2 INTERGENERATIONAL MINISTRY IN THE COMMUNITIES OF FAITH
2.4 Critique of Intergenerational Theory
The field most controversial in the intergenerational education is that of incorporating children and teenagers in worship as equal partners. At the heart of this scepticism is the view that full participation in worship is related to one’s ability to mentally comprehend what is occurring, and to respond accordingly.173. The implicit conclusion is that worship is essentially an adult activity into which children must “grow”
over time. Weil notes that over-emphasis on the cognitive has meant that children have been regarded as ‘pre-liturgical’. In over-emphasizing the rational faculties, that aspect of the human person is elevated out of proportion to other aspects of personality, including the affective and intuitive powers which children manifest at an early age.174 Marginalization of children in and from worship frequently reflects an understanding of worship as something that humans do. One’s capacity for worship is then related to one’s ability to take part in the practices of corporate worship. At the heart of this argument is a profound theological misconception. It is God who is the actor in worship, calling people of all ages together. Children, to the extent that they are permitted to participate, are equal and needy recipients of God’s divine workings in and through corporate worship. They may not worship in the same ways as adults, but they are nevertheless fully gifted and enabled for participation in worship.175
Ironically, writers on children and worship frequently note that, developmentally speaking, children are more inclined toward wholistic expressions of worship than are adults.176 Children have certain abilities and attitudes which lie at the heart of worship.
They are aware of their environment and the community around them. They are capable of intense identification and imaginative hearing. They are infectiously enthusiastic. They can be sacrificially generous and honest in their responses.177 They respond physically and emotionally to what they see and hear. Children bring to worship a directness and
173 Briebbenow, Greg. Towards an Integrative View of Children in Worship. Children in Worship. St.
Paul, MN: Luther Seminary. Spring 2002. P3.
174Weil, Louis. Children and Worship. The Sacred Play of Children. Ed.Diane Apostolos-Cappadona.
New York, NY: Seabury Press. Pp.55-60. 1983. P. 56.
175 Briebbenow, Greg. Towards. P. 4.
176 Ng, David. Thomas, Virginia. Children in the Worshipping Community. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. 1981. P. 16.
177 Ibid,
simplicity of faith. They are spontaneous. They are receptive and have hope. They know how to show thankfulness and joy; indeed, they show these feelings more wholly and wholeheartedly than do most adults.178 In many ways children enrich the worship of the church.179
An integrative approach to intergenerational worship respects what children and all other ages bring to worship, and makes room for them to worship in the manner for which God has gifted them. For example, it seeks to provide experiences where the childhood sense of wonder can be engaged in praise of God. In other words, an integrative approach helps children to worship as children. The question is not “How can we make our children into worshippers?” but “How can we worship together with our children and enable their worship?” Or, as Fairless asks, “What happens when we dare assume that children have the same claim on the space, ritual, style and content of worship as do adults?”180
The second and third commonly expressed concern about intergenerational education in faith communities have been outlined by Sutcliffe:
“It can be unfair to involve them (youth) as observers of some adult activities and equally unfair on adults to have them working always in such a way as will keep the interest of children. Some topics are outside the experience of children; to try to adapt them to make them suited to children is to trivialize the theological and experiential dialogue in which adults should be engaged.”181
Therefore, the first criticism of the intergenerational theory is that of the“unfairness”
present to a certain extent within intergenerational education. This criticism may be valid in some situations which are adult-dominated (e.g. children being made to sit through congregational worship experiences) or child-dominated (e.g. adults participating in
178 Ibid. P.23.
179 Further on the topic of children’s capability to worship:
Juengst, Sara Covin. Sharing Faith with Children: Rethinking the Children’s Sermon. Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press. 1994.
Berglund, Mary Catherine. Obeying the Mystery: Worship and the Very Young. Beginning the Journey:
From Infant Baptism to First Eucharist, United States Catholic Conference, Washington D.C. 1994.
180 Fairless, Caroline. Children at Worship: Congregations in Bloom. New York, NY: Church Publishing.
2000. P.11.
181 Sutcliffe, J.M. “Glimpses into Participation and Cooperation in Church Education.” Educator. (1).
1994. Pp.54.
children’s services). But the activities described by Sutcliffe do not correlate with the generally accepted “modus opperandi” of intergenerational programs. Such programs are meant to provide learning activities which involve all participants by utilizing a range of activities, so that all leave the event having benefited. The activities may provide balance in the following areas:
a. Activities based on the cognitive thought processes on the one hand and affective processes on the other.
b. Movement and action balanced with opportunities for stillness and quiet reflection.
c. Drawing on the full range of human senses to provide variety in experiencing the world and to encourage wholistic learning182.
Proponents of intergenerational education join its critics in agreeing that it is unrealistic to expect all participants to engage in activities and maintain their interest all of the time. It cannot happen in an intergenerational setting, but seldom does it happen in homogenous-age learning situations either. People at both settings move in and out of engagement with the issue or the task depending on the internal (personality, needs, individual learning styles) or external conditions (environment).
The second argument Sutcliffe raises has to do with the subject matter in intergenerational settings. While it is true (as for the homogenous-age groups) that the subject matter needs to be of common interest to the range of people attending, very few topics need to be off limits provided that they are dealt with in a manner appropriate to the people present. Instead of trivializing the theological dialogue, a new depth and breath of understanding is often achieved because of insights people of different ages bring to the topic.183
Additionally, John Hull suggests that the problem of exposure to inappropriate material may not be highly significant,
182 Harkness, Allan G. Intergenerational. P.55
183 Ibid. Pp.56-58.
“While it is true that children and adults at the earlier stages of development will not understand materials characteristic of later stages, it is also true that there is very little evidence that such presentation causes any harm (194).”184
Hull even goes further to imply that such exposure may even be beneficial, in some circumstances, for the encouragement of maturity in faith.
The true potential and linked hazards of intergenerational education arise when comfort zones are considered. First, some parents want to get away from their kids.
Second, some kids want to get away from adults.185. These reasons are often considered sufficiently valid for the utilization of age-segregated groups, but doing so may undermine the building of unity and community which the faith community values. This hazard has to do with the internal motivation of church members that choose comfort over growth potential.