There's been two growing strains within the North American Church within the last couple of years regarding service trips. If you've ever been on one, then you've undoubtedly come into contact with this debate in an implicit or explicit way. The reality of this situation is that we have litereally thousands of churches in the US who are sending kids and adults away on service trips around the corner and around the world to do service for people around them.
There are a lot of people who are very quick to jump up and say "Amen" at this proposition. Most of these are the "nodders" from the congregation who think sending as many of our own congregants to do service projects is the definition of what Jesus commands us to do. Another group who has a similar reaction to service trips are those who have gone on a trip that they really enjoyed because they liked what they did, liked the people they went with and liked how they felt about themselves when they came back.
Modern liberal Christian thought has told us this is wrong. In many ways, they've hit a good nerve. Many churches and schools spend literally thousands of dollars per person to send laity overseas for a week at a time. They come back with the impression that they've changed the world, ebbed closer to their salvation and gained the right to tell every person within five feet of them about every aspect of the trip. The reality, as the pundits point out, is that often times these people do little to no good, sometimes even hurting the ministry that they go to help because of something an immature Christian says, displaying an inconsistent lifestyle and simply acting on general bias with an imperialistic notion. Hey! We're the cocky Americans here to help you because you're mostly worthless, on our own terms. People generally get indignant or repentant when shown the errors of their ways here. Okay, we're the bad guys, we get it.
Lets consider the other side of this for just a minute. On the one hand, yes, ministry would be FAR more effective if we took all the money we spent on our own lavish service/vacation projects as North Americans and gave it to indigenous missionaries/aid workers who are culturally sensitive and work for lasting change without bigot abrasiveness we often bring. However, if you think that indigenous missionaries would automatically get the same amount of cash as teenagers doing a carwash to go themselves, you're wrong. People give for various reasons. Among them are good things like a heart for missions, a care for others and a servant spirit, but also among them are things like reactions to a real and present service team, emotional first-person reports afterwards, and a general guilt about not helping out the service trip as much as everyone else in the pew around you.
But, there are also ministry opportunities where outsiders can do the work more effectively and more efficiently than the local staff. Take the current situation in the Gulf Coast region. There are many, many opportunities for work, and nearly no one who is willing to put their hands to work. Those who are there are overwhelmed, untrained, and hopeless about their situation. The cost of labor for bringing in a contractor paid for by a church in Kansas IS less effective than bringing in a team that can and will do the work of drywalling, stilt-setting, roofing and painting (granted, this does not refer to the inevitable tendency of high schoolers to paint eachother during service trips...ugh). The fact is that you can put a team down there, including travel costs, for cheaper than the cost of bringing in a contractor, plumber, painter, roofer, drywaller, etc.
This is a basic economics concept known as opportunity cost. It refers to what one has to give up in order to accomplish a goal. This could be money, but it could also refer to time and other resources.
A month ago at a fundraiser, a random homeless guy showed up at our church who had been hitchhiking around the country and read about our fundraiser in the paper. He came just to encourage in what we were doing because "kids need to see what is out there". I can stomache that. What's harder for me to stomache is everyone who says that we need to give people a "heart for missions", which means that we turn them in to mission trip addicts, often ones that need to get bigger and better every year to feed this "heart". What would the church's mission program concept look like if we considered the opportunity cost of what we do before going in on a trip rather than going "because it sounds fun" or "because we can help other people (as if they're the main beneficiaries of our trips". And when we realize that cost, are we willing to be efficient, responsible servants in our mission trip planning?
Showing posts with label Church Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Economics. Show all posts
Monday, March 05, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Youth Ministry to the Detriment of the Church
There's something that they don't often teach you in Youth Ministry in college, and something most youth ministry people don't like to think about. Its the dark side of youth ministry which often causes more problems than good. Statistically speaking, youth ministry is one of the most unsuccessful ventures the Church has ever embarked on, and yet it has caused nearly the same amount of turmoil where absent as Contemporary Christian Music has. Half my income comes from youth ministry, so I'm not about to advocate the removal of it from churches across the country, but I think that we would be wise to consider the ramifications of this beast we've created.
