The two questions you need to answer in order for them to stay

Whenever someone, old or young, wants to join a group they will first determine the answer to two important questions. 

Is this group safe?
Can I make connections?

If a youth group, church or social club nails these two questions then they'll have a far greater chance of joining and yay sticking around.

This is why I stress connecting conversations with my leaders and, if pushed, would rather a group of girls over a group of all blokes.

How groups are formed and change

At the leader's weekend just passed, I took my youth group leaders through a process I was shown this week, thinking about the nature and dynamics of any group they're involved with.

To begin, each group has a script which verbally and non-verbally, outlines what they are about and why they do what they do.

For example, a church might emphasise evangelism and inclusion, while a rugby club will focus in on rugby (der!) and binge drinking.

This script will be enforced by a number of Socialising Agents.

For example, this might include the coach and captain of a sports team, the minister, treasurer and church council/deacons within a church and the youth minister/leadership team at a youth group.

Now, as anyone who's thought about the dynamics of a group will be aware, Socializing Agents extend beyond those who have a corner office or are on the payroll. Often, there will be those who wield power and influence, usually deferred by years of inclusion or wisdom. For example, the "legends" of the golf club or the "gatekeepers" of the church, those who've been around forever and are the first people you contact if you need information or "really" want something to happen.

Then, if someone decides they want to join the group, they'll need to chance their behaviors and adjust some beliefs in order to fit into the agreed script of the group.

For example, if you join a netball team, you'll need to listen to the coach and attend training and matches. If you're leading a youth group, there should be explained expectations you need to meet such as showing a genuine interest in the life of the teens.

Within each group, according to how the script is followed, there will then be rewards and punishments, usually boiling down to inclusions and exclusions.

For example, the alpha-female of a friendship group may invite someone to a party or "accidently" forget to tell someone about it due to their "obedience" to the script. Elsewhere, the footy coach might deny a player a starting position due to their lackluster training or promote a player ahead of another due to their mid-week efforts.

In turn, participants within the group will accommodate or imitate the outcomes of a groups script in order to be a fully included member.

Over time, a teen will either learn to get involved in (or at least tolerate!) bible discussions and times of prayer, or else they'll decide they don't belong. 

If one does decide to plug into a group, an individual can then start to shape the wider group, having deserved the right to contribute.

Finally, these assimilated members will advance and enforce the script of the group, molding it if needed, even transitioning into fresh Socialising Agents themselves.

This explanation of how groups develop, people are integrated and evolve, is the best way I've heard for the reasons the youth/young adult drop out points emerge.

I am a toddler minister

A long time ago I made the claim of GOD WIFE FAMILY CHURCH.

No matter what vocation I have, within or outside the church, there's one real ministry I have.

So, right now, I'm not primarily a minister to school-aged kids, teens or young adults.

I'm, first and foremost, a toddler minister.

How to REALLY advocate

One of the commonly spouted opportunities for a youth worker is to be an advocate for the young people of the church.

In some respects, this is correct. We do speak on behalf of those who are younger and have no-to-little representation in the decision making processes of the church.

But, while at a youth ministry conference yesterday, I heard a much better definition of advocacy.

It isn't that you speak FOR someone.

Instead, the role of an advocate is to simply AMPLIFY their voice, not implant your voice over theirs.

Two questions to constantly ask God

Over the last few weeks I've taken a number of groups through the F.U.L.L.T.I.L.T. prayer model.

Each time, when I've hit the LISTEN section, I've shared two questions which I think we need to bring constantly before God, listening for a response.

Who am I?

What do you want me to change?

Given enough time, alert to the prompting of God through the Holy Spirit, bible and other people, our lives and spiritual journeys would be transformed if we just kept bring these two queries before Our Maker.

The risk once you open your mouth

If you're going to troll me, this is the post to do it.

Whenever you raise your voice, you open yourself to push-back. Constructive or not.

Whenever you raise your head online and share something, you open yourself to getting whacked by the Internet. Some people will call you out... Warranted or not.

From your first Tweet...
Whenever you share something on Facebook...
When you hit publish on a blog post...
If you ever teach a scripture class, do a youth group talk, lead a church service or deliver a sermon...

You increase your exposure to feeling the reactions of others.

BUT, you also open yourself up to interaction with other people's quality opinions and ideas.

That is the reward that comes with the risk.

We all have bias

I'm a male, straight, husband, father, Australian, closer to Arminian-than-Calvinist Christian, youth minister.
I have a history, and people, behind me and a whole bunch of experiences which have shaped who I am.

