Vulnerability as the starting point of community transformation

“But that might mean we have to be vulnerable”

I was at a gathering of people this week, mostly clergy, and the subject within it was about conversations, and creating opportunities to have conversations with people. The kind of thing that detached youthwork is pretty much uniquely and solely about. Ideas flung across the room, such as chatting to people who were waiting at the bus stops, or travelling on the same bus. It was recognised that people at first would think this was odd, but after a while there would be a process of acceptance, rapport, trust and then the capacity for conversations to occur. Again, its the kind of process that is visible in detached youthwork. It was suggested in the meeting that Clergy ‘just dont have the time to do this’  which is fair enough, though is only an excuse and realisation of other priorities. What was more revealing was the comment given, and said with more feeling:

‘But that might mean we have to be vulnerable’

On the positive, the statement recognised that vulnerability felt difficult. And that as a member of the clergy their role came with it many associations of power. But in a split second of a statement, the light dawned – for real conversations, to be trusted by people, and to really connect authentically in unusual spaces, meeting people in theirs, requires vulnerability.

Detached youthwork, and even to a slighly lesser extent open access youth club work that I have been involved in in the last 10 years has given me a regular experience of vulnerability, or at least giving me the possibility of vulnerability, as at times I choose not to let go, not to commit fully, protect myself. Though for others looking at it, it is risk taking, unpredictable and requires vulnerability. Yet in a different way, I have felt even more vulnerable in the last few months, one to many family related health scares and worries, which include a fair dose of fear and worry – and vulnerability – combined with the dawning reality of redundancy from my current job at DYFC, these have, if im honest, caused me to feel a different sort of vulnerability, to just a vocational vulnerability, a vulnerability of not being in control, a vulnerability of emotions, even though I am used to trying to give others power, and meeting them where theyre at, having almost no power in situations gives this a new meaning. I wonder whether at the heart of genuine mission is that same sense of lost it all vulnerability, or leaving as much of it behind to not just go, but be present in the space. What might it mean to be vulnerable?

  1. It takes vulnerability to realise that we might be wrong. Everything we know about a community, about a group of people is one form of knowledge, but it is only one perspctive. It started to blow my mind when after only a few weeks of detached youthwork, that young people were choosing to drink alcohol, it wasnt because they were bored. It was choice. ‘Bored’ was what i was told was the reason. Escaping other realities was another truth. Paulo Freire said that after he had started talking to people in a community in south America, describes it like this: “that was my second learning experience, but i still didnt know what i knew. Just like they (the community)  didnt know what they knew, I didnt know what i knew. The question for me was exclusively to understand what were their levels of knowledge and how did they know. It was a beautiful experience. I learned how to discuss with the people, i learned how to respect their knowledge, their beliefs, their fears, their hopes, their expectations. It took time, and many meetings” (We make the road by walking, Freire, Horton, 1990, p56,p67) It takes vulnerability to be truthful about the prejudgements, the preknowledge and to listen to the knowledge of someone else, to have these challenged.
  2. It takes vulnerability to give. Over the last few months I have witnessed the slow processes of collaboration taking place, small tentative steps between people of different organisations trying to work at something of bigger goodness. Each collaborative moment of conversation is vulnerable, requiring either trust or faith, and vulnerability to leave something behind. Heading out on the streets to talk to young people, leaves alot behind, but in the moments of conversation and connection there is vulnerable giving of time. A Spiritual leader who lacks basic compassion has almost no human power to change other people, because people intuitively know he or she does not represent the Divine or Big Truth” writes Richard Rohr, change that requires law “does not go deep, nor does it last” (Rohr, R,  Eager to Love; the alternative way of St Francis, 2014, p28)  It is not that people don’t associate a representation with divine truth, they just smell a rat. If it looks forced, manipulative and quick- its not likely to be deep, heartfelt and lasting. Image result for vulnerable
  3. It needs vulnerability to take risks. Because this takes us out of our comfort zones. Even on the streets, which could be always risky places, actually its possible to ‘go through the motions’ and be almost blaze about being there, the street becomes a new comfort zone. Kevin Vanhoozer uses the metaphor of theatre to describe the church (as do others) and in Faith Speaking Understanding (2014) suggests that in the great theatre of the world, the church in its mission is to break through, nay, collapse the invisible fourth wall that exists in the theatre between stage and audience, and often between church and its own view of the world outside. What this calls for is less of a prepared script for performing the Godly script – but an interactive one. (Vanhoozer, 2014, p34-35) 
  4. Vulnerability to trust in interactive conversations. Trusting in conversations as a source of education is one of the bedrocks of informal education – or youthwork ( See ‘Here be dragons 2013, or ‘Informal education, by Jeffs & Smith, 1998) , yet it might seem just a ‘waste of time’ to chat with people at a bus stop ( when there are 101 other things to be doing instead, like arguing with Ian Paul on Twitter, for example). The reason it takes vulnerability is that it breaks all the moulds, it is not a programme, a service or a pre ordained script.Image result for vulnerable It is interactive trusting, of listening and letting the conversation flow, with tangents, stories, warts and all, by letting it flow, its in the hands of the other, yet this will take time. Because people tend to expect that the vicar, or youthworker might be ‘doing conversation for a reason’ ( theres probably an event on to be invited to.. sigh) Being vulnerable in conversation is to trust it, nuture the relationship that develops from it, have faith in it and the genuine sense of humanity that might exist in it. But its vulnerable, because ‘vicar has conversations about peoples gifts’ doesnt write its own poster, neither is it social media friendly. PTL. Image result for vulnerable
  5. It takes vulnerability to invest in the ignored. It is always easy, it is part of Human nature to be liked, to seek people out who might like us, who might fit in with people we also like. Who dont upset the apple cart. So in this way, being vulnerable to connect, and actually invest in ( not just give food to) is a vulnerable step, and one that others have to be educated about in the church, worship might have to become a collective journey to a place of welcome for all – but it takes vulnerability to connect, converse and provide space to the usually ignored by church in society. Even on the streets, I know i have ‘favourites’ the young people who might be chatty, easier to talk to than others, even those I know from youth groups – far far easier than those who might give nothing except crudeness, so its not easy to be vulnerable, yet no one said vulnerability was easy. If theres relationships to build from scratch then nothing structurally sound gets built on the first assessment of the site.
  6. It takes vulnerability to provide opportunities for those perceived with needs, to enhance their gifts, use their strengths and develop what they have that’s good. Image result for vulnerableFrom community gardens, to Sharing food, to bike recycling, to forums and groups, many are examples of using and sharing gifts, strengths and being in receipt of the goodness and beauty of others, the almost least expected. But theres a vulnerability to let it happen, when usually those who have great power find it difficult to relinquish all the responsibility.
  7. It takes vulnerability to resist conformity. An interactive Theatre production might have a theme, and the sense of the director or authors intention, but how it gets there, using what props, and finding its feet along the way, as offers and gifts are accepted into the story and others are rejected – its is less of conformity and more genuinely about faith, faith as process, faith in process. The message is in the performance. Some conformity is good, conformity to the overall story of Gods redemption, Gods giving grace, yes, conformity of how this is enacted in the interactive theatre might be challenged in all vulnerability.
  8. It takes vulnerability to invest emotionally, truthfully and authentically. Yet people orientated presence is akin to Jesus heading to the well at noon. We go to where there are people who might be lost looking for conversation, and leave it at that, no strings or expectation. Just to be in the space.

