‘Developmental Group Work with Christian Young People inevitably leads to the Formation of Unbiblical Youth Churches’
Discuss
this statement in the light of a Theology of Youth Ministry
Introduction
‘The
development of youth congregations in the UK, whether they are discrete groups
within existing churches or youth targeted church plants, continues to attract
attention, theological debate and analysis.’[1] To begin to discuss the various
elements included in the title without openly interacting and engaging with the
different arguments presented, would be naive. My experience of Christian young
people integrating well into the main church led to the conclusion that youth
churches were unnecessarily exclusive and therefore unbiblical. However, as a reflective practitioner,
I acknowledge the presuppositions and basic assumptions that are built upon my
previous experience and awareness.
In order to gain a more extensive understanding of the apparent need for
youth churches I interviewed leaders and members of several youth churches, as
well as reading the different views held by various practitioners.
Group Work
Leslie Button
identifies that ‘to be human is synonymous with being in communication and in
relationship with other people, which demands of us a range of social skills’.[2] Group work provides opportunities for
individuals to develop their social skills, their personal resources, and in
their relationships they establish with other people.[3] A group can simply be defined as
a number of people that have a common position, interest or purpose. A young person will belong to many
different groups during their adolescence, including classes, friendships,
family, leisure and demographic groups.
Golembiewski identifies three main categories that form the dynamics of
a group: the structure, characteristics of individuals and the process that a
group develops in order to operate.[4] No two groups have the same
dynamics. This has been evident in
the youth work I have been involved with.
Although the location has remained the same throughout, the aim of the
group, and the process employed to achieve it has altered as the individual
members of the groups change. In
essence, what worked well one year, didn’t necessarily work for another. At present, the dynamics of Impact[5]
has changed significantly due to the loss of several members to university, to
the extent it may be more effective to dismiss the group totally and create a
new one, with fresh aims, and a new dynamic.
All new
groups go through several stages as they develop. ‘These are recognisable markers which loom up and pass by as
the group becomes one which means something to the members and which
accomplishes the task for which is it convened.’[6] There are many different theories
regarding group development, but most theories fall into two categories: sequential
stage theories and recurring phase theories.[7] Tuckman’s group development structure
is perhaps the most well known example of a sequential stage theory. In contrast, Bion’s theory suggests
that a cyclic pattern exists as a group works at achieving the task. Both these
theories help when scrutinising the behaviours within, and effectiveness of a
group.
Tuckman’s
linear developmental stages are: forming, storming, norming, performing and
adjourning. Tuckman’s theory
allows a group to work through a process beginning at the formation of a group
(forming), working through difficulties and power struggles (storming and
norming) to the completion of the task (performing). Tuckman’s later addition of the fifth stage, adjourning,
allows a group to acknowledge its completed task and dismiss. The application of this model allows
the closure of Impact without a sense of failure. The group achieved its task, and there is no longer any need
for that same group to exist. The existing
members can reform, with a different task and a new group can take place.
Bion’s
cyclic theory has given valuable insight regarding the behaviour identified at
Take Off.[8]
The dynamics and behaviour of this group change regularly, and viewing this as
a cycle helps the leadership of the group focus positively on the group’s
purpose. Bion suggests each group
continually works through three main stages: dependency, where the group
behaves totally on the leadership; pairing, when two members are drawn together
to change the leadership of the group; and finally, flight and/or fight, as it
is recognised that in order for the group to continue its task, the fight for
leadership must continue, or flight from the group becomes necessary. Take Off seems to go through this cycle
regularly and has seen several individuals leave as they give up the fight for
group control. Four weeks ago saw
the return of Jack and Simon, two members that left when they realised their
attempts of influencing the rest of the group were not effective. The group seemed far more settled
without them, so their return stirred mixed emotions. However, since their return they have worked with the leadership and the group instead
of against it. As Bion’s theory would suggest, the
repeated pairing of members is to be expected, although the nature of the
‘fight’ will probably be different each time.
The growing
population of youth churches forces the practitioner of Christian youth work to
look at the concept of group work made popular by McGraven: The Homogenous Unit
Principle (HUP). ‘This principle
asserts that: ‘People like to become Christians without crossing racial /
linguistic / class / cultural barriers.’