These, and a thousand other things, create bias in my life.

They affect what I write on this blog.
And how I lead church services.
And what I say in scripture classes.
And how I give sermons or youth group talks.
And, hopefully, choices I make.

We all have bias.
Every. One. Of. Us.

And that's okay.
Unavoidable even.

Every author.
Every speaker.
Every teacher.
Every minister.

Everyone.

Every theology book, if written by a person (and most books are), will contain some bias.
Every sermon, if delivered by a person (and most are), will contain bias.
Every news report, newspaper column, blog post, or magazine article, if influenced by a person (and most are), will contain bias.
Every account of history, if seen through the eyes of a person (and most are), will contain bias.

Very, very, few people decide to write or speak on something unless they've already formed some sort of opinion previously or have some foundational beliefs/values to launch from.

We need to be aware of this bias.
We need to consider this bias.
Both ours and others.
Most importantly, where appropriate, we should disclose this bias.

Because I am a male, straight, husband, father, Australian, closer to Arminian-than-Calvinist Christian, youth minister.
I have a history, and people, behind me and a whole bunch of experiences which have shaped who I am.

Bumper Leaders

I previously wrote about Bumper People in the context of gently integrating young people into the decision making structures of a church or denomination.

But, there's another place where bumper people are required.

Youth group.

The reason?

Teens (and young adults for that matter!) can have difficulty flirting.

In fact, especially for guys, teenage flirting can quickly stomp into creepy-town.

So, when it's noticed that a guy (or group of guys) has their eye on a particular lass, it's a good idea to flag a couple of bumper leaders.

A leader, of either gender, who can keep an eye on and ear out for anything too awkward or inappropriate.

The advantage of employing both male and female bumper leaders is that either teen, flirtee or flirter, can be distracted/misdirected and it not be too obvious what's going on.

As powerful as the female attraction can be, the worst result would be for it to backfire because a wannabe Lothario hasn't nailed down his flirting technique and engages all the pick-up advice his gathered from the Internet.

Last one through the door is the scribe

I love what I read here about meetings and is a brilliant extension of a costly no-show.

I short, not only is being absent made expensive, but you delegate a non-desired duty (such as taking minutes) to the poor sole who is last into the meeting.

Sure, it might kill continuity with your minute taking (which, really, how hard is it?), but it'll make sure people are punctual to your meetings...

Hawk Leaders

When I wrote about Chat Leaders here I mentioned that I produce a run sheet for every week of the children's and youth activities we run at my church.

Last week, I added a new type of leader.

The HAWK LEADER.

No, they don't glide around on updrafts, looking for small marsupials to pounce upon and take back to their nest.

Instead, they are a few designated leaders (particularly the younger, in-training, ones) who will be strategically placed within the kids during the input time.

Within the kids, they assist in controlling an "more enthusiastic" kids, chat to kids if any sharing questions are used, be an example to the youngsters, supporting the person "up front" and, hopefully, observe enough talks over time that they won't be completely freaked out when their asked to give one.

Three reasons we shouldn't just stick to the Gospels

The lectionary, on the whole, is a fairly good thing.

Over a three-year cycle, a congregation systematically hears (if all assigned readings are read) large chunks of the Old Testament narrative, all the Psalms, the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

Ideally, this should give you a balanced view of the Scriptures.

But... I wonder.

How many churches, who follow the lectionary, primarily stick with the gospel passage? I suggest it is the VAST majority.

And this can be a problem.

First, incidentally, it creates a mysterious aurora around the rest of the bible. Especially if they are read but not referred to, they're nothing more than just snippets of an out-of-context story.

Second, by avoiding the non-Gospel readings, we send the message that the rest of the bible is of lesser importance.

Finally, we miss a valuable opportunity to teach the congregation how the ENTIRE bible fits together, displaying the unraveling Salvation Story, climaxing with Jesus. We shouldn't rob the church a chance to see how any section of the bible was used by God.

I suspect, if a church undertook a two-year audit of all the scripture passages read and sermon topics used (like I just did), they would be surprised at the unbalanced biblical diet they've been serving up to their congregation (and probably need to check out my post on selecting a sermon series).

Channelling someone else

I just finished setting up church for the evening service, having a fairly good idea for an introduction to Pentecost.

But I’ll freely admit, I’m not very creative.

In order to think up the idea, I wondered what someone I used to work with would do and channelled their creativity.

Sometimes, in areas you’re struggling for inspiration, be it a bible study, sermon, game or production idea, the secret can lie in viewing the situation through the eyes of someone who would excel in that scenario. A worst, you’ll get a different perspective. At best, you’ll strike a golden idea (even if it’s just one you remember that person having done in the past).