As i was thinking about this theme today, I encountered this awesome article by Wendy McCaig, someone doing asset based community development from a faith perspective in Richmond, Virginia. I nearly wrote a piece entitled the same quite a few years ago, when i was sensing that people not programmes were the order of the day in youth ministry back in the 1990’s, but Wendys article below, spurred me to think further about vulnerability, and how this is core to the start of deep missional practices, also deep & real understanding of others, and a recognition of our own power. Here it is, as a reward for reading all of my article, heres a real treat:

http://wendymccaig.com/2016/07/26/presence-not-programs/?utm_content=buffer7e6d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

‘But that might mean we have to be vulnerable’ – well, yes. Its not something the disciples or apostles had to do, it was their core practice, they barely stood still enough to regard comfortability as the norm. “For he made himself vulnerable… even to…..what was it again…?’ 

 

A follow up to this post is here: http://wp.me/p2Az40-TO; and entitled ‘ does status anxiety prevent the church from being vulnerable’. This was in part after the various questions, comments and feedback this first post generated.

Advertisements

The Evangelical Youth Ministry dream may be over, but is meeting needs innovative?

Every now and again, an article or blog post gets written in the social media world of youth ministry that needs to be both applauded for its honesty and at the same time have a few questions asked of it, or look slightly below the surface. Martin Saunders recent piece on Innovation in Youth Ministry; ‘Innovation: Starting before the idea’, from Youthscape is one such piece.  Though it is not that long a piece ( and certainly not as long as some of the ones here) its worth a read, ive included it below. But when you do read it, it is worth asking the question:

  1. What is implied about Evangelical Youth Ministry that only now its thinking innovatively about young peoples needs?
  2. Does this represent a real shift of focus and innovation?
  3. Why might focussing on young peoples needs not be that innovative anyway?

So, heres a link to the piece;  https://youthscape.co.uk/research/innovation-starting-before-the-idea

And here it is in full.

“So many Christian youth initiatives have started in the same way. Anyone who’s ever been on the end of a pitch for funds will be familiar with the terminology: “God has given me this amazing idea.”

I don’t want to downplay the possibility of the Creator of the Universe handing out templates for the next great youth resource in the middle of the night; I’m sure he can and does. But for most of us, the ideas we develop for programmes and projects usually have a more earthly genesis; a moment of inspiration while we’re in the shower or out walking the dog. What we can then tend to do is retro-fit the element of divine intervention. It reminds me of a story Matt Redman once told about a young man who played him a song, which he liked. The young songwriter was delighted and told Redman that “God gave it to me”, to which he apocryphally replied: “it’s not that good.”

In the majority of cases, we’ve just had a great idea. And it probably is great. But that doesn’t mean we should just go ahead and develop it. What I’ve learned from looking at some of the most innovative companies and organisations in the world over the past few years is that they don’t develop ideas in this slightly random, scattergun way. They don’t walk into funding pitches claiming that the ghost of Steve Jobs has just visited them with a great idea; in fact they don’t start with the idea at all. 

Good innovators start before the idea.

If we really want to develop new models, programmes and projects that meet the needs of today’s young people, then we need to start with those needs. At Youthscape, we call it the “opportunities” phase of development; the practice of listening intently to the culture and context that young people find themselves in, and the issues, needs and problems they’re dealing with. More positively, we also look to see the ways in which culture is creating new avenues for communication and change among young people.

Practically speaking, looking for opportunities means keeping your ear to the ground that you’re seeking to serve. Talking to teachers is one way to do this (and one that we’ve found particularly helpful), as is meeting with parents, and having formal and informal discussions with young people about their lives – even to the extent of focus groups. Keeping up-to-date with developments in youth culture as reported by the media is also crucially important, and of course, listening to and reading the latest relevant research is vital. By keeping all of these lines of communication open, you will naturally build up a picture of the opportunities and needs in your community – which are different and distinct in every location.

Once you understand the opportunities, your ideas will suddenly be a lot more relevant. In our experience, it means that the resources and programmes we’re developing don’t just fit with our imagined or gathered perception of what young people need, but with the reality of life in 2017. It’s not rocket science, but does mean a change of method for all of us. 

And to end where we began, part of your opportunity-listening should involve asking God for wisdom and discernment. What is he already doing in your community? What might he be calling you too? If we commit ourselves to listening both to our communities and our God, then maybe he might just decide to wake us in the night with that amazing idea…

I actually quite agree with almost all of what this article says, theres very little to actually disagree with it on one hand. I have worked for two youth ministry organisations whose dreams for a project were larger than their grasp of reality for the young people, local community, and also the resources offered from the churches to commit to a piece of work ( sometimes the culture and community of the church needs its own ‘needs assessment’) . And neither has gone well. I compare this to the piece of work that was build up from decent community research of an area, with young people and lasted for 5 years. It was embedded in a reality and had the resources to adapt to new opportunities as needs of young people changed. However, thats my story, back to the article. Therefore, what Martin is recommending is that the days of the evangelical dreaming are over in regard to pie in the sky youth ministry, even if that dream is accompanied by wads of money or powerful church leaders suggesting it because a church down the road is doing the same… At this point I am in full agreement, and from personal experience, bear the scars.

So, what Martin is advocating is ears and eyes on the ground. Do your homework, gather information. He says:

If we really want to develop new models, programmes and projects that meet the needs of today’s young people, then we need to start with those needs. At Youthscape, we call it the “opportunities” phase of development; the practice of listening intently to the culture and context that young people find themselves in, and the issues, needs and problems they’re dealing with.

Anyone notice anything familiar here? Remember, this on a blog titled ‘Innovation: Starting before the Idea’ – This is the innovation. Start with discovering young peoples needs, issues and problems.

Let me share with you this:

“Raikes was influenced by the lawless behaviour and the squalid life of the children engaged in the industry of Gloucester. He testified that “the farmers and other inhabitants of the towns and villages receive more injury in their property in the Sabbath than all the week besides, this in a great measure proceeds from the lawless state of the younger class who are allowed to run wild on that day free from restraint” (Taken from ‘An introductory History of English Education since 1800’ Curtis & Boultwood, 1960)

With this is mind Raikes opened the first Sunday School in 1780.  Now, Whether Raikes was looking at the needs of young people, or the needs of the community because of the effect of young peoples behaviour, and young peoples boredom after 6 days hard labour, is probably open to question. However, what is clear is that it was because of a combination of feeling and experiencing needs in the Image result for sunday schools in victorian timeslocal community that Sunday schools originated. (seems a far cry from the sunday schools of today :-))

But that was Sunday schools… that doesnt sound like Youth work? you might say.