The thought started in the late 80's and early 90's that high school students needed their own staff member at churches. It would be helpful, at this point, to notice that this movement came from an internal outcry of young people, which was not alone, but simply louder than that of other age groups. For instance, there were hardly any churches at this point with paid Worship Pastors, Congregational Life Pastors, Evangelism Pastors, Children's Pastors, etc. We should immediately recognize what effect a staff member with a targeted age group has on a church. The positive is that the group is usually blest by this person and therefore enjoys the addition. In the case of youth pastors, parents were also pleased because their kids were receiving a greater deal of attention while paranoia ran rampant that our kids were being marched off by a secular pied piper wholesale. What was lying in the background of these hirings, however, were the host of people who had little or nothing to gain from a teenager-focused staff member. Children, young couples, middle-aged adults, older adults, and sometimes even parents were told that they were less important in the church's eyes, not by a word off the pulpit, but by the church's checkbook. This was evident not only in the hiring of youth pastors, but in the program funding that would inevitably blossom.
This is not to say that hiring youth pastors often makes a church angry. Many of the people in the congregation get a martyr-like attitude with respect to youth. One of the classic lines I hear over and over again in churches is: "We need to lay aside our preferences because they are the Church of tomorrow!" I suppose there is some noble truth to that statement, but suddnely you have entire generations of passive Christians that believe their non-involvement and the lack of ministry to their age group has a direct correlation to super-fueled ministry to teens.
In fact, passivitiy is one of the harshest drawbacks to the hiring of any staff members at any position. Teachers feel teaching is covered, singers feel worship is covered, youth leaders feel youth ministry is covered, but the passivity of the "sacrificial lambs" in the congregation is perhaps the greatest loss. While we often complain about those who only want things their way, we often also lose those who don't feel hip or with it and are just fine with clamming up. All of this is often a direct result of any pastor who is a "do-er" and not an "enabler".
The other thing that we as youth ministers often like to forget is the simple fact that youth ministry is very rarely effective. Ouch! Of course, my more careful colleagues will be quick to point out to me that "effective" is not a good word to use in ministry. After all, ministry should not be results-driven, but might simply be God planting seeds in the hearts of kids. Given, but those who take a quick inventory of kids they graduated five years ago from their programs are often very, very humbled by the fact that many of those have wandered to other churches or often from the faith completely. If our goal as youth pastors is to keep our kids in the pews from cradle to grave, then most of us would admit that we are failing greatly.
One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that youth ministry has been a narrow-scoped concept from the very beginning. The Church as a whole was losing people to the world at a near-record pace and we needed to do something. The most logical something was to stop the obvious bleeding - our teenagers who were uninterested in church and rebelling because, well, they're teenagers. What youth ministry has accomplished in that respect is a delayed exodus, with the Church now maintaining huge numbers of high school students, but losing huge percentages in the first couple years following graduation. Those who even dare attempt college-aged ministries are frustrated by kids that are uninterested in developing their faith past the music-festival experiences of their local youth group.
Another reason that the scope should be considered narrow is that science does not support our most common conviction: that high school is the most formative time in a person's life with regard to faith commitment. Psychology and research clearly indicate that the most formative time for faith development and commitment, for whatever reason, is much earlier. To this end, ministry focuses have continued to get younger-reaching. Many churches have developed Jr. High ministries, and many churches have hired Children's pastors. Research indicates that the largest percentage of people make a faith commitment in the 4th-6th grade range and the percentage gets exponentially less each year after that. We missed the target.
Churches that do have successful educational programs outside of Sunday morning worship are churches that do not gap their ministries. While this is true for the developmental ages we've just talked about, it is just as true for adult ministries which are often lacking or non-existent in many churches. Some black eyes that many churches don't want people to see: junior high ministry, post-high/college-aged ministry, singles ministry, new believers ministry. All of us should do a self-inspection to see that our overall ministries do not suffer because of one ministry. A wise speaker I once heard commented that the devil can use church programming by setting one program against another or creating an idolatry in one program or another. For instance, if hiring a full-time youth pastor means cutting three other ministries, perhaps the motivation is poorly founded. This is true not only in your local church, but in denominational programming, funding and ciriculum development, as well as other tell-tale signs. We in youth ministry need a slice of humble pie, sometimes, as we drain our congregations of volunteer hours and resources that could be used for other purposes. How can we promote holism in our churches which promotes the good of the community for the benefit of everyone?