Modern Gnosticism and the importance of Church History

An important element in understanding much of the New Testament is getting your head around the issues which occurred within the early church. One such issue was, and would be for the first four centuries, Gnosticism.

Three books which have Gnosticism firmly in their background are the Epistles of John (which my youth group are currently looking at).

Last Friday I made the point that this seemingly obscure idea of Gnosticism matters because Gnostic thought, even un-named, is still alive and well today.

Gnosticism periodically pops up whenever one of the Gnostic gospels is mentioned in the media, "unlocking" a "secret truth" about Jesus or the early church.

Further, Gnosticism appears in popular films like The Matrix and The Da Vinci Code. Again, these rotate around a person or persons who posses a "hidden" or "secret" knowledge about the nature of reality or institutions. The point of the films are to follow the lead character in discovering the "real truth."

Finally, and most insidiously, the Gnostic belief of separating-physical-and-spiritual is in full force when it comes to the modern separation of body and spirit in regards to sex. Friends with benefits and one night stands thrive within this Gnostic teaching.

This is why church history and the foundational creeds matter.

The same issues which hounded the church in the past are still kicking today.

If we know how the Church Fathers dealt with problems surrounding Gnosticism, the Incarnation and deity of Christ, the Trinity, grace and the nature of Salvation then addressing these issues would be much easier...

Not a young man anymore

Last week it was my hamstrings...
Now it's my left ankle.

I'm currently in that very awkward phase of youth ministry where I'm in my early thirties.

I'm not young enough to be able to keep pace with an athletic teenage boy.

But I'm also, even delusionary, not old enough to decline whenever they throw down the gauntlet for a "race to be the first one back."

So I'm living in the midst of a battle between body and spirit.

And, as every day passes, the body reminds me that although the spirit might be willing, the flesh is getting weaker...

The female attraction

My parent's have never gone to church. Instead, my wanderings into a youth group started by following a girl (it's the start of my "boring" conversion story).

But that fact does have something to do with my following preference.

I would (inserting sweeping generalisations here) rather have a group of all teenage girls then guys.

The reason is fairly simple. Females attract blokes. Guys, generally, deter girls.

Given enough time, a gaggle of ladies will draw in teenage guys, especially if there's a rogue male who's attached to the group. Even if that guy isn't Casanova, then his mates will discover that he's connected to a bunch of the opposite gender and want in.

And whilst I enjoy playing rougher games with guys (one of my favourite afternoons ever comprised hours of two teams whacking a soft ball at each other with rolled-up newspaper), the type of activities which appeal to blokes will not keep females. Especially if she/they are outnumbered.

The best evangelistic strategy any youth group has is a welcoming community of young people whom share an active faith. No doubt.

But a healthy group of teenage girls is a close second.

When you MUST NOT write your own stuff

Earlier this month I wrote here that I write almost all my own curriculum.

Somewhere last week, now trapped in the Internet, I read an article stating the case for using packaged small group studies.

Whilst it made the predicable arguments about time management and critically tested material, I think there's a healthy middle ground.

There's a time when someone in ministry MUST use purchased/external resources.

Abuse.
Suicide.
Depression.
Cutting.
Eating Disorders.

No matter how long you've been in ministry, when it comes to the above topics, you are not the expert.

Unless you've done extensive research and worked as a counselor, hands on, then you are not an expert.

When it comes to professionally treated issues, no matter how well I know my kids, I'm not an expert and it is responsible for me to refer them onto others (thus the resource folder in my office).

If When we talk to our youth about troubling issues, then we MUST be humble enough to bow to the wisdom and expertise of others.

Why I won't flash the Greek

I'm currently learning biblical Greek for the second last subject of my Theology degree and I can assure you that there's one thing I won't be doing regularly.

Quoting Greek when I preach.

The reasons?

Primarily, flashing the Greek is often a veiled way to display the training the preacher has or the amount of preparation they've put in. Either way, it doesn't usually add to the sermon.

I say usually, because undoubtedly, sometimes it will make a difference. This just isn't as often as some ministers seem to mention it from the pulpit.

If anything, when I hear someone pontificating about the "original Greek" I tend to think of them as a wanker, not a scholar.

Second, and more importantly, I think a routine flash of Greek can sow more harm than good.

If the "professional" Christian must use subsequent texts or need a far higher level of training to decipher the message of the bible, then what message does that send to the congregation?
Will it breed assurance or uncertainty?
Will they trust in what they feel, a basic on-the-surface-level interpretation/application, is ACTUALLY the intended meaning or just another "misinterpretation" from the translators or "hidden nuance" of the language?