Well, then there’s the pioneers of Christian youth work in the 1960s, George Goetchius and Joan Tash – never heard of them?’ – well because they suggested something innovative that didnt take on. So What did they do in 1958? this is on the first page of their 1967 book:

“During the pre-project period and the first year of reconnaisance, a good deal of the field work consisted of collecting information about the young people, from where we were able to build up a series of profiles about them as individuals and in groups. Following discussion of this information amongst ourselves, with the project committee and with colleagues we developed observations from the unattached young people in our coffee stall grouping, from where we made assumptions about the nature Image result for ywca 1950's joan tash( which soon changed and adapted) and content of the service needed, the kind of programme possible and the approach and method most likely to be useful in developing these” (Working with unattached youth, problem, approach, method, Goetschius, Tash 1967)

What this piece of Pioneer Christian youth work did in 1964 became highly influential in the wording of the Albemarle Report, Lady Albermarle writes a forward in the piece, and so, what Goetschius and Tash were able to do in practice, and have the resources to write up 3 years of field work, staff reflections, processes, outcomes, trials and celebrations, was shape the direction of the Youth Service. It meant that the social needs of young people, the values in communities and the process of ‘reconnaisance’ were on the agenda. Though by 2000, the reconnaissance period had been maligned to be a luxury only detached youthworkers could really justify, and by 2015 this in itself was reduced to a 1/2 day look at a local newspaper or census report.

If you’re reading this or my page for the first time, then you might not have heard of Goetschius and Tashs project. It was part of a YWCA in a suburb of London in 1958, at a time when only 50% of young people attended the local youth clubs. It was mostly delivered by evangelical christians, and not only did it become a key voice in the formation of statutory youth services, but attracted the attention of the church as a case study of practice back then too, Rev Hamilton writes:

“Young people are not openly rejecting either Christian institutions or organised youth work. They are simply not even accepting them as having any possible claim on them or anything to offer to them which they need…

then goes on to say:

“What we need to know about the strategy of action must be learned at the point of personal involvement, whether this is something we do ourselves do or something we inspire other groups to do”(This was in a paper to the World Christian Youth commission in May 1964)

Recognising individual, social and community needs is not new. So when I suggested that this type of work didn’t take on. I meant that it didn’t get taken on in what became the Evangelical Youth Ministry. If you spoke of ‘developing from young peoples needs’ or ‘doing a community profile’  – these were processes and practices that caused a christian worker to be categorised as a ‘community worker’ or ‘detached’ or ‘liberal’ or even the harshest of all ‘ Pioneer’  – Evangelical Youth Ministry took a different turn.

And though I am not qualified to discuss this turn, it became concerned with Evangelism and Discipleship, some of the story is picked up by Danny Brierley in ‘Joined up’ ( 2003)
stating that ‘The ‘Evangelical wing of the church was actively looking for revival to sweep away the corrosive effects of popular culture, one man attributed to this more than any other, his name, Billy Graham’. Using a methodology from the Business world, of efficiency and calcubility. It was large groups, music, prayer, and an ending which consisted of leading the audience through a formulaic prayer, the four spiritual laws, that reduced the complexity of the Gospel to easy sentences that produced intended results. (Brierely, 2003)

If this form of youth ministry, and it by no means was the only form of youth work and ministry by Christians since 1970 became dominant as a form of practice, then it is obvious to see why developing from a needs based practice is innovative in 2017. The Evangelical turn in youth ministry was influenced not only by the style, look and feel of big event, resource heavy ‘anti – cultural’ practice, but also efficiency, numbers and product – a model more closely likened to the building of Ford motor cars, or the fast food chain. Standing on the street corners for a year to chat with young people and gather evidence would be an anathema. It didnt produce results, it ‘seems a waste of time’ , its not about the needs of young people – but the need of the church for revival, for its own growth. Needs of young people has been second best, at best.

But in Christian detached work it has carried on, by those deemed ‘too liberal’ , ‘too pioneering’ – those who followed the Goetschius and Tash trajectory ( or did so without realising) – For most detached projects, observation is key, and before it community profiling. (see, Meet them where theyre at, Richard Passmore, 2003, or ‘Here be Dragons’ 2013 above, or any writing on detached youthwork since 1960, FYT have been using this formula since 1970’s, be incarnational, live in and understand young people in a local context, learn, listen and meet needs. See work by Bob Holman, Dave Wiles, Michael Eastman, Richard Passmore, Nigel Pimlott).

So ‘Innovation’ might just look like ‘forgetting historical’ or ‘other practice has always existed’ blindspots.

But catching up with meeting young peoples needs isnt that innovative either. What meeting needs does, and what the Ministry world has become good at, is finding the needs of young people that require the use of pre-structured projects.  Young people might need counselling on relationships and sex, for example, but is ‘Romance Academy’ the right process for this?  – Im not knocking RA – but just of the process that this can be often used. Something like romance academy isnt used because of the deep felt needs of young people – more than its a gap and an area of panic amongst youth leaders to ‘do something’ about sex & relationships with young people. Its often not needs met, but perceived and pre judged needs met – without even a conversation with young people, or to have first hand evidence of young peoples thoughts on relationships, culture, identity, belonging, family and love. It is one evidence of a good programme, but another programme.

Meeting needs isnt that innovative, and it actually doesnt work. It keeps the giver of the service as the power, and dehumanises the young person and by default their community as a project to be fixed. Most young people dont need someone else to tell them that they need something. They need to be given opportunities to develop what theyre good at, what their gifts are, and they have them. This article is long enough without an explanation of ‘asset based community development’ – but what ABCD fundamentally does is ask different questions of and with young people, and it takes time. It doesnt have projects or programmes to sell, and therefore might not keep the franchises and projects of youth ministry going because many maintain a needs focus. More on ABCD on their blog there is much on youth & community work, is here: http://www.nurturedevelopment.org/ – (and theres a few articles on abcd on this site, as there is on observation within youthwork.) ABCD is a challenge to the saviour complex.

For evangelical youth ministry, innovation isnt to develop needs based work – though I am all for leaving behind ‘dream based work’ – it shouldnt be innovative to develop working with young people through consultation and participation, these have been the hall marks of youthwork practice for a very long time. what it shows is that meeting the needs of young people hasnt been at the forefront of youth ministry. As Howard Sercombe suggests:

“ Youth work is a professional relationship in which the young person is engaged as the primary client in their social context” Sercombe, H 2010 “Ethics of Youthwork” p26

Then young people havent been the primary client of youth ministry. And Danny Brierley argued, Youth Ministry needs youthwork to have young people centred ethical practice.

What Evangelical youth ministry is thinking of as Innovative, has been Youth work all along. The Dream is over. If the church has a concern for young people it has to do so emerging from a painful, searing, physical and mental acceptance, in love of a generation which is painfully different. Painful acceptance isn’t an off the shelf programme or a quick win. If you think this is innovative, then these words were said in 1964. Problem is that the evangelical youth ministry has chosen, up till now, to ignore the youth workers in their midst.

