The "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" is "contrary to the ministry patterns of Christ"
Christian Post: Modern Youth Ministry ‘Unbiblical,’ Ministry Leader Claims
“This slippery slope of age segregation leads to the isolation of an individual’s perspective to one that only looks outward from within the confines of their age group and excludes the lessons that can and should be learned from previous generations”
- 16 views
Wow Dan. Thanks for listening to the Scott Brown sermon and posting your breakdown. Made me curious enough to give it a listen. Scary. Not sure that Scott is one of us.
This is still an interesting discussion—hasn’t sunk quite to the level of a music discussion yet—even though it has been well discussed here at SI, at Ryan Martin’s blog, and in Aaron B’s Baptist Bulletin article.
I guess I want to say I’m nervous. We fundy types don’t have a good track record at sniffing out errors in educational philosophy. We went through the Youth for Christ thing and the Bill Gothard thing and the James Dobson thing and the Growing Kids God’s Way thing…and we didn’t discern the bad exegesis until relatively late in the game.
So, if these new ideas about family ministry (true believers would say “old ideas”) are to be helpful, I hope we will be willing to disavow the hermeneutical approach of Scott Brown (even if we are attracted to to his ideas). While I don’t agree with aspects of his position, I think guys like Greg Steikes have handled the word more capably when defending a family-integrated church model. If we’re going to suggest listening to sermon audio, I think Greg’s sermons are posted somewhere. Can’t remember where. But these would be a better place to jump in that Scott Brown. Whew.
But we probably won’t make progress if we continue to use the current terminology—right? This thread seems to frame the issue so that one side is in favor of the family and the other side is in favor of segregation! Hmmmm….
This is still an interesting discussion—hasn’t sunk quite to the level of a music discussion yet—even though it has been well discussed here at SI, at Ryan Martin’s blog, and in Aaron B’s Baptist Bulletin article.
I guess I want to say I’m nervous. We fundy types don’t have a good track record at sniffing out errors in educational philosophy. We went through the Youth for Christ thing and the Bill Gothard thing and the James Dobson thing and the Growing Kids God’s Way thing…and we didn’t discern the bad exegesis until relatively late in the game.
So, if these new ideas about family ministry (true believers would say “old ideas”) are to be helpful, I hope we will be willing to disavow the hermeneutical approach of Scott Brown (even if we are attracted to to his ideas). While I don’t agree with aspects of his position, I think guys like Greg Steikes have handled the word more capably when defending a family-integrated church model. If we’re going to suggest listening to sermon audio, I think Greg’s sermons are posted somewhere. Can’t remember where. But these would be a better place to jump in that Scott Brown. Whew.
But we probably won’t make progress if we continue to use the current terminology—right? This thread seems to frame the issue so that one side is in favor of the family and the other side is in favor of segregation! Hmmmm….
I try to refer to it as “age grouping” instead of “segregating.” It is indeed an intentionally loaded term. Much of Brown’s case relies on that sort of demagoguery.
Seems the links I thought were in my “kid times” article at SI are not there. I must have been thinking of the earlier series I did on FIC back in ‘05 or ‘06… lost in the crash or something.
Anyway, if you want to read up more on Brown’s views…
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/t…
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/c…
And especially
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/c…
The one above basically says if we want to work with kids separately we are just “anti-child.”
I think Dan’s points regarding age grouping as far back as Chrysostom and SS in the 17th century are important. Dan do you have links to where that might be documented?
I want to take a look at the research Susan linked to also, though I’ll admit I’m not super interested. The reason is that I don’t need research to tell me what I’ve observed first hand, so my belief in the value of age grouping is not research based… and similarly, I’m not likely to be persuaded by research that what I’ve seen over and over isn’t really happening. But sometimes we do misinterpret our experiences and are not seeing what we think we are seeing, so… should take a look.
About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It’s pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is “Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?” The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It’s almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.
As for off topc/on topic… Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.
Seems the links I thought were in my “kid times” article at SI are not there. I must have been thinking of the earlier series I did on FIC back in ‘05 or ‘06… lost in the crash or something.
