps with specifics of raising our children in the stages they are now. We aren't hip or cool, but we are a family of families, by God's grace alone. My hope is that the whole FIC isn't just a fad, but really sticks.

    On another note, I read/heard somewhere "Christianity is just two generations from extinction. The first generation embraces it passionately, the second assumes it, and the third forgets it."

    What are your thoughts on that Daniel? As a first generation Christian, my concern is that our children will grow up to assume the Gospel, as it seemed so many of my peers who 'grew up in church' did and no longer regard. It seems like the 'answer' is to have live genuine faith so much so that our children see the real deal. What approach do you take when instilling spiritual disciplines/knowledge to guard against dead religion growing in your children and yet not neglect instruction too?

  • At 6:46 AM, April 28, 2009, Blogger Daniel said…

    Anon - I too have heard and read several times that the first generation Christians are passionate, their children are informed but impotent, and their grandchildren are nominal at best. I will write a post to answer your question.

  • At 4:10 AM, November 13, 2009, Blogger Unknown said…

    Awesome post and great comments. I'm actually going to do my M.Div. thesis on the biblical case against age-segregation. It's encouraging to see there are others out there who see this.

    I agree with Anon and hope the FIC movement really sticks. I think that it has to be bigger than homeschoolers, though. If FIC is only for the homeschool families, then the local church becomes an elitist group made up of middle/upper class homeschooling families.

    It shouldn't be just homeschooling families. If it's biblical, then everyone should be doing it. For my part, I pray that God will use my wife and I to plant an FIC in our area (KCMO).

    But for now, we'll just keep on worshipping as a family, with our daughters--ages 2 and 3--in the pew with us.

  • At 12:51 PM, March 05, 2010, Blogger mattrim said…

    Ok, I am currently a youth worker at a small church, and as i do agree with parts of your post i was just wondering if you could help me with a few questions i have?

    The church i work at has different groups through the week but on a sunday We all congregate together. All the ages of the Church stay in for the Worship / Prayer / Communion at the start of the service but before the speaker delivers the talk our children and youth leave for teachings more appropriate to them. Would you class this as wrong? As you said in your post the chances of your children listening to the sermon is rather unlikely is it right to then take them out for the talk to give them something that they are more likely to understand? Since you have lost nothing if they still dont listen but have gained a lot if the reason is because what is being said at the main talk is not appropriate to there age?


  • At 11:52 AM, March 31, 2016, Blogger Keith Throop said…

    For what it’s worth, I have written a three part series defending the concept of age segregated instruction from Scripture. You can read part one here: http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-age-segregated-sunday-school.html

    there is a link to part 2 at the end of the post, and a link to part three at the end of part two. I essentially try to set out a kind of Biblical theology of church and family within which to understand the issue. Scott Brown of the NCFIC has said that such a defense could not be made, and I have repeatedly sought to elicit a response from him, yet to my knowledge he has never offered one.

    By the way, I also think we should keep the children with us for worship.

  • At 1:43 PM, March 31, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…

    Thanks for your comment Keith, I've only skimmed your three posts, as I am pressed for time lately, nor have I re-read my own post from 2009, for the same reasons.

    I appreciate the work you've done in clarifying your position, especially that you've prefixed the matter with a a working definition of what you mean when you say a thing is biblical. Well done.

    If I follow you correctly, your first assertion, which I understood to be an aside, was that elders have the authority to introduce ministerial schemata which the congregation is obliged to obey, making age segregation, "biblical" anywhere a presbytery deigns age segregation to be helpful.

  • At 8:28 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…


    (edit: I deleted the previous comment to correct some grammar)

    In your second post, (@Keith), you compare old and new covenants to frame (i expect) the notion that commandments given to Jews under the old covenant often introduce principles continue to be in effect even after the old covenant itself has been surpassed by the new covenant. Paul draws our attention to this sort of thing when he shows that God was not primarily concerned with feeding the oxen "that treads the grain", but establishing a principle, true for both oxen and preachers of the gospel, a worker has the right to eat some of the fruits of his labor).

    You conclude that children in Israel were considered to be part of the covenant community by virtue of having been born into, and having received the sign of, the covenant (i.e. circumcision).