References:

Brierley, D ‘ All Joined Up, 2003

Drane, J The Macdonaldisation of the Church, 2000

Geotschius, Tash, Working with the unnattached, 1967

Passmore, Meet them where theyre at, 2003, & Here Be dragons, 2013 ( a link to this is above)

Sercombe H, Ethics of Youthwork, 2010

 

Being Encouraged by Collaboration

Over the next 40 days of Lent, I am going to try and write a series of 40 encouraging articles on aspects of youthwork practice, of management of learning, people and the church. Not every one will start ‘encouarged by…’ but it might be a good discipline for me to do so. For those that know me, and have read some of my previous pieces, you will know that me and critical do go hand in hand, especially when things are challenging, and they are right now. So, this will be good for me, and hopefully you might enjoy reading the next posts.

Without giving many of the details away. I have started to realise how encouraged I am when genuine collaboration begins to take place. For one it is becoming more and more evident in some aspects of youth work when some of the barriers between voluntary and statutory sector , and even ‘faith’ sector, are being gradually eroded, though these are not helped in a competitative market for funding, outcomes or even young peoples attention.

Ive heard stories over the last few weeks of organisations that havent spoken to each other for decades, where suspicion between them, envy, ignorance and superiority complex, have had to begin dialogue, sharing time and space, sharing idea and giving time and space away to each other, for the semblance of more common goals.

In another situation Ive seen people in different churches work together to think about transforming a community, and because of relative common goals intentions and previous compatibility and relationship, this process has not taken too long, formed of genuine shared intention and being collaborative in practice and organisation.

Over three years, 5 organisations in the north east have been working on the Equip course ( see
menu above) yes its ‘only ‘ a gap year scheme, but its the fruit of alot of work, and is the beginning of a chapter of change for training in the north east amongst young people and for youth ministry.

I think what encourages me the most is that people and organisations might know that workImage result for collaborationing together might enable each to have more longevity, but also that greater goals might be fulfilled when this happens. Separate organisations and people do have give something away, their protectionism, and work towards common, shared goals and new identity. It is undoubtedly difficult, and might be easier when the task is new ( such as equip) – rather than to form something else.

The energy in the room is quite electric when the barriers start breaking down, when there are ideas and potential is such an encouragement, and this undoubtedly spreads into the culture of that organisation and project, sadly without dwelling on the opposites too long, broader cultures of unco-operation, or reluctant cooperation form only a mask in which it becomes more of a challenge to function in between.

In a way it is both a good youthwork value and Spiritual prerogative. To have reconciled relationships, to encourage community. It takes undoubted effort at times, and the process of breaking down barriers and seeking human and collective flourishing for broader goals is tough, but it is possible, the barriers are usually artificial and based on myth, fear and history, none of which is in any way helpful for developing community for genuine collaboration to occur. I would be a few pennies, that collective organisations that have failed have done so not only because of poor governance, but that the governance has had to navigate in a culture of noncooperation with other similar agencies. When protectionism and separation occurs, thats when to worry.

Image result for nature collaborationIn collaboration people are willing to give, to contribute, to share and be part of something, not for their own gain, it is in collaboration where people give of their gifts to make something happen, willing because the purpose excites and they trust the people.

So, today i am encouraged by collaboration, or the working towards this, as an essential future direction for both youth work in the North east, and the Mission activity of the church deep in its local communities.

Day 1 of Lent over – what will I be encouraged by tomorrow?

 

Into 2017; Replacing fallen Heroes with Theodrammatic Saints

2016 saw the loss of many heroes. Bowie, George Michael, Prince to name but three from the Music world, Victoria Wood, Liz Smith and Terry Wogan to name three from entertainment, but there were countless others. Local heroes were lost too, people who became national heroes through their death than their life, Jo Cox being one. People, like these and others are placed in the position of Heroes, others are thrust there. But Heroes none the less.

As 2016 ended, and 2017 begins, I have been reminded in Samuel Wells book ‘Improvisation’ about the role of Heroes in the grand stories of the world.

 

Within Improvisation, Wells argues that there are five characteristics of Heroes when thinking about Heroes in an ongoing story or narrative, and in thinking not just about the real life heroes above, but the fable story heroes of Disney, of Tolkein and Enid Blyton, they are relatively straight forward. Drawing from Aristotle, Wells describes these as:

  1. Heroes make decisive interventions when things are looking like they might turn out to be wrong. The saviour complex is what this is sort of known as, think Sandra Bullocks character in the film The Blindside, and there are many equivalents. The Story is from the Heroes perspective, it is Bullocks neck on the line, her journey to save the situation and change it.  The story of how the creative music and entertainment affected so many, many lives were changed by Bowie, by Prince and George Michael, they became savific heroes, their music intervened.
  2. A Hero’s story is told to celebrate the virtues of a Hero. The Hero has the qualities, whether strength, resilience, determination, wisdom or courage to enable their heroism
  3. The Hero’s story, presumes that in a world of good and evil, the Hero will risk death for good in their own fight. So Tolkien’s Aragon for instance, or the valiance of the Disney Prince charmings to fight the evil power to reclaim not only goodness but also the trapped or tortured princess. They risk it all for the fight.
  4. In the Hero’s story, when things go wrong, they can put it all right again, yet their flaws and failings also turn a story heading for tragedy into a fatal disaster  It is ok that Sully can redeem the situation in the Plane heading out of the airport as it hit flying birds and lost control, he is the hero who saved many lives by landing the plane in the waters (see the Film Sully) -but what if even he, the supposed hero wasnt able to cope with the situation, would blind panic turned that moment into even more of a tragedy..
  5. The Hero stands alone in the world. They are the put alone on the stage, and held aloft by the community by their creative excellence or virtue, the decisiveness of their action – or to have the simple right to have their story told. As Rimmer in Red dwarf ( Series 3- Marooned) was quick to say, History is written by the winners, the survivors, those with the power to narrate it – in effect the authors.

All of this challenged me alot.  Though I spent all day yesterday reflecting on what Wells was saying about the Heros in the story, I realised that before I asked critical questions of the practice of community work, the church and youth ministry – I also had to look at myself. I have to be honest, I like to be the hero. I kind of always have done. The person who rescues, it was said that from a fairly young age I has a compassionate spirit to try and help people, especially those who might, as wells identifies above, have a story that is heading for challenge or trial. So its the young person addicted to alcohol, or struggling at school, or colleague in ministry needing help or a hand.  I guess i wouldnt be involved in community or youth work without the feelings, desires or determination to want to transform peoples lives, to be a positive intervention in their story, without them, but i guess that doesn’t mean i have to be a hero.