Anyway, if you want to read up more on Brown’s views…
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/t…
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/c…
And especially
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/c…
The one above basically says if we want to work with kids separately we are just “anti-child.”
I think Dan’s points regarding age grouping as far back as Chrysostom and SS in the 17th century are important. Dan do you have links to where that might be documented?
I want to take a look at the research Susan linked to also, though I’ll admit I’m not super interested. The reason is that I don’t need research to tell me what I’ve observed first hand, so my belief in the value of age grouping is not research based… and similarly, I’m not likely to be persuaded by research that what I’ve seen over and over isn’t really happening. But sometimes we do misinterpret our experiences and are not seeing what we think we are seeing, so… should take a look.
About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It’s pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is “Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?” The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It’s almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.
As for off topc/on topic… Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It’s pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is “Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?” The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It’s almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.First, the article linked in the OP quoted Brown: “philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry” is “contrary to the ministry patterns of Christ.”
As for off topc/on topic… Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.
Second, the title of this thread is “Modern Youth Ministry ‘Unbiblical,’ Ministry Leader Claims.”
I do think that we need to be careful with the term “unbiblical.” It technically means not found or authorized by Scripture. But it is more often used to mean “anti-Biblical” (contrary to what is revealed in Scripture). I assumed it was intended to mean “anti-Biblical” in this case. I think that Scott Brown’s other words strongly suggest my assumption is right.
Given these, the topic of the OP is that someone claims that Youth Min and Sunday School are Anti-Biblical.
I think clearly they are not anti-Biblical and I’ve tried to show that Brown’s earlier speech fails to make that case. Unfortunately, the speech referenced in the OP is not available as far as I can tell.
If we reject that age-grouping is anti-biblical, then I think that two other threads would be useful:
1. Is age-grouping in church ministry Biblically supported?
I think a case can be made that they are Biblically supported.
2. Is age-grouping in church ministry wise or unwise?
I actually think they are wise; Susan, I believe, thinks that they are not supported in Scripture and are unwise. I would be interested in discussing that.
Of course, if the Bible either demands or forbids grouping, then we don’t even need to discuss wisdom, so I think it’s best to examine these first.
[KevinM]… Greg Steikes …Is this him? I remember him from college. He was in the Speech department with Jenny.
http://bethanybiblechurch.net/sermons/download.php
Susan’s research links: I don’t see much there that is relevant. One piece is about adolescence and [URL=http://uncenglishmat.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/3/4/1434319/arnett.pdf] how the “storm” characteristics of it are exaggerated[/URL]. Another is actually about the [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=sDtMoSq93gAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=eff…] loneliness of the elderly due to “age segregation.”[/URL] Another is an entire book on the history of childhood. (I always find that one interesting. Niel Postman argued in The Disappearance of Childhood that childhood is a modern invention. But Scripture is clear that this is not the case. “When I was a child I acted as a child… but when I became a man I put away childish things.” etc.).
Dr Pratt’s article on [URL=http://www.acclaim-math.org/docs/jrre_archives/v3,n3,p111-115,Pratt.pdf] The Merits of Multiage Classrooms[/URL] is relevant and has some good data in it. But it still deals mainly with studies of what happens and doesn’t happen in school settings where large numbers of children interact almost exclusively with people at or very near their own age. This is not really what any of us here are recommending.
In any case, I’ve read several versions of the “age segregating is an ineffective new idea spawned by Darwin, Dewey and Rosseau” many times. They are all essentially guilt-by-association arguments. That is, they fail to show that age grouping derives exclusively from these philosophies (to do that, there would have to be no use of age grouping before them. This we know is not the case).
Second, the argument assumes that if group B does any of the same things as group A, they must have gotten the idea from group A and must share other qualities with group A as well.
Since Darwin ate breakfast, am I embracing a new-fangled unbiblical idea if I eat breakfast? Even if it could be shown that without Darwin’s influence I would not eat breakfast, does it follow that I shouldn’t eat breakfast or that I have any other ideas in common w/ol’ Chuck?
