Here's a question: Should we treat teenagers in our churches as adults and incorporate them into adult Sunday School classes, etc., or should we keep them separated? Which is wisest? Which serves them best?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
While reading the Old Testament, have you ever thought to yourself, "Boy, these Israelites just didn't get it!"? God warned th... -
What do you guys think about church choirs? Are they Biblical? Are they helpful? If you could have your preference, would your church have a... -
As I'm thinking through my sermon for this coming Sunday morning, a phrase in Romans 6:4 has me thinking. Now, I haven't yet looked ...
-
Okay, so a few months back we had this long drawn out debate about divorce and remarriage here on the blog. I think it was a healthy debate... -
What do you guys think is the best way to approach specials and/or solos in a church? Is it ever appropriate to have them? I'm not a fan...
-
Just finished reading this ... I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not Sunday School makes a positive contribution to the local... -
I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f. Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I jus...
-
Hey guys, what do y'all think about this? I've recently read of some Christians who say they don't listen to "Christian&quo...
-
Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2 . Good thoughts Justin N.! 1. Yes, Amen! 2. Absolutely! 3. Many pe...
-
(Guests: If you haven't already, you should read the previous two posts before reading this one.) " Iron sharpens iron, and one man...
11 comments:
Added to the complexity of this topic is the question: If we do treat teens as adults, should teens then be voting members of our congregations? As we have a few major issues on the horizon that our church will soon vote on, I'd love to hear what you guys think.
At SHF, we provide a separate teen ministry (not a Sunday school class) that is taught by a team of five men in our church.
Good question! I've wrestled with this for some time. I think it's probably best to have them incorporated into the church primarily. As far as which is wisest, I'm not sure. As we've talked about in the past, I think it's best to have them as part of the local church if they are members.
Dan, that is certainly another question. I have also wrestled with saying some are part of the church, but then limiting particular aspects of what they are able to do (other than offices or teaching). With that being said, I'm sure I have much to learn with both of these questions!
Is it possible that a person can be mature enough to count the cost and choose to be a follower of Christ but not be mature enough to vote on church issues? Church votes are easy if you trust your pastors. I would suggest that the maturity required for a meaningful baptism is at least as much as would be required for any kind of church business meeting.
I tend to think it would be wise to incorporate them some and allow them to meet separately some. Too often it's been all separation all the time. So we need to be thinking of ways to incorporate them... not just have them there, but to connect with other believers in genuine, caring relationships. In our current structure, that's easier said than done.
As far as the voting issue I see both sides. It's a hard call. In some sense I do think if you're a member of a church, then you're a member of it... no half-way, limited membership. At the same time, even our culture recognizes that young teenagers are too impressionable to make their own decisions about tobacco, driving, voting in public elections, etc.
Randy - we encourage teens to be involved with church ministry, but also struggle with where to use them wisely. We have teens on the worship team, and some older teens have assisted in our children's ministry.
JN - are you saying that baptized teens should vote on church matters? We don't have them do that here, but I'm never above re-evaluating our position. Does MHMBC do this?
Jim - wise and cautious words. It is difficult to know where to draw a line. Is there even such a thing as "half-way" or limited membership?
Scriptures anyone?
One of the major issues I see with this conversation is that we have (at least most SBC churches) redefined congregationalism to mean that every member ought to vote on every issue. If we were to have elders who ruled the church well, I think many of these voting questions would take care of themselves.
I do think if you're going to have teens as members then you should incorporate them into the body of the church. Maybe the distinction should be more around maturity than age (although age would play a great part in that as well). In other words, maybe we should simply recognize that those who are still immature in their faith (teens, new believers, slow growing believers) ought to be involved, but not in positions that would 'lead' the congregation. I'm sure I could word this better, but what do you think?
Jim, if a young teen is too impressionable to make his own decision about driving, tobacco, etc., isn't that teen also too impressionable to be making a life-long, serious decision to give himself as a servant to Christ for the rest of his life? The point I'm trying to make is that the decision to be baptized in the name of Jesus is a heavier decision than any church issue, and if one is able to do the former they should certainly be mature enough to handle the latter. Dan, that is the way we do things at MHMBC, though so far in my ministry I've only baptized one young teenager, and that was only because he is quite mature for his age.
Underlying all of this is Randy's point about congregationalism. From my elder-rule perspective, voting is something that happens very seldom, and when it does it is simply as a way of informing the pastors whether or not we agree with some very important decision they are making (buying new property, bringing on a new pastor/deacon, etc). In other words, voting is not a huge part of being a member. I would suggest that a member's duty to follow the rules of Matthew 18 is even more of a pressing issue than voting.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that only people 18 or older can be baptized and made members. Rather, I'm saying that once a person becomes a teenager, they really are becoming a young adult and should be expected to act as one. I would strongly hesitate from baptizing anyone younger than that, however.
Younger than 12 or 13, that is.
I've thought about this today several times. I wonder if our culture has influenced this question too much. It seems to me that the church is the church (not about age, but about faith in Christ). Certainly we see maturity and gifts in people and that ought to influence our decisions on where/how they serve, but should we say the defining factor is age?
Justin,
I get what you're saying... but then again aren't these two types of decision vastly different? I mean, one is prompted by the regenerating of the Spirit which results in repentance and faith, another is a part of getting older (ie maturing in mental capacities). I can imagine a mentally handicapped person trusting in Christ who will never get to the level mentally where they can cast an informed vote in elections.
BTW, I'm in favor of members (who have been examined regarding their understanding and acceptance of the gospel) having full voting and debating responsibilities, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here.
Jim, Yeah, I hear what you are saying. But what about your church covenant? Would you expect a mentally handicapped person to fulfill all of the responsibilities of your church covenant? Would they be responsible, for example, to admonish their brother or sister in sin? If not, then its clear that we are making an exception for a mentally handicapped Christian that we would not normally make. But I wouldn't use that exception to justify having young members who are not mature enough to vote.
The other thing I'm saying is that the decision to follow Jesus - while undoubtedly a result of the regenerating Spirit of God - still requires a certain kind of maturity and understanding. What issue should our members be voting on that requires greater maturity or understanding than the decision to follow Christ? Do we expect all of our members to comb through the budget and to know the ins and outs of the financial realm? Do we expect all of our members to be experts at how a particular piece of property will affect the spiritual health and growth of our church? Of course not. Ultimately, church votes (which should be very seldom) are all about whether or not the church members trust that their pastors are leading them in the right direction. This requires prayer, faith, and discernment - all of which comes about through the Spirit's work in their lives.
Post a Comment