Finally, and more sceptically, if no one in the congregation is capable of reading or understanding Greek, then it provides no way for anyone to verify that what they're being told is accurate.

It would be reckless for me, having done a whole 12 WEEKS of Greek under my belt, to start quoting "original texts" when I could be, unknowingly, be leading others down a fruitless rabbit-trail.

If you're a Greek nerd, who can communicate APPLICABLE parts of the original language relevantly, then go ahead... Flash your Greek. But, for some ministers, they flash way more than what's needed.

Reasons to write your own stuff

There's A LOT of quality small group material out there in Internet land (Google just churned out 9.25 million results). I have brought some in the past and used it quite effectively.

At times, during a stressful season or time when you're on an extended leave, it makes more sense to use pre-produced material.

But, as timetabled here, I just finished writing the small group question for youth group this coming Friday.

And this raises a question eternally bantered about the youth ministry blogosphere by minds much wiser than mine.

Should you write your own small group/discussion questions/bible study material or curriculum?

On this point I'm not a zealot.
I usually produce my own, but haven't always.

The reason I tend to write our small group discussion questions has to do with the one who is speaking to the teens in my youth group.

Me.

I know, at least somewhat, what will be most effective thing for my teens to hear.
I know, by midweek, what I'm going to be saying on a Friday night.

Thus, I know exactly what direction the questions can flow OUT of the talk, not be hemmed in and need to cater a talk to fit INTO the discussion questions.

This just seems to make more sense.

And really, when you do it this way...

a) You can churn out a few weeks or a whole series of questions in a day (this is one of the reasons school holidays exist!),
so b) It doesn't take much monger than becoming familiar with the new material anyway.

Sing it ONLY if you mean it

You won't agree thoroughly with every word in every sermon.
You also, most likely, won't agree thoroughly with every syllable in a worship song.

Most times, if you're like me, you'll just let it slide.

But sometimes you can't.
And you shouldn't.

If you truly don't agree with the theology behind the lyrics of a song (this means they make you more than just a "little uncomfortable" and that you've seriously considered the topic) then you have every right to not sing that part of the song.

Further, this also applies to any words you don't understand and anything in a foreign language which you don't comprehend. Again, it's perfectly acceptable to remain silent when this occurs in church.

This has three immediate consequences.

First, we shouldn't be shocked when new people, especially those from outside the faith, don't sing (or do so hesitantly). We need to give them space to process the words and concepts before they embrace and participate with them in song.

Second, it then marks a step forward when someone DOES choose to sing for the first time.

And third, it raises the volume on what your church is saying through the songs it decides to sing. If people are passive during a song then it might indicate that the lyrics are off base or that the congregation needs to be taught in this area by the worship leader or preacher.

No one should do it all

This blog post might just cost me my current job.

If you take a close look at the weekly timetable from my last post you'll notice that I work with both children and teenagers. At times, I've taught both ages scripture classes and minister to both on a Friday and Sunday.

If I could wave my church-transforming-magic-wand then very few people would have a ministry position like mine.

Now, I must say, I enjoy my job highly and I do it fairly competently. Sometimes really well. Sometimes really... just okay.

I don't have my job because I'm one of the rare breed who can do it all.

AND, I'm aware that what I'm about to propose isn't a financial reality in many churches...

But, ideally, no one person should be in charge of the children's and youth ministry at a church.

Why?

In part it has to do with logistics and physics. You can't be in two places at once. Presently, I can't be involved in lunchtime groups at both a high school and a primary school at the same time. If nothing else, two separate people allow for greater opportunities to be involved and expansion to what is already happening.

Additionally, my focus, thoughts and time are divided between our children's and youth activities. This is especially true, if you're like many Australian churches, and your younger group precedes the older kids on a Friday afternoon/night. Neither group will have the absolute best of the "head" leader as they will either be drained from the kid's ministry, or have one eye upon the upcoming activity.

Furthermore, both ages present quite different needs and require alternate skills. It's unusual that you'll find someone who will be able to effectively cater to those aged 8-20.

A little known secret is that many in children's/youth ministry have a preference. One will be easier than the other. Ideas will flow quicker towards one demographic. Their God-given makeup will draw them naturally towards one.

Finally, for diversity, in an ideal world, these two people would be quite different people with opposite genders, thus exposing the young people to a wider style of leader and, critically, a female in leadership (for the reasons I outlined here and here).