In other words, they prefer to remain who they are culturally while
changing to being a Christian.’[9] Those in agreement with the HUP
asserted that not only would congregations grow more readily within such
distinctions, but the ‘distinctions themselves were commensurate with the
providence and purpose of God for the Church.’[10] If adopting this principle makes it
easier for young people to become Christians, why is there so much controversy
surrounding it? The main criticism
focuses on exclusivity within homogenous groups. Ashton and Moon argue that the existence of generational
barriers within a church does not embrace the unity of Galatians 3:28.[11] However, whilst this verse speaks of
the unifying power of Jesus’ death for salvation, it does not explicitly state
that the divisions will no longer be in existence practically. The various arguments surrounding the
different theological views of the HUP will be debated in more detail
later.
It is a
recognised sociological fact that people form groups with their own kind, and
this is especially evident in youth work.
Not only does the group share age as a common factor, but the subgroups
often formed within generation groups suggest other similarities including
tastes in music, leisure, and fashion.
Within Take Off there are several obvious groups, which tend to stick
together, although they are beginning to stretch their boundaries into other
subgroups at times. The main
groups within the larger group are: sports group, new people, school group, and the churchgoers.
It remains a challenge to the youth team to create respect amongst the
groups and encourage interaction between them. Insofar as reaching the youth group as a whole with the
gospel, the HUP would suggest interacting with each group separately and
sharing the gospel in group appropriate ways would achieve a higher level of
effectiveness. Whilst the overall purpose
of Take Off is to introduce Jesus to every member, one of the tools used for
this is within the context of relationship building. To break Take Off into subgroups regularly would accentuate
the barriers already in place instead of working towards unity.
Congregation or Church?
‘Recent discussions in Britain have
suggested that the unique needs of young people require an expanded sense of
what we mean by ‘the church’ if we are to take the evangelisation of youth
seriously.’[12]
Grudem identifies three main purposes of a church: ‘ministry to God, ministry
to believers, and ministry to the world.’[13] Using these purposes to define various
youth formations, there are two main youth structures that could be understood
as ‘church’: youth congregation and youth church. The main distinction between these two formations is that a
youth congregation is attached to a parent church, whereas a youth church is
primarily independent. Whilst
youth congregations may meet and worship generationally, they receive support
from, and integrate into the parent church at other times. This could be in a morning service
where all generations worship together, or in cell groups, or community projects. Whilst some youth may only attend the
youth congregation, inter-generational integration is encouraged. Youth churches do not generally have
this inter-generational interaction.
Their services are usually run by the young people themselves, and focus
purely on a worship and teaching style that appeals to the youth. The majority of young people attending
a youth church will view it as their home church and will not attend an inter-generational
congregation as well. It is this
youth church formation that will be debated in this paper. Youth Church A and Youth Church B both fit into this category, although their vision and structure differ.
Youth Churches – Unbiblical?
Ashton and
Moon suggest that ‘it is often those things with which we are least comfortable
with that have most to teach us, because they pave the way to new insights and
do not merely reinforce our present attitudes and opinions.’[14] As my experience of Christian youth
work has been limited to youth congregations and groups, my original thoughts
on the formation of youth churches were that they were unnecessary and
unbiblical, as instead of reflecting unity they encouraged division. I was uncomfortable with the idea of a
youth church. However, having
researched the subject, and interacted with various views, my attitudes and
opinions were challenged, and to a certain extent, changed. Although my experience of developmental
group work with Christian young people would not suggest the inevitable
formation of a youth church, the evidence would suggest that in some cases this
might be the most effective way of ‘churching’ young people.
There are
two different approaches when considering the biblical principles of youth
church: centripetal and centrifugal.
‘Centripetal efforts draw movement towards a central point … Centrifugal
strategies spin energy towards the periphery.’[15] In other words, it is ecclesiology
verses missiology.
Ecclesiological
Perspective
‘Christianity
is necessarily personal but is essentially corporate. Reconciliation with God also implies reconciliation with
others. That reconciliation needs
to be visibly expressed across racial, cultural and generational barriers.’[16]
Instead of reflecting this
reconciliation, youth churches often put generational barriers in place. This is one of the main concerns with
youth churches. How can they
demonstrate the unity we share in Christ (Galatians 3:28), when they exclude
different generations? The two
youth churches I interviewed demonstrated different principles regarding this
generational segregation. Youth Church A stated
that although it doesn’t have strict age limits, it ‘doesn’t encourage under
11’s and over 25’s.’[17] I am
uncomfortable with this approach; just as I would be if a church said we they
are not exclusively a ‘white’ congregation, but they do not encourage ‘black’
Christians to join. I find the
approach of Youth Church B far more comforting, as although they aim to be culturally
relevant to the youth, one of the leaders states
‘we do what we feel God is saying and who ever comes are most welcome.’[18] This approach accepts that the style of
service will generally be more relevant to a particular group, but happily
welcomes anyone who feels they want to be part of the church.