Yet on a broader note, has the notion of Hero been too easily accepted by the church, or community work? Maybe the clearest evidence of it is in the job descriptions for new posts:

Are you the person this dynamic church needs to transform the lives of people in our community?

or

Eager to pioneer a new ministry to save the lives of many?

or

________ church requires a dynamic, creative, inspiring individual to lead a ministry amongst young people to transform their discipleship

or

_______ is a community near to the church, in an Urban Prioirty Area, have you got the skills and exeprience to turn it around?

All requiring and appealing to the Heroic status. Possibly all hoping that the dynamic person will have the credentials, and lead heroically to save. What if the Hero in the situation cannot, as Sully could, steer the plane to safety? The personal plight of the Hero is not just the only problem with this. Neither is it the problem of the church, or ministry that devolves heroic status to the ‘saviour’ – for this is what psychologists tell us is what we do in groups, devolve power to those who assume leadership and thus heroic positioning.

As an aside, in a Faith Culture that possibly reveres heroes, whether heroes who ‘have large ministries’ or ‘have pioneers great changes’, a fascinating change has been taking place. It has been in film, the rise of the anti- hero. The hero that isn’t the successful, dynamic, go-to person who affects change. So for example – Shrek usurps Prince charming – the story isnt about how he slays the dragon to redeem the princess (see shrek 2) the anti- hero who is an ogre bumbles his way to the heart of Fiona, the princess by faithfulness and different virtue, though maybe Shrek is less the anti-hero, than that unlikely one.  This is distinctive to the story of something like Deadpool, the anti-hero in the comic book superheros, who has heroic status but ultimately has a vacuous purpose only to deconstruct his own status leading to humour but nothing to replace it. The Anti- hero has given Hollywood a new range of stories and films.

The challenge with Heroic status in the Christian faith is one of positioning not necessarily of projection. Imagine if you will the concept that Kevin Vanhoozer and NT Wright talk about, in terms of developing an overall plot structure of the Biblical narrative. Bear with me on this. But if you imagine that there are five scenes to the play, and critically, the play is Gods play. Then these five scenes might look like this:

  1. Creation
  2. Covenant with Isreal
  3. Christs incarnation, death and resurrection
  4. Church, its emergence
  5. Consummation, Revelation and Christs return.

From the Bible story, it is clear to imagine clear moments as acts of God in the ongoing events that unfold. For Vanhoozer, and Baltasar before, they use the term Theodrama, – literally the Drama of Gods actions in the world. The clue in terms of positioning is that the current status of the church, of the whole world in fact, in that it is playing out the scenes in the fourth act. Which, as Wells suggests; ‘reminds the church that it does not live in particularly significant times. The most important things have already happened, The Messiah has come, has been put to death, has been raised, and the Spirit has come’ (p57)

It is not necessary then a time for Heroes.  Even though the world might invoke hero status on its idols. A hero in the church or youth ministry is invoking the wrong sense of who they are, their role and their positioning. To invoke the wrong position might inevitably lead to heroism. To feel like having to act as creator in a situation, then the person is in act One, instead of God having done this act, there is in this a desire for independence, to rename, to discover for oneself (like Adam with the animals). Similar mistakes are made, if the Hero or we the church position ourselves in acts 2 or 3 – to assume Christ hasn’t come at all – and so we play battles of good/evil, or try and teach people lessons, or that we are being Christ as act 3, then we confuse our own role with trying to be as significant in the world as Christ was, and is. It would also be a mistake to think of ourselves in act 5 – as if the ending is set in stone, has already been determined and that our fate in inevitable on the runaway trolley in the temple of doom.

By realising that there are 5 acts of the play, not just one, and that the current position of the church in the world is act 4, then this brings both a freedom and liberation to the church, and also those who minister within it and act in mission in local communities. It leaves Christians free, in faith, to make honest mistakes. It leaves the space open for creative imagining of continuing the story, it leaves the Hero of the story to have already been played, and where God will end the drama as he sees fit. So, the role of the Christian, is then not the Hero, or the anti- hero, but the Saint.

Drawing from Aquinas, Wells describes the characteristics of the Saint, compared to the Hero:

  1. The Saint is almost invisible in the story  and certainly not the crucial character, is easily missed, quickly forgotten. In a way, Tolkeins voice seems to be through Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, yet there are times of great absence on Galdalf, certainly in the books. The Film projected Gandalf as more of a present hero. Was Gandalf the ‘saint’ ?
  2. The Saint may not have great qualities such as the Heros Valeur, – but the Saint is faithful. The Story is the saint is one of persistence and faithfulness.
  3. The Saint needs not to fight for good over evil, they know that battle is secured  the goods they have are in abundance and that matter are in unlimited supply – love, joy, peace, patience – goods which do not rise with the stock market, or need violence to protect them. The battle has already been won, yet their reward is not the Heros, who has his own, but in God’s who redeemed it all
  4. If the Saints failures are honest but go wrong, they highlight God’s greater victory. Though a failing of lesser integrity brings to the fore the receiving of Gods forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration. ‘A Hero fears failure, A Saint knows only light comes through cracks’ (Wells, p 44)
  5. The Saint is never alone. They assume, demand and require community. In thinking about St Francis recently, he is rightly commended, but his work was not alone, his wife with him, and he formed community of faith as he travelled. The same for St Patrick who developed communities in Ireland. They call for a communion of the Saints, of other fellow travellers. It is noticeable that those called into key positions in the Christmas narrative are not alone; Mary shared her pregnancy joy with Elizabeth, who can also vouch for angels, and then journeys with Joseph. The Shepherds and Wise Men are both collectives. It is only Herod who stands alone.

If the world has lost some of its Heroes recently, there will always be others who take their place, either created, manufactured or positioned. As a youth and community worker, even on the streets, it can be easy to fall into being the heroic one, it is possible that the structures of ministry and the church even create the platform for Heroes to exist, or fall from platforms so created in the first place. Yet though it seems as heroic, the call is not for new heroes, the call for the church is not to provide the world with new heroes, but to provide itself and the community around it with saints. Saints who delight in the resources in the world, the goodness already there that points to Jesus being active, saints that listen and hear, saints that aren’t positioned in the centre ‘with a dynamic ministry’ but who direct and guide from the fringes, leaving others to thrive, Saints who shape and form community and not go it alone. Saints who are the church, who fall and fail honestly together knowing that battles have already been on and performing and telling the story is their main purpose. In here is a helpful analogy with developing the assets in communities- rather than be the saviour for them, acknowledging that the gifts are already present. The Saint might just act with more asset tendencies, than the hero.

So, no new years resolutions from me, but thinking of Saints verses Heroes has got me challenged. How might it possible to be more of a saint, to knowing my place in the story, and less of a hero and what that might mean in being involved in ministry in churches, with young people and in my own family in the North East.

Does the world, and the communities around need saints or heroes? Can cultures of collective saintliness be created in ministries, churches and communities?

 

References:

Wells, Samuel, Improvisation, The Drama of Christian Ethics, 2004

Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 2005

Rohr, Richard, Eager to Love, 2014

 

What motivates a young person to stay in the youth ministry & the church?