My point w/the extreme example is that overlap between bad philosophies and good ones happens all the time. When it happens, it:
a. doesn’t prove a real relationship
b. doesn’t prove that, if there is a relationship, that relationship extends beyond the particular belief or practice they have in common
It’s just really not a solid argument to say that age grouping is bad b/c it kind of smells like Darwin and Dewey.
As for adolescence, age grouping doesn’t require a belief in any particular version of the idea of “adolescence” or that it even exists. To believe there are important benefits for sometimes teaching/interacting with older kids apart from younger ones, you only have to believe they are different in important ways.
For that, you don’t need Dewey or anyone else. My daughter turned 11 several months ago. The changes in her over the last year have been amazing. I no longer talk to her like I did when she was 10 because she no longer thinks like she did at age 10… and this change is not a learned thing due to social pressures.
She’s home schooled (though not as isolated as the stereotype). I’m just saying kids are different from adults and different from eachother and that is not a new idea.
Edit: Dan, I see how you’re thinking and mostly agree. I’d add though that “wise or unwise” overlaps with “biblical or unbiblical” because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be ‘unbiblical’ because it is ‘unwise,’ no?
Dr Pratt’s article on [URL=http://www.acclaim-math.org/docs/jrre_archives/v3,n3,p111-115,Pratt.pdf] The Merits of Multiage Classrooms[/URL] is relevant and has some good data in it. But it still deals mainly with studies of what happens and doesn’t happen in school settings where large numbers of children interact almost exclusively with people at or very near their own age. This is not really what any of us here are recommending.
In any case, I’ve read several versions of the “age segregating is an ineffective new idea spawned by Darwin, Dewey and Rosseau” many times. They are all essentially guilt-by-association arguments. That is, they fail to show that age grouping derives exclusively from these philosophies (to do that, there would have to be no use of age grouping before them. This we know is not the case).
Second, the argument assumes that if group B does any of the same things as group A, they must have gotten the idea from group A and must share other qualities with group A as well.
Since Darwin ate breakfast, am I embracing a new-fangled unbiblical idea if I eat breakfast? Even if it could be shown that without Darwin’s influence I would not eat breakfast, does it follow that I shouldn’t eat breakfast or that I have any other ideas in common w/ol’ Chuck?
My point w/the extreme example is that overlap between bad philosophies and good ones happens all the time. When it happens, it:
b. doesn’t prove that, if there is a relationship, that relationship extends beyond the particular belief or practice they have in common
It’s just really not a solid argument to say that age grouping is bad b/c it kind of smells like Darwin and Dewey.
As for adolescence, age grouping doesn’t require a belief in any particular version of the idea of “adolescence” or that it even exists. To believe there are important benefits for sometimes teaching/interacting with older kids apart from younger ones, you only have to believe they are different in important ways.
For that, you don’t need Dewey or anyone else. My daughter turned 11 several months ago. The changes in her over the last year have been amazing. I no longer talk to her like I did when she was 10 because she no longer thinks like she did at age 10… and this change is not a learned thing due to social pressures.
She’s home schooled (though not as isolated as the stereotype). I’m just saying kids are different from adults and different from eachother and that is not a new idea.
Edit: Dan, I see how you’re thinking and mostly agree. I’d add though that “wise or unwise” overlaps with “biblical or unbiblical” because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be ‘unbiblical’ because it is ‘unwise,’ no?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Edit: Dan, I see how you’re thinking and mostly agree. I’d add though that “wise or unwise” overlaps with “biblical or unbiblical” because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be ‘unbiblical’ because it is ‘unwise,’ no?Well, for the “truly wise,” I suppose you’re right. But we only have the “Miller believes X is wise, Brown believes Y is wise.”
The same goes for (actually, it probably is the same thing) application of what are perceived to be general Biblical principles.