In the Old
Testament, the family was the primary group in which the stories of God were
told and experienced. There is theological significance in the family in the
Old Testament as the ‘family also lies at the centre of God’s covenant promises.’[19]
It must be recognised that our
experience of a Westernised nuclear family today is far from the familial units
of the Old Testament. The bet’ab (Father’s house) was the smallest
of the familial structures, but this would still contain between fifty and one
hundred members. This Old Testament familial unit, and that of the New
Testament, was the prime provider of support and sustenance.[20] The bet’ab
can be viewed paradigmatically as the local church congregation.
The local church should be where God is worshiped; teaching takes place,
and support and providence offered.
Church should be ‘family’ especially with the breakdown of many families
in this generation. An inter-generational
church can work at offering ‘subsitutionally redemptive relationships’ in a culture that
readily groups generations together.[21]
Youth churches, which are mainly mono-generational, cannot offer substitutional
relationships. If young people are
not integrating with other generations, the biblical model of familial protection,
providence, and the passing down of wisdom cannot take place. The model of
youth church embraced by Youth Church B actively encourages interactivity between
generations whilst remaining essentially a church for youth, such as joint
parish services and social action projects.[22] Whilst Youth Church A has encouraged members to
integrate with other generations at times, the evidence offered suggests the
amount this happens is insufficient to provide a structure in which meaningful
inter-generational relationships can develop.[23]
Youth work
should create opportunities for social skills to develop, which includes
learning to relate to those in other age groups. Recently the members of both youth groups at Wessex invited
their parents to a three-course meal at church. The youth planned the evening, prepared the food, worked in
teams, and they interacted with the adults they were serving. Inter-generational interaction is also
encouraged on Sunday evenings after church when the youth ‘invade’ a church
members house. Not only has this
created opportunities for youth to engage with adults within the church, it
allows adults a chance to converse with teenagers, demonstrating love, support
and an interest in their lives.
Church and youth leaders should work together at integrating youth into
the life of the church, empowering them to explore and develop their gifts,
whilst allowing space and opportunities for them to worship and learn in
culturally relevant ways. ‘I
believe this vision of a Church for and with youth is not only sustainable, it
represents a more rounded, theologically astute vision of Church.’[24]
Missiological
Perspective
The command
to ‘go into all the world’ in Matthew 28:19, suggests that as youth workers we
need to do more than sit and wait for youth to come to us. ‘Most of these adolescents simply will
not be drawn to a church congregation, even if it is a loving, caring and
inclusive family.’[25] Many young people share the view that
‘normal church’ is boring.[26] If these youth are to be presented with
the gospel, workers will need to enter the world of the young person and
demonstrate the gospel to them there. Youth churches generate an opportunity
for this to happen. However, if
this HUP ‘is elevated into a normative principle we are forced to present
convincing evidence to show that the New Testament Church was structured on
homogeneous lines. There is no
clear evidence that this was the case’.[27] Does this implication suggest that the
absence of such church structures in the Bible deems youth churches
‘unbiblical’? I don’t think
so. Whilst their structure may not
be found in the Bible, they are clearly fulfilling the missiological purpose of
church far better than many heterogeneous churches.
‘Young
people are finding it hard to relate to church, they’re finding it hard to fit
into church, they’re finding it hard to utilise church as a good fishing boat
from which to go fishing.’[28]
Leaders of youth churches work at creating youth friendly atmospheres, presenting
the gospel within their culture, and encouraging the youth to contribute to the
church in many different ways. One
young person from Youth Church B implied that they feel more involved as the service
is aimed at them.[29] This
feeling of involvement is something that sadly is not experienced by youth in
some adult focused churches. Youth
generally look to ‘belong’ before they ‘believe’, and youth churches provide a
good framework for this to happen.[30] By creating a sense of belonging, youth
that attend youth churches are not only more likely to stay, but they are more
inclined to invite their friends. However,
youth leaders must be careful that in an attempt to make youth feel comfortable
and welcome, they do not concentrate too much on one aspect of the gospel and
avoid others. Ecclesiastes 10:9
says; ‘Be happy, young man, while you are
young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the
ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these
things God will bring you to judgment.’ Recently I challenged our youth
team (and myself) with this verse, as I felt that in order to remain relevant,
and ‘in there’ with some of the youth, we were encouraging them to have fun,
but we were avoiding the second part of this verse and turning a blind eye to
certain behaviour that should be challenged. Youth churches require spiritually mature leaders in order to
keep a good balance between being culturally relevant and scripturally
discerning.