Quite a few years ago now I was involved in a Mentoring Project in Scotland, I am involved in one now at DYFC but just the managing of it. One of the key aspects of the mentoring work, and it was largely short term relationships in which my role was to mentor a young person, often referred by a school, was to try and set goals with the young person that they felt they would like to achieve through the process of the relationship.

Sometimes this worked.

Sometimes it took 3 weeks out of 6 just to have a conversation about goals.

Sometimes the goals were highly influenced by the school and what they wanted and were paying for.

However, goals in this kind of programme were set, arranged and to a point referred to in the evaluation of outcomes and results.

In the main however, the goals set, might not have become motivating factors for the young person, unless the goals were negotiated by them, and they believed in them. On a bigger scale – the things that might motivate young people in a school setting are numerous and can include popularity, success, relationships, notoriety, status and many others, or its heads down and just get through every day.

Why am i talking about Goals and Motivations?

For a number of reasons, but firstly i think this is fascinating:

We only have feelings for what matters to us. To experience an emotion, cognitive theories suggest that we first appriaise the situation and then decide the significance in relation to our goals (J Bryan, 2016)

Jocelyn Bryan is talking about Emotions first and foremost in the context of a conversation about ‘Human Beings’ and their psychology. What she is getting at here is that how people react to something is based upon their appraisal of it in relation to the goals of the person. So its not just the situation that causes an emotion, but how a person appraises it.  For example a difficult church meeting might be reacted to in a calm way by a pcc member who might have 100 other things to worry about, but causes anger, frustration and lack of sleep for the clergy whose role is dependent on the PCC approval. but we all know this kind of situation is just a piece of internet fiction…. no clergy gets angry with PCCs…

Anyway, going back to goals and faith based youthwork.

If for a moment, we think about that age old problem of trying to keep young people in the church, or even in youth groups, ministry and the like. Do we need to ask a fundamentally serious one about motivations and goals?

In his book, Faith Generation, Nick Shepherd talks about giving young people opportunity to become deciders, and not just learners in a church setting, which is a valid premise to reflect on in terms of learning styles, participation and empowerment of young people. But theres a fundamental question – what motivates a young person to stay in church/ youth ministry? and linked to this what goals are negotiated with them that they have adopted? 

There could be many motivating factors for a young person to want to attend church, social factors, learning, challenge, volunteering might give them experience, or its a place of safety to talk about faith.

But as they decide to leave they do so often because something else fulfils that motivation. Whether thats homework, recovery from a night out the night before (social), sports clubs (physical, competition).

Something might have to motivate a young person to stay in the church – enough so that they want to and care about it! 

I wonder how often in youth ministry settings we negotiate either person or collective goals for a youth group? something to motivate them, or challenge them?  – not just an activity for a week – but an inspiring goal to change something, do something or be something. Unlike the example of the mentoring programme above, the key is that it is negotiated – because young people have a certain amount of choice to be there. If part of giving young people an identity in a church is to give them a niche and validity in the community – then how might we in our relationship enable a young person to negotiate that it its worth it, and so that it becomes a motivation for them.

Maybe it is not enough to give young people opportunities to learn, enable them to have opportunities to be involved, to decide and to create. But part of that to is to give them the desire, the long term desire that causes it to be a motivation.

We might single out a young person as leadership potential within a church,  after all thats kind of what Jesus did with Peter, and they then might have greater motivation bestowed upon them which they have to internalise. A new long term motivation and goal is orientated. But once they do this becomes a motivating factor, affecting their involvement in the faith community. In an environment where there might not be female leaders – how might female young people be as motivated? Especially in an age where they can become Prime minister in the world outside of the church. This isnt an article about Gender inequalities, but about the effect of such positions might have on the motivation of young females to maintain within the church environment, should they have a driven and achieving personality – and leadership potential.

How else might church & youth ministry provide motivation for a young person?

Shouldnt we sit down with young people every now and then and ask them what drives them and keeps them motivated to attend church and groups – we might find they have little choice- we might be more surprised.

But it might also be that we as their youth workers negotiate with them goals to motivate them in the short and long term – not just activities to attend- in order that they not only have reason to participate but that it fits with their own emerging motivations for their lives. I am just wondering whether we should be more deliberate with them in negotiating goals, and so that they have more motivation for being there – maybe like school its popularity, learning, success, or even notoriety!

These are likely to be the motivating factors, which stem from core motivating factors in Everyones lives such as meeting needs, relationships, autonomy and Competance (Bryan, 2016:14). And there are other faith ideals and motivations which take root in the christian life some of which spur on young people – but i wonder whether the spiritual motivations are enough for young people or even if they ‘own’ these motivations in their stage of life (thinking about ownership of faith in terms of faith development stages, Westerhoff etc) – for young people who have a myriad of competing voices trying to affect their long term goals and motivations – the church and youth ministry has to develop practical ways in which young people maintain goals and motivation to invest in the community for what they can give and receive from it for their whole life.

How might motivation for young people be negotiated in youth ministry – thoughts anyone?

When was the last time a young person got frustrated or cared enough about youth ministry to get angry about it? Maybe that when we know it means something. But how often does anger precurse leaving…

as an additional, 24 hours later, what about discovering the key motivators for young people, what drives them, though we might want to identify the motivating factors in terms of gifts, and then shape the style of ministry around developing these? sort of back to asset based community development but with motivational gifts?  Ie young people who might be motivated by care for others, how could this be actualised in church & youth ministry?

 

References:

Human Being; Insights from Psychology and the Christian faith by Jocelyn Bryan (2016, SCM)

 

How might churches develop loving community work?

In my last post i made a simple point that, in a way, in mission the songs of the church matter little (though at times sadly we, and i mean we , the church place alot of emphasis on the relevancy or contemporaryness of music/singing as mission imperative) , and that our love for a community matters so much more. 

Having been challenged to think about what this might mean by a few comments via social media, i wonder then whether it would be good to explore further what it might mean for a church in mission to love its community.

Firstly lets start with Love.

This should be easy for the Christian.

Love is costly, Love is the cross, Love is hard. Love is Kind, Love is Faithful, Love is forgiving, Love keeps no record of wrongs, but delights in the truth, Love is Patient. In a way – we know all of these things, Its love that is the good news, its love that is the call to the corinthian church. Love from a quick skim of the Biblical narrative is easy to know about and theologically contextualise.

So if Love is the imperative and the practice, and the action for a church involving itself in community – what might be good community work that loves?

If you have been reading my previous articles on community work, you will know that i have referred to ABCD, or asset based community development a little bit. I was taken by an article on the Nurture development website this week, it is here is you would like to read it: http://www.nurturedevelopment.org/blog/can-i-help/ . It is an interesting one, in which the question is asked by the agency – to a community – ‘Can I Help you? ‘ In the blog Shaun Burnett discussed the now well-known actions of the Brownlee Brothers at the recent triathlon world championships, and suggest how they embodied help to the weaker and struggling of the two brothers at the time. And though a patriarchial, single dimension of helping was a common theme in the definitions of help that Shaun found, he challenged this by saying that the help that the Brownlee brothers gave each other was because of the relationship that they had with each other – it was not patriarchial, neither was it charity, it was help out of brotherly love.