    The sign of God's covenant with all of Israel was only expressed in the flesh of the males. Women weren't circumcised, but they were certainly included in the covenant - which is an important point. A Jewish male who had not been circumcised was -not- in the covenant because the sign of the covenant was not in his flesh. But that doesn't mean that the sign in the flesh was what included you in the covenant - it just means that if you rejected the sign, you rejected the covenant.


  • At 9:04 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…


    The point there is that while circumcision was a sign of the covenant, it wasn't the thing that got you into the covenant. The Covenant was with to Abraham's children - which Paul later clarifies as meaning being of the same faith as Abraham (rather than the same blood). Spiritual children, rather than physical children. In other words, you did not enter into the covenant through circumcision, but through faith, though circumcision was a sign of the covenant that (if neglected) set one outside of that covenant.

    That being said, circumcising your sons was a sign that you were in the covenant. Paul teaches us that they were in the covenant by their faith, and not by their genealogy, and certainly not because they were circumcised - since women were included in the covenant. Circumcision was a sign that the parents were in the covenant because they were demonstrating an obedient faith.

    We enter into the new covenant by grace through faith. When we exercise saving faith in Christ, we are baptized into Christ - which is what it means to be born again. Our water baptism pictures this - but being baptized into water does not bring us into the new covenant. It is the new birth that is pictured in water baptism that brings us into the new covenant. One entered into the Mosaic covenant through a circumcision of the heart. The sign of which was pictured in the circumcision (in the flesh) of one's sons.

    Israel may have believed its children were in the covenant by way of circumcision (in the flesh) in the same way that a lot of people believe a person becomes a Christian when they are baptized into water. But the New Testament makes it clear that not everyone who was descended from Israel was in the covenant - meaning (obviously) that many in Israel didn't understand the covenant properly.

    We don't want to follow their error in our reasoning.


  • At 9:58 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…

    The gist of the second post, as far as I could tell in my brief skim, was that that the church, being our eternal family should have as much say in the teaching of our children, as the biological family, with the slight brow-beating thought that anyone who disagrees with that, hasn't thought it through very deeply.

    I think this point failed only insofar as it was applied in an over-realized way. It is true that we are to minister to one another, and there is nothing wrong (and all kinds of things right) with one or more persons in the church ministering to the children of the church. But the question isn't "should the church minister to children" - since that answer is an obvious, "yes" - the question isn't should there be such a thing as Sunday School? The question is, should Sunday School replace the regular church service (for children)?

    The church is called to use her gifts internally - to build one another up in Christ, and because there are children in Christ, it follows that we are to use out gifts among the body, with no regard for how old the one receiving the ministry of our gifts happens to be. That sort of thing doesn't require age segregation, and it doesn't require us to create a separate kind of church for children.

    Keith mentiones that certain families he is aware of, having rejected the historically recent innovation of "segregated church" have gone so far as to not only minimize the role of the church body in their lives of their children, but often minimize -any- authority the local church may have with regard to their family members also.

    Citing an article that posits that the head of the biological family has no authority over his believing children in the church (apparently the author of that article's bible lacks the thirtieth chapter of Numbers c.f. where a spouse or a daughter's vow to the Lord can be vetoed by the husband/father on the day that the hears it, etc.), such that joining a church is tantamount to the patriarch relinquishing all authority over his family to the "church" and it's authority.

    I read that as a another example, though much worse, of something being over-realized - in this case, the application of "church" authority. The idea that a parent gives up all aspects of their authority to the church when they become a member of the church misconstrues what it means to be a member of a church and what church authority actually is.


  • At 10:21 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…

    For an series of post that began with some fine definitions of what makes an argument "biblical" it was a little disappointing in the second post, to see the point propped up and supported (in part) by an article that someone with a doctorate (no less) wrote essentially proposing that parents give up the authority they have over their children, to the local church.

    That kind of fluff was not what I expected.

    Either way, having swallowed the notion that the church now has more parental authority that the parents, it follows that all the admonitions given to parents apply to the church.

    The message that parents are still very important, even if they are just temporary earthly families - didn't really brighten the tone for me.