Conclusion
Developmental
group work with Christian young people does not, in my experience, lead to the
formation of a youth church.
However, I am aware that the support, encouragement and integration that
the young people in my group experience as members of the main church, is not
the same as the alienation many youth encounter in other churches. If young people are not given
opportunities to develop socially, emotionally, and spiritually within their
local church, youth leaders may start to consider alternative frameworks. Youth Church A and Youth Church B were both set up to
see young people develop in their awareness of, and relationship to, God. Although youth churches do not offer many
of the benefits of an inter-generational church, they do allow young people to
experience God in an atmosphere they are comfortable in and feel part of. The two youth churches I researched
suggest that even within the youth church structure there is an amount of
diversity, and to label them all as
unbiblical would be unfair. Although
the homogeneous structure of youth churches may serve the missionary purpose of
the church effectively, to fulfil its ecclesiastical function
inter-generational integration must take place. Churches benefit from the enthusiasm, creativity and
openness to change that youth embrace, and the leadership and congregation should
work hard at providing them with a sense of belonging and worth.
Would love to hear your thoughts - comment box below Endnotes!
Would love to hear your thoughts - comment box below Endnotes!
[1] Graham Cray, ‘Youth
Congregations – The Best Biblical Bridge?’ YouthWork,
12.
[2] Leslie Button, Developmental Group Work with Adolescents,
London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1974, 1.
[3] Leslie Button, Developmental Group Work with Adolescents, 1.
[4] Golembiewski, ‘The Small
Group’ quoted in Brenda Vernelle, Understanding
and Using Groups, London: Whiting and Birch, 1994, 9.
[5] Impact is the 15+ age youth
group at Wessex Christian Fellowship, Basingstoke.
[6] Brenda Vernelle, Understanding and Using Groups, 28.
[7] David W. Johnson and Frank
P. Johnson, Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991, 19.
[8] Take Off is the 11 – 14 age
youth group at Wessex Christian Fellowship, Basingstoke.
[9] Graham Cray (ed.),‘Mission
shaped church’, Church House Publishing, 2004, (pdf), 108.
[10] David Hilborn and Matt
Bird, God and the Generations. Carlisle:
Paternoster, 2002, 183.
[11] David Hilborn and Matt
Bird, God and the Generations, 187.
[12] Pete Ward, ‘The Youth
Church Question’, in Kujawa, S. A. (ed.), Disorganised
Religion: The Evangelisation of Youth and Young Adults, Cambridge: Cowley
Publications, 1998, 131.
[13] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994, 867 – 868.
[14] Mark Ashton and Phil Moon, Christian Youth Work, Bletchey:
Authentic Media, 2007, 6.
[15] Mark Senter III (ed.), Four Views of Youth Ministry, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, xiii.
[16] Graham Cray, Youth Congregations and the Emerging Church,
Cambridge: Grove, 2002, 5.
[17] email to
author, 21st October 2008. Question 2.
[18] email to
author, 11th November 2008, Question 2.
[19] David Hilborn and Matt
Bird, God and the Generations, 150.
[20] David Hilborn and Matt Bird, God and the Generations, 150.
[21] Nigel Argall, ‘Talking
about Youth Church’, Youthwork, May 2004, 10.
[22] email to
author, 11th November 2008, Question 5.
[23] email to
author, 21st October 2008, Question 5.
[24] Pete Ward, ‘Taking Youth
Church Further’, Youthwork, May 2001, 55.
[25] Chap Clark, Four Views of Youth Ministry, 29.
[26] Youth Church B,
Survey Answers, Question 1.2.
[27] Eddie Gibbs, I believe in Church Growth, np: Fuller
Seminary Press, 1993, 127.
[28] Mike Pilavachi, ‘For the
Audience of 20,000’ Youthwork, Dec
1999, 23.
[29] Youth Church B,
Survey Answers, Question 3.11.
[30] Pete Greig, ‘It’s Church,
Jim’ Youthwork, Oct 1999, 21.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think? I would love to read your thoughts