Aaron- I’ll reply because you addressed the relevance of my post-
I think the research in this area is relevant if you acknowledge that when certain practices are adopted, they can lead to various attitudes, just as an attitude can lead to new behaviors. Age grouping is dependent on the idea that different age groups need to be treated differently- which is absolutely valid- but the more different you believe they are, the more you will tend to separate them. [URL=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LEVHI1.html Society and culture affect the way we view youth and family[/URL] , and we must separate our practices from the elements in our societal/cultural norms that result in misguided notions with harmful effects. I believe, hence the supportive documentation in the link I provided, that this is a factor in the surge of retirement communities and nursing homes. The gray head used to be revered, adult children cared for their parents and they continued to be part of the family and an integral part of the ‘neighborhood’ into their old age. Now the tendency is to push them aside. Acceptance of age grouping is also a factor in how we view the teen years- the adoption of the idea of adolescence has resulted in the infantilization of our young people, a brand new sub-culture, and mega-million dollar industries that were unheard of 100 years ago. I think we have to ask ourselves why these changes have occurred, and whether or not the forces that provoked these changes are practices we should bring into our churches. Basically I’m playing connect-the-dots, and I think they make a picture. To me this is a bigger issue than whether or not we should have a class for 3 year olds.
I can’t find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today- I don’t see classrooms, I don’t see commands directed at professional teachers, I don’t see families being separated during worship times… we do see men and women separated, and children remaining with their mothers, as well as the directives for the older men/women to teach young men/women… and I’m not trying to build a Bible doctrine out of all this the way Mr. Brown has. I’m also not going to toss out the entire idea of integrating family because some people are taking it and jumping off a cliff with it- that whole “guilt by association” thing. Why can’t we take his theory apart, show what is wrong with it, but also acknowledge what elements of it are based in facts or Biblical principles? The NCFIC, Doug Phillips, and Mr. Brown didn’t invent and don’t own the idea of families being foundational, important, and unified.
When we make choices of conscience or adopt behavioral standards in areas like modesty, music, entertainment, time management… we are looking for Scriptural examples and principles on which to base and build those areas. We ALL draw lines and create boundaries based on our experiences and what we believe to be supported Biblically. As was discussed in another thread- can we say it is wrong to lay down on train tracks and get up in time not to get run over? Are we commanded not to lay down on train tracks? Are there examples of people in the Bible laying down in the middle of the road, waiting for the next chariot to come along? No- but we don’t need it in skywriting to know that foolishness is sin, and laying down on train tracks is foolish… unless one of your contacts fell out…
If the modern (and I’d like to see some supportive documentation that our methods of age grouping are not recent) widespread practice of age grouping has led to some very undesirable effects (such as peer dependency, infantilized youth, a decadent youth culture, adversarial relationships between youth and parents, the neglect of parents in nursing homes…), I think we do have to question its desirability for use in the church (to the degree that it is currently practiced). I mentioned before that most kids are age grouped every day in most classrooms, and if they are experiencing some of the problems that age grouping causes, why wouldn’t the church become a counter-acting agent to undo some of the harm that has been done? Are there factors other than age grouping that can lead to the effects I’ve listed? Absolutely- our sinful hearts don’t need a whole lotta encouragement to do wrong. Yet if the research indicates that there are no advantages whatsoever to age grouping, but that multi-age grouping has significant affective and social advantages, and if the patterns and practices in God’s Word don’t reveal a preference for age grouping, why would we adopt age grouping as the default for church ministries?
If you don’t believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren’t going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don’t think any less of you- everyone’s perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I’ve presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not ‘normal’- [URL=http://www.weweretheretoo.com/introduction.htm not in history[/URL] , not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today… as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?
I think the research in this area is relevant if you acknowledge that when certain practices are adopted, they can lead to various attitudes, just as an attitude can lead to new behaviors. Age grouping is dependent on the idea that different age groups need to be treated differently- which is absolutely valid- but the more different you believe they are, the more you will tend to separate them. [URL=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LEVHI1.html Society and culture affect the way we view youth and family[/URL] , and we must separate our practices from the elements in our societal/cultural norms that result in misguided notions with harmful effects. I believe, hence the supportive documentation in the link I provided, that this is a factor in the surge of retirement communities and nursing homes. The gray head used to be revered, adult children cared for their parents and they continued to be part of the family and an integral part of the ‘neighborhood’ into their old age. Now the tendency is to push them aside. Acceptance of age grouping is also a factor in how we view the teen years- the adoption of the idea of adolescence has resulted in the infantilization of our young people, a brand new sub-culture, and mega-million dollar industries that were unheard of 100 years ago. I think we have to ask ourselves why these changes have occurred, and whether or not the forces that provoked these changes are practices we should bring into our churches. Basically I’m playing connect-the-dots, and I think they make a picture. To me this is a bigger issue than whether or not we should have a class for 3 year olds.