Shaun concludes his piece by saying:

“And is this not the key point? Here we have a rare glimpse at what a person / helper can do when they are in right relationship with another. The good news is that though it is an unusual occurrence, it’s not the only example. At a time when our world desperately needs such examples, we need to be tenacious enough to actively rummage around to discover them because they are there in each of our lives but they are invisible against the backdrop of classic forms of Helping. We miss them in the randomness of their expression, but if you have a mind to search them out, they actually are quite abundant, and if we’re a little more careful and carefilled we can cultivate a lot more.

At a time when our world desperately needs such examples, we need to be tenacious enough to actively rummage around to discover them because they are there in each of our lives but they are invisible against the backdrop of classic forms of Helping.

At the moment, i see no better way to start thinking and launching ‘loving’ community work for a church than to think about developing relationships with the community. Developing the kind of relationships that breaks down barriers that we, as church, might easily have erected.  As i suggested previously in an article titled ‘The Hearing church’ – one of the first ways of doing this is by listening, by hearing and by being present to hear in the right kind of spaces, the spaces where people are mostly themselves. Its in the non official spaces, to hear, but also to find opportunities to get to know. To form the kind of relationships where help is more of an equal footing.

If as a church we can be unconditional in the love we have for a local community – what might that mean in terms of the relationships we create with people? the opportunities we offer?

the spaces that faith is explored? , of even the right kind of opportunities opened up to meet people where they are at?

doing community work that is constructed with being able to act lovingly (as the christian definition above indicates) towards people – and not just say it. Where opportunities are to build relationship, not just help, or serve (which retains power- but gives it away) . And that’s not to denigrate serving. Serving has enabled the church to be practical and fill a chronically open void created by the system regarding benefits and thus thrust foodbank use into the limelight. Helping as Serving is good.

But if this is only to tick a community work box, or in and of itself – then where might be the sense that the church is acting out of love with its community to help, or to ask how it can help? Or if helping isnt needed – how else might a church love its community?

It could love – by creating community- community around groups of people who have shared interests – like food, or film, or sport, or a hobby.

It could love its community by praising it, supporting it, endorsing it, and recognising its positives.

It could love its community by locating the powers that restrict its people and challenge these.

It could love its community by supporting local charities already involved in it.

It could love its community by responding to community crisis well, and community celebrations too

What might it mean for the church to be faithful, kind, forgiving, rejoicing – with and for its community?

The rise in community work that churches have done has taken a rise in the last 15 odd years, some of it has been more unconditionally loving toward a local community than others. Serving a local community first is one of the key themes that Pioneer groups have undertaken in the exploration of new expressions of church (Moynagh, M, Church for every context) – but what might it mean to ‘love’ a local community – yes it might mean serving, yes it might mean helping – but its more likely to mean getting to know – somehow – recognising interests, strengths and gifts, and developing opportunities to share moments of community, of relationship together. Does todays culture crave authentic community – well in your local community you might need to find out. I havent a clue from sitting here typing this. But it and yours might.

There are countless more than the above – but as Christians who believe in what a deeper, prophetic and practical, sacrifical love is – it is about how we find ways to show, and act this out in our local communities – starting probably with their permission to do so, or be trusted to have that space, and i think in many areas we’re over that, the church is far more trusted (thanks to foodbanks and other initiatives) than it used to be. It has now that task of going from being trusted locally, to loving locally. To act in the interest of others, to act in hospitality to the least likely at the wedding feast- to use Biblical imperatives & parables.

It might not be – ‘How can i help you?’, neither ‘How may i help you? ‘

but ‘you are worth getting to know’ and what do you want us to do for and with you? – once i know you. (not before)

Asset based community work (ABCD) is definitely a start to viewing a local community differently – with gifts rather than needs, and so please do click the nurture development link to the right of this piece to give you ideas, thinking and resources. Yet if a church is to love its local community – asset based community development might just be the start. Doing community work, to be involved in peoples lives whom it doesnt yet know might involved creating spaces and being involved in places where it connects on a human level. For young people this might mean on the streets – where they are comfortable. For others it is in the pub. Or on bus journeys, or toddler groups.

Loving community work is to love people first and foremost. How might a church love its whole community?

 

The songs don’t matter, love does. 

In the church we’ve believed a bit of a myth for the last 50 odd years. That the way we sing on a Sunday matters. So pews have been removed, guitars have been inserted, projectors included, songs shortened, shortened in their lifespans. The myth is that how the church sings affects our effectiveness in mission as a church.

It doesn’t.

The only people who this matters to is the other local christians who are looking for a church which is to their style.

What matters is not how a church sings. It’s how a church community loves. loves unconditionally it’s community and creates spaces where it can show it.

I would imagine, and I know a church where this is the case, when a church loves a community and acts out God’s love in it, people who receive this love want to find out what the source of that love is.

And so, if people are attracted to genuine love and community then it’s values and the performance of those values that are important, and an authenticity on a Sunday to those values. And that could as easily be an Anglican service, or something more contemporary. How it sings, is less important that how it loves.

It’s love Monday to Saturday and connecting in God’s love on Sunday that might make missional sense. Be a theatre of God’s gospel love. How songs are sung and what is sung is almost, almost irrelevant.  How a church loves and builds and creates community in its local community is.

Detached youthwork as a community building exercise

Earlier this week i wrote a short piece that held a mirror on the faith organisation of the church to the comparison of ‘the community’ in Cormac Russells blog on the nuture development site, this article is here:  http://wp.me/p2Az40-E6. I notice that on the same Nurture development site, Shaun Bartlett has written a sequel, titled ‘building bridges or walls’ – this is here, and worth a read: http://www.nurturedevelopment.org/blog/taking-strengths-based-approach-young-people-part-2-building-walls-building-bridges/

In the article – Shaun comments, from the perspective of being a youthworker for a while in Ayrshire, that;

In every neighbourhood, there are residents who care deeply for young people and who believe in them. They are not motivated by the impulse to keep young people “off the streets” or “out of trouble”. Instead they have a genuine and well-intentioned instinct for connecting young people into civic life. They see the untapped energy of all young people, and are sincerely perplexed and often distressed as to why others can’t see what they see in the young people of their community. Where some only see trouble, they see potential.

Among such folks, there are a number who are able to bridge the gap between young people’s potential and potential places of welcome in their communities for the gifts that young people have to offer.

This first section describes perfectly the tension experienced by the detached youthworkers, their volunteers and some of the criticism or expectations of it. For some, detached youthwork can be a means of social control, a catalyst of physical movement – yet as Dynamo international state in ‘The international methodology of streetwork throughout the world (2008);

Social street work favours an innovative proximity approach where the people play a predominant role in any action undertaken, from its beginnings (the request) throughout its development (accompaniment). It is this trust-based relationship, built up with the subject, which will help break the silence and enable support to be given to the person.