The thought started in the late 80's and early 90's that high school students needed their own staff member at churches. It would be helpful, at this point, to notice that this movement came from an internal outcry of young people, which was not alone, but simply louder than that of other age groups. For instance, there were hardly any churches at this point with paid Worship Pastors, Congregational Life Pastors, Evangelism Pastors, Children's Pastors, etc. We should immediately recognize what effect a staff member with a targeted age group has on a church. The positive is that the group is usually blest by this person and therefore enjoys the addition. In the case of youth pastors, parents were also pleased because their kids were receiving a greater deal of attention while paranoia ran rampant that our kids were being marched off by a secular pied piper wholesale. What was lying in the background of these hirings, however, were the host of people who had little or nothing to gain from a teenager-focused staff member. Children, young couples, middle-aged adults, older adults, and sometimes even parents were told that they were less important in the church's eyes, not by a word off the pulpit, but by the church's checkbook. This was evident not only in the hiring of youth pastors, but in the program funding that would inevitably blossom.
This is not to say that hiring youth pastors often makes a church angry. Many of the people in the congregation get a martyr-like attitude with respect to youth. One of the classic lines I hear over and over again in churches is: "We need to lay aside our preferences because they are the Church of tomorrow!" I suppose there is some noble truth to that statement, but suddnely you have entire generations of passive Christians that believe their non-involvement and the lack of ministry to their age group has a direct correlation to super-fueled ministry to teens.
In fact, passivitiy is one of the harshest drawbacks to the hiring of any staff members at any position. Teachers feel teaching is covered, singers feel worship is covered, youth leaders feel youth ministry is covered, but the passivity of the "sacrificial lambs" in the congregation is perhaps the greatest loss. While we often complain about those who only want things their way, we often also lose those who don't feel hip or with it and are just fine with clamming up. All of this is often a direct result of any pastor who is a "do-er" and not an "enabler".
The other thing that we as youth ministers often like to forget is the simple fact that youth ministry is very rarely effective. Ouch! Of course, my more careful colleagues will be quick to point out to me that "effective" is not a good word to use in ministry. After all, ministry should not be results-driven, but might simply be God planting seeds in the hearts of kids. Given, but those who take a quick inventory of kids they graduated five years ago from their programs are often very, very humbled by the fact that many of those have wandered to other churches or often from the faith completely. If our goal as youth pastors is to keep our kids in the pews from cradle to grave, then most of us would admit that we are failing greatly.
One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that youth ministry has been a narrow-scoped concept from the very beginning. The Church as a whole was losing people to the world at a near-record pace and we needed to do something. The most logical something was to stop the obvious bleeding - our teenagers who were uninterested in church and rebelling because, well, they're teenagers. What youth ministry has accomplished in that respect is a delayed exodus, with the Church now maintaining huge numbers of high school students, but losing huge percentages in the first couple years following graduation. Those who even dare attempt college-aged ministries are frustrated by kids that are uninterested in developing their faith past the music-festival experiences of their local youth group.
Another reason that the scope should be considered narrow is that science does not support our most common conviction: that high school is the most formative time in a person's life with regard to faith commitment. Psychology and research clearly indicate that the most formative time for faith development and commitment, for whatever reason, is much earlier. To this end, ministry focuses have continued to get younger-reaching. Many churches have developed Jr. High ministries, and many churches have hired Children's pastors. Research indicates that the largest percentage of people make a faith commitment in the 4th-6th grade range and the percentage gets exponentially less each year after that. We missed the target.
Churches that do have successful educational programs outside of Sunday morning worship are churches that do not gap their ministries. While this is true for the developmental ages we've just talked about, it is just as true for adult ministries which are often lacking or non-existent in many churches. Some black eyes that many churches don't want people to see: junior high ministry, post-high/college-aged ministry, singles ministry, new believers ministry. All of us should do a self-inspection to see that our overall ministries do not suffer because of one ministry. A wise speaker I once heard commented that the devil can use church programming by setting one program against another or creating an idolatry in one program or another. For instance, if hiring a full-time youth pastor means cutting three other ministries, perhaps the motivation is poorly founded. This is true not only in your local church, but in denominational programming, funding and ciriculum development, as well as other tell-tale signs. We in youth ministry need a slice of humble pie, sometimes, as we drain our congregations of volunteer hours and resources that could be used for other purposes. How can we promote holism in our churches which promotes the good of the community for the benefit of everyone?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