I can’t find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today- I don’t see classrooms, I don’t see commands directed at professional teachers, I don’t see families being separated during worship times… we do see men and women separated, and children remaining with their mothers, as well as the directives for the older men/women to teach young men/women… and I’m not trying to build a Bible doctrine out of all this the way Mr. Brown has. I’m also not going to toss out the entire idea of integrating family because some people are taking it and jumping off a cliff with it- that whole “guilt by association” thing. Why can’t we take his theory apart, show what is wrong with it, but also acknowledge what elements of it are based in facts or Biblical principles? The NCFIC, Doug Phillips, and Mr. Brown didn’t invent and don’t own the idea of families being foundational, important, and unified.
When we make choices of conscience or adopt behavioral standards in areas like modesty, music, entertainment, time management… we are looking for Scriptural examples and principles on which to base and build those areas. We ALL draw lines and create boundaries based on our experiences and what we believe to be supported Biblically. As was discussed in another thread- can we say it is wrong to lay down on train tracks and get up in time not to get run over? Are we commanded not to lay down on train tracks? Are there examples of people in the Bible laying down in the middle of the road, waiting for the next chariot to come along? No- but we don’t need it in skywriting to know that foolishness is sin, and laying down on train tracks is foolish… unless one of your contacts fell out…
If the modern (and I’d like to see some supportive documentation that our methods of age grouping are not recent) widespread practice of age grouping has led to some very undesirable effects (such as peer dependency, infantilized youth, a decadent youth culture, adversarial relationships between youth and parents, the neglect of parents in nursing homes…), I think we do have to question its desirability for use in the church (to the degree that it is currently practiced). I mentioned before that most kids are age grouped every day in most classrooms, and if they are experiencing some of the problems that age grouping causes, why wouldn’t the church become a counter-acting agent to undo some of the harm that has been done? Are there factors other than age grouping that can lead to the effects I’ve listed? Absolutely- our sinful hearts don’t need a whole lotta encouragement to do wrong. Yet if the research indicates that there are no advantages whatsoever to age grouping, but that multi-age grouping has significant affective and social advantages, and if the patterns and practices in God’s Word don’t reveal a preference for age grouping, why would we adopt age grouping as the default for church ministries?
If you don’t believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren’t going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don’t think any less of you- everyone’s perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I’ve presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not ‘normal’- [URL=http://www.weweretheretoo.com/introduction.htm not in history[/URL] , not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today… as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?
[Susan R] I can’t find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today…I pause over “in the way we do it today.” The OP article refers to YMs that “draw and entertain youth.” I agree that sometimes YMs are guilty of over-valuing entertainment, though I do not believe that entertainment is all bad, either.
Your comment here illustrates what I see as a lack of focus on ideas.
In other posts, you’ve said a lot of negative things about youth pastors in your experience. I wonder if you’ve thrown out an entire ministry category largely because you’ve had bad experience with it. That puts you at risk of being pragmatic.
When you look at a problematic youth ministry, the question is whether you should fix what is wrong with it or discard it.
This is partly why I would like to see this thread (or another thread maybe) limited strictly to the question of whether Scripture forbids grouping. If it doesn’t, then it’s a practical question, and then we can have a different sort of debate about what is most useful and wise.
[Susan R] If you don’t believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren’t going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don’t think any less of you- everyone’s perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I’ve presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not ‘normal’- not in history, not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today… as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?A lot of the teens in my youth group have been very courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold. Some home schoolers, some public schoolers, and some Christian schoolers.
On this note, Susan, I think you might like the book, Do Hard Things. It isn’t necessarily a Bible-study book. But it does encourage teens to consider that they can and should be doing difficult things instead of floating along in their not-child-not-adult stage.
Discussion