The underlying idea in social street work is not to take a person away from the streets or their surroundings “at all costs”, especially if it consists of compartmentalising them in a new social context where they will feel uncomfortable.

Whatever the context, be it a child, a young person or an adult, the work of accompaniment means building self-esteem, developing personal skills, independently from the degree of exclusion, and enabling participation in social life.

Increasing young peoples capacity in the social life, their participation and reducing exclusion (not of their making often) of it is part of the process of youthwork – especially that which starts from the streets . Yet there can still be expectation that detached work leads to a building- in the short term. What Shaun is suggesting, I think, is that often many local people understand the culture of the young people and have some sympathy with them. As i am in the process of helping to train people in detached youthwork in a specific place, those from the area, tend to not only have more knowledge of the young people, but equally if encouraged, have the desire to see them thrive despite it, being slightly less prone to see needs, but more untapped gifts. It can be as constant a tension between seeing the potential and actual of the gifts of young people, and worrying about their reactions and assessing their needs and trying to help, a natural response at times.

Shaun makes a further point worth reflecting on though. How often are the gifts of the young people, who are encountered in detached/mission type youthwork, given back into the community in order that they can re access it and create identity in it?.

Giving a young person a leadership role in their own youth club is one thing, or maybe even a leadership role in the sunday school – but where might they pay it forward as to speak, not just serve those who helped them become ‘redeemed’ or have their gifts harnessed – but give that back to the community that once rejected them?  Places of welcome where these gifts can be harnessed, can be as fluid as the conversation on the streets, in that space there is a moment of ‘theatre’ where a scene is outplayed, and performance is displayed, played by a gifted young person. The gift needs to be payed back so that young person can increase in their civil life in society, allow not just ‘the youth/church organisation’ to see & feel the benefit, but for others to see a change too.

Further on Shaun makes the point that we as workers on the streets, in the public places with young people are to become the steward;

A person that doesn’t lead, but offers guidance and stewardship nurturing strong citizenship amongst young people and the civic life of their community: they find space for, and often broker young people into community space, to take action on what matters to them.

On detached, the key issues for the young person are often brought to the fore, they are real, and honest at times, and often quick to lay the blame of their situation elsewhere. The game that is often harder to play is to have the toolbox of questions, or converstions that guide the young people into becoming the agents (agency) of their potential future change. Often we maintain the helper role, as adults, or the signposters, but building community, even building community as a faith group involved in detached youthwork, might involve a type of community building that provides only the structures for young peoples gifts to be awakened and they individually and collectively undertake actions of change for themselves and the community at large. They might be their own stewards after all.

If young people are citizens in their community first and foremost – how dare we on one hand proclaim their ‘anti-socialness’ ?  is this the value and language of the community organisation (Goeschius & Tash, 1967, 100), rather than the informal community- the families or the young people themselves.  The kind of language that restricts freedom and movement. To build assets is to remove the walls, often constructed by language, and for communities tarnished by external reputation, but filled with signs and actions of true community to become places of welcome, and spaces for young peoples gifts to be harnessed, and stewarded.

If i was going to reflect a little theologically on this, the obvious place would be to think about Jesus mission strategy with the disciples to go in pairs to local villages and await being welcomed, a model of practice  Jesus himself shows the disciples with the incident with the woman of Samaria (see http://wp.me/p2Az40-Cc for this in more detail), and it is also throughout the Bible narratives of people being commended for the gifts that they bring to be shared in the community, not just the emerging faith community, though this was more evident as the faith community closed ranks during intense persecution. The essence of the Biblical drama that is ongoing is summed up by Kevin Vanhoozer, a catholic evangelical theologian who says:

“The Christian faith is not a private affair for individuals but a community-building project” (Vanhoozer, 2014)

Building the kingdom is a building process.

Strength based faith communities for (young) people

On the excellent Nurture Development website, Cormac Russell (Managing director of the ABCD institute) has recently written a piece titled ‘Taking a strengths based approach to young people’ . It is about having a perspective of young people that is distinctive from society – one where young peoples strengths are focussed on, you can read it in full here (and it is well worth a read) http://www.nurturedevelopment.org/blog/taking-strengths-based-approach-young-people-moving-risk-promise-part-1/

In it Cormac, after commenting on the negative stereotypes of young people in the media, and through the writings of philosophers such as Socrates, writes that:

Defining young people solely by what they receive, fails to realise what children and teenagers need most, which is to be needed and meeting that need is about organising our communities so that the contributions of young people can be invited and celebrated. Our current way of organising lifts up consumption to such an extent as to render young people to the margins.

going on to say that the kind of youth work that attempts to bring young people into organised youth programmes misses a trick in that it fails to bring them to the core of the community that has sought to exile them stating:

As well a providing such programmes and access to them, youth engagement must also concern itself with building a bridge between young people, productive adults and the centre of their communities. The very same communities it has to be said, who all too often exile their most ‘needy’ young people to the margins.

In closing he suggests that young people and adults, and older adults are more segregated than ever, in my view this segregation is also cultural, young people are segregated from adults because of access to prosperity, academia, employment, housing and more importantly hope. Cormac concludes by suggesting that, due to this segregation, and the view of young people:

  1. There is space and hospitality within every community for the gifts of all young people (regardless of their history or reputation) if we intentionally invite it in and make the connections. These spaces will not be found unless we actively seek them out.
  2. We do not have a ‘youth problem’ we have a ‘village problem’. Every young person regardless of past transgressions has strengths that are needed to tackle this village problem, and by so doing, to build inclusive sustainable communities.

From this article – I want to reflect on the following question.

Does the church have the same village problem?

For so long now, in many local settings the youth worker has tried to give young people a ‘voice’ in the community of the church – but legislation, or implied disinterest, has maintained segregation. Can young people change the village of the church using their gifts alone – or is church too wieldy for this to happen?  Is Sunday a space of segregation of young and old? and should this be challenged?  How might a church recognise the gifts of young people, inside its walls, and also outside in mission, so that they too are ‘at promise’ and invited into the core of the community- the faith

Is Sunday a similar space of segregation of young and old? and should this be challenged?  How might a church recognise the gifts of young people, inside its walls, and also outside in mission, so that they too are ‘at promise’ and invited into the core of the community- the faith community. Might ‘faith community’ need to behave according to faith values – where love, faith and hope – for all prevail – in order that the promise of young people is realised?  And they are not viewed as the world views them – but i dare say more like God does.

I know too many questions. But Cormac as ever poses them for the community of the young person, yet, where that community helps to shape a young persons identity in the faith community then the same questions should at least be asked.

How might young people be at promise in the church?  Can a youthworker help to heal the village- or are they (often) the scapegoat? Does the village need healing or does the church act in a better way than this – better than using young peoples gifts – or does it have a theology that causes this to be an exemption.  I would argue that focussing on young peoples gifts in a church should be an absolute minimum for discipleship and their identity, to help them find identity in the local faith community and the ongoing drama of redemption that they play parts in.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: