Contribution Is Not a Consolation Prize
On children, leadership, and what intergenerational ministry actually asks of the church
“What would you like to play with this morning?”
I find myself saying this regularly on Sunday mornings in my children’s ministry. In our children’s ministry program, after our Bible teaching, we have a time called “Kids Chill”. The object of this time is to ‘chill’ out with kids.
During Kids Chill, kids are the hosts, and the teenage and adult leaders are the guests. Children have the autonomy to choose what they would like to do in this otherwise unstructured playtime. The leader’s role is to sit, colour, run, bounce, fold, squish, decorate, deal in, or imagine with and alongside the youngest brothers and sisters in our congregation.
Kids Chill is an essential way our church expresses its commitment to intergenerational ministry in the life of our church.
Intergenerational Ministry is founded on several principles, including equality, mutuality and reciprocity.[1] An intergenerational church is one in which these principles are enacted by providing each generation opportunities to meaningfully contribute to the life of the church. As a children’s minister, I am constantly looking across all aspects of our church life together and asking the kinds of questions that will provide these kinds of opportunities to children.
Where are children present or absent in our church community?
Which spaces are children allowed or not allowed to be in?
Which ministries are children permitted or not permitted to contribute to?
Which calendar events are children invited to or excluded from?
Where is the voice and opinion of children listened to or ignored?
This does not mean that it is appropriate to place a child in every situation, allow them into every space, permit them to contribute to every ministry, or invite them to every event. Young children are generally excluded from the kitchen where boiling water and sharp knives abound. Our preschoolers are not invited to mix the audio at the sound desk. And school-age children are not invited to the Thursday lunchtime craft group. There are several practical and developmental reasons why children may not have equality and mutuality in every area of the church.
Leadership vs. Contribution
Practical and developmental reasons notwithstanding, one of the arguments that I read frequently in the intergenerational and child spirituality literature is that children ought to be leaders. If we are to take the equality, mutuality and reciprocity of children seriously in the intergenerational church, then there ought not to be any spaces where the voice and opinion of children are ignored, and therefore, where they are not allowed to lead.
Joe Azzopardi, in his PhD research into intergenerational communities, found that there are five characteristics of a healthy intergenerational church: (i) positive interaction, (ii) connectedness, (iii) interdependence, (iv) accommodation, and (v) empowerment.
Under empowerment, Azzopardi writes:
“Intergenerational communities strive to empower members of every generation by granting them authority in ministry and ensuring they have a representative voice in leadership. This approach recognises that every generation is ordained as a minister of the gospel and deserves a place at the decision table.”[2]
This approach to intergenerational leadership appears to have solid biblical backing. The New Testament emphasises the radical equality that comes to all who are in Christ. The New Testament church believed in the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6). No ethnicity, gender or social status impacts our co-adoption into Christ’s family (Galatians 3:26-28), and the same Spirit distributes gifts to every believer (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). While Paul and the other New Testament epistle authors did not appear to have generational distinctions in mind, it is not illegitimate to include children in our definition of “believer” and “Christ’s family” (whether through covenant or confession, depending on your church tradition).
Therefore, it would appear to follow that children—with every other generation—ought to be included in our church’s leadership. Citing the Fuller Youth Institute research on Growing Young, Azzopardi writes that “keychain leadership is about sharing power and enabling young people to step into leadership positions, fostering an environment where all generations are valued and can contribute meaningfully.”
However, a correction is warranted. Azzopardi here is representative of those who, I believe, conflate leadership with contribution and thereby devalue both.
The Value of Leadership
As we have seen, the New Testament epistles have a high view of the equality of identity and belonging for all those who are in Christ. “There is no distinction,” Paul writes, “between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:22-24). This equality in the atonement is what leads to the equality in status as children, role as priests, and giftedness by the Spirit.
However, this does not translate to equality in leadership.
Paul, in Ephesians, highlights the givenness of specific leadership roles in the church:
“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” (Ephesians 4:11-12)
A distinction is made here between these specific leadership roles and “his people”. Not everyone is included in these leadership roles, though all are included in “the body”. James warns that “not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). Notice that James continues to uphold equality in the church (“my fellow believers”) while maintaining a distinction in the teaching role. Paul writes to both Timothy and Titus and sets a high bar for the roles of overseers, deacons, and elders (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
James 3:1
Every Christian, from infants to adolescents, middle-aged to elders, is saved by the same gospel, adopted into the same family, and gifted and equipped by the same Spirit. But not all are qualified and called into ministry leadership. Leadership is an essential and valuable role in the church, but it is restricted in its scope. “Authority in ministry” and “leadership positions” are not granted by virtue of being a Christian and, therefore, are appropriately limited in a way that will exclude not just most children but most adult members of the church family as well.