    With regard to the question, whose responsibility is it to evangelize children in the church?, the answer is that it is every believer's responsibility to ensure that those in the church understand what takes to become, and what it means to be, a Christian.

    Parents naturally have the most opportunity to share this information with their own children, and they likewise have a biblical mandate to do so (even if in these posts the flavor seems to be that the church has usurped that mandate). Regardless, parents shouldn't relegate this responsibility to the church, and take a hands off approach at home. In the same way, the church shouldn't have a "hands off" policy with regards to evangelizing the children who show up on Sunday as though that was entirely the child's parent's job.

    That kind of mindset is wrong on both sides of that fence.

    The purpose of all this, "the church is my only family" stuff? It serves as the foundational backdrop for the counter-argument: age segregation doesn't "divide families" during the service - since we've changed the categories. We aren't causing children to be taken away from their "real" family when they are shuffled out of the general assembly - they are just being shuffled out to be with other members of their real family.

    It seemed to me a very unfortunate counter-argument, given the premise (church family trumps biological family, therefore all instruction [and authority] for biological family can be transferred to church) has no teeth biblically speaking.


  • At 10:50 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…

    In the third and final post, we find that pastors, being elders, shepherds, etc. are responsible for teaching their flocks to equip the saints for the work of ministry, and reminded that this charge for pastors extends to every member of the church (including children).

    That is not to say that the pastor must instruct all believers equally, or that they necessarily have to be the person doing the instruction - but rather that they have a responsibility and are given oversight of the church to ensure that their responsibilities are met.

    With regards to how a woman ought to behave, Paul writes to young Timothy that he oughtn't personally to be addressing the younger women (for what I hope is obvious reasons) but that Timothy should to admonish the older women to give that kind of instruction to the younger women. This passage is then used to show that there was age segregation in the church all along.

    I'm thinking... no.

    This passage wasn't describing what Paul wanted to see happening on a Sunday morning, with the young women and old women going off elsewhere for private instruction, whilst the remainder of the congregation (um, men and middle-aged women?) stayed behind. It was describing how to Timothy could practically minister to young women in matters where both propriety and discretion are important. It was not fitting for a young, unmarried woman (at that time) to be alone with a man, even if that man was Timothy. Whatever Timothy had to say, could be said by older women without putting anyone's reputation in jeopardy.

    Keith writes that he saw no other way in this example but to conclude that Paul was telling Timothy to segregate the church on a Sunday mornings, by age, if not by gender. I think that is just a phrase he used, as Keith seems more than capable of seeing more, if he looks a little harder.

    He makes a point about the importance of mutual ministry (both parents and church), but fails to show that segregating the church by age on a Sunday morning is the way that should be done.

    He stresses again the "church trumps family, pastor is like the patriarch, so his will is like the father in a biological family" notion - but embarks now on linking spiritual immaturity with biological immaturity, so that everything directed towards spiritually immature believers is now applicable against biologically immature church attenders.

    He concludes with a thought: since most of the people involved in the "Family Integregrated Church Movement" (i.e. are most consider themselves to be opposed to age segregation in the church) - are homeschoolers, it follows that because they teach their own children according to their age - that they ought to be the first to recognize how important it is in the church to segregate instruction by age. Which is may be the best example of the kind of blinders one needs to be wearing to miss the forest for the trees.

    Homeschoolers have all their children in the same class room, even if their instruction is age specific. They believe that keeping the family together in the church will be reap the same kind of benefits that keeping the family together in the home has.

    So, that conclusion was disappointing.


  • At 10:55 AM, April 01, 2016, Blogger Daniel said…

    Either way, Keith has a genuine passion for the church, and I would encourage people to read the posts. He makes some good and valid points, but (and this is just my opinion) falls a little short because the points he makes don't translate well into a Sunday Service, or explain why children should be skipping the regular service, except to say that the pastor thinks that's a good idea, and that we should be as convinced as he is that the pastor has more authority in the matter than the actual parents.

    Not my cup of tea, but it is certainly worth consideration.

    Thanks for the article Keith.

Post a Comment
<< Home
Previous Posts
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5