volunteer {equality}

i'm a fan of volunteer equality. encouraging all to participate in local church kingdom work. 

and, lately i've been wondering why we've limited the role of volunteer to a few? specifically to those with their lives seemingly "in order?" {those with broken areas need not apply}.

here's what i've seen: volunteerism is a shared blessing. those who are served and those who serve receive blessings, lessons, love, and grace. i've said it myself and heard it said a million times -- when i volunteer, i often feel like i get more than i give or when i teach, i learn more than the children.

and yet, we often approach serving as a gift only for those being served {thus, requiring your life to be in perfect order so that you're able to lead, serve, and give to others}.

but this is only half of the {volunteer} equation. volunteering is an opportunity to serve others, yes, but it is also a chance to use our gifts, extend ourselves, and humble our spirits as an exercise in faith with hopes that we'll grow more like jesus in the process. 

let's cut to the chase: the central question that arises when i talk about {non} traditional families in the context of children's ministry is the question of volunteers. should gay parents or lesbian church members be encouraged {or allowed} to serve in children's ministry? 

yes. for me, volunteering should be made available to all who are committed to the well-being and growth of the faith community. {but, never available to those who bring physical or emotional danger or harm to children.}

volunteerism is an important spiritual discipline. similar to prayer, reading the bible, attending church, worshipping, and participating in a small group, volunteering has the power to transform our hearts and grow our faith. a key component in becoming more faith-filled. 

so, why then are the other disciplines made available to all, with the exception of volunteerism? 

volunteer equality for all. or, only a select few. let's discuss. 

Comments

[Jared M]

I agree that volunteering is a shared blessing, but I do not totally agree with your conclusion that all should be able to serve. I've attempted to articulate this before, but it is so hard to do in written form. It's best in a verbal discussion. Alas, I shall try.
There is a stark difference between someone who is struggling with their brokenness and working through with an attitude of repentance than someone who has an attitude of acceptance.
I do not think that every volunteer needs to have it all together, but I think the weight of teaching and leading kids is so strong, we must advise anyone to enter into it cautiously. I would argue the same point for a straight person going through a divorce or one who was sexually active outside of marriage. I do think there are non-teaching positions that anybody should be able to serve in, even those who are not sure about their faith.
If homosexuality is a sin (and I believe the Bible says it is), as long as someone is participating, there are volunteer positions where they should not serve. Even the early Church had guidelines for certain service positions, deacons for example. It's okay to say to someone, you are not spiritually mature enough for this right now, but let's work together to get you there.

[Andy Hayball]

I'd agree with Jared that the Early Church's example of standards for leaders comes into play here. Having said that, many of those standards are stated elsewhere in scripture as an "expectation" of any committed Christian. I guess each church has to figure out what that means in their context.

Regardless of the sexuality issues here, I'd love to see a move away from the emphasis (over emphasis in my opinion) on teaching positions vs non-teaching positions as if what is said is more impactful than who we are or the way in which we serve. Everyone who serves (or is part of the church community in any way) is an example to our kids (whether we like or not). That's the blessing and the cost of being in community!