The Value of Contribution
Does this mean that I do not believe in the principles of equality, mutuality and reciprocity? Am I a phony proponent of intergenerational ministry? Before casting your vote, let me revisit a comment I made earlier, that conflating leadership with contribution devalues both.
We are obsessed with leadership in our culture. We conduct leadership training in schools, allowing every student to learn “leadership skills”. Leadership books abound, and employees are encouraged to seek out “leadership opportunities”. We place a high value on leaders, yet paradoxically encourage everyone towards leadership. However, if the school, organisation, or church is full of leaders, who exactly are they leading? As above, not everyone ought to be a leader, but logically speaking, not everyone can be one either.
The larger problem for our purposes is that in this emphasis on leadership, we have conflated leadership with value. Why do we push leadership opportunities? Because leaders have power. Leaders have a voice. Leaders can enact change. Leaders have value.
We have conflated leadership with value.
These things are all true. What is not true, especially in the “small working model of New Creation”[3] that exists in your local church, is that only leaders have power, voice, the ability to enact change, and therefore, value.
Jesus rebukes his disciples on multiple occasions about their desire for power, influence and authority. In Mark 10, Jesus contrasts a worldly authority with the kind of authority that his disciples must embody:
“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)
A chapter earlier, in a verse precious to all in children’s ministry, Jesus interrupts another argument about greatness and places a “little child” in their midst with the words, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me” (Mark 9:37).
Notice what is happening in these two passages. The nature of authority is being upended, from “lording over” to servanthood, and little children are being honoured and set up as the model of kingdom greatness. Notice what is not happening in these passages. The disciples’ ‘leadership’ is not being relativised. They are not stripped of their leadership authority but are having their concept of authority reshaped according to Kingdom ethics. Jesus, the Son of Man, does not relinquish his proper leadership and authority in the Kingdom. But he does use his authority to serve. His disciples are to do likewise.
Similarly, the little child is honoured. But they are not given leadership roles. They are not ordained as ministers of the gospel in any formal, ecclesiastical sense. They do, however, have a contributive purpose as a model of Kingdom discipleship. This contributive purpose is valuable; in fact, it is essential to understanding the upside-down ethic of the Kingdom. But contribution—however valuable—is not the same thing as leadership.
Intergenerational Contribution
How do we live out this distinction between leadership and contribution in an intergenerational church? If not everyone is called to be a leader, how do we ensure that the equality, mutuality and reciprocity of all generations of disciples is honoured?
I think the answer is in the definition of leadership and authority that Jesus gave his disciples in Mark’s gospel. If church leaders are serving their members, then they will be proactive in consulting with them, listening to them, and equipping them for their own “works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” In a church striving towards intergenerationality, this will include the children in the congregation. Why children? Generally, because children, like every other generation, are loved by Jesus, bought by the blood of Jesus, and co-adopted into Jesus’ family. And specifically, because children are models of discipleship to the entire congregation.
Children’s purposeful contribution is essential to the intergenerational church. Their presence, their voice, their spiritual gifts, their meaningful participation. These are not the same as ‘leadership’. But that does not make them less valuable. A church whose leaders are slaves to all and honouring the ones that Christ honours will continue to look for ways to increase the contribution of children.
Azzopardi’s definition of the five successful characteristics of intergenerational churches is a valuable contribution to the field of intergenerational ministry. If I were to offer a gentle rephrasing of his description of empowerment, I might write this:
Intergenerational communities strive to empower members of every generation by granting them contributive purpose in ministry and ensuring they have a representative voice to leadership.
Such a description honours the distinction between leadership and contribution, while continuing to uphold the value of every generation meaningfully participating in the life of the local church.
[1] Holly Allen & Chris Barnett (2018), ‘Introduction: Addressing the two intergenerational questions’ in Allen HC (ed), InterGenerate, ACUP.
[2] Joe Azzopardi (2025) ‘An Intergenerational Index: The Five Characteristics of Intergenerationality’. Chapter 6 in Wilson McCoy (ed.) Imagining All Ages: A Renewed Vision for an Intergenerational Church. p.93
[3] N.T. Wright (2025) The Vision of Ephesians.