Is Youth Ministry working too well? Is it making kids too conventional?
By Andy Root on June 06 2010
A few months back I wrote this post for Tony Jones’s blog, I thought it might be our interest to re-post it here.
By Andrew Root
I have been thinking about Tony’s youth ministry post from the other day—the bell curve one. I think he is right in a descriptive sense. Christian Smith reveals that a majority of young people are conventional in their faith—happy to uncritically follow their parents faith/religious commitments. I also think he is right that Tony’s book and Chap Clark’s speak of distinct young people on the fringes.
I don’t think Tony gives himself enough credit. Postmodern Youth Ministry is not only descriptive (as Smith’s study is—that’s his job as sociologist) but is also prescriptive (Smith adds some of this in his “Unscientific Postscript,” though the very title shows that his project is not meant to be prescriptive). Tony does this prescription by presenting a theological/pragmatic critique from postmodern theory.
And I would add that while Clark’s book has much merit, it runs the risk of being sensationalism; whether he falls into this trap or not (I think he may avoid it) evangelicals have tended to see culture as hostile and its hostility as the fuel for ministry (i.e., the world is really bad, we need to save our kids from it).
It is no wonder then that Smith’s findings made Clark uncomfortable (as he asserted in the LA Times). They not only contradict his own findings (though I never thought they did as much as Clark did), but more importantly they oppose a core interpretive moral code that Clark (and much of evangelicalism) holds to—the interpretive code that the world is a negative and a dangerous place, meaning youth ministry is about saving kids from the negative world and acidic culture that hurts them. Youth ministry then is about actions that save/rescue kids from the world of hurt (and often the saved-ness is objectified by young people looking and acting conventional).
For Smith to assert that a majority of kids are conventional and that conventionality is not correlated with commitment, but benign affirmation, potentially strikes at the very core of the theological identity for Clark and how he imagines ministry—no wonder Clark was negative (but that’s just my interpretation).
What’s more interesting is to push this point further. If youth ministry is really about saving kids from the acidic culture (which is bad) then youth ministry can easily slide into the wing of the church that ushers kids into conventionality. In other words, youth ministry is doing a good job when kids act and look conventional (happily religious). It could be argued that it was this driving need in light of a new radical youth culture in the 1970s that motivated parents to financially support a youth worker in their local congregation (not just at the denominational level)—they wanted someone with the expertise to make their kids conventionally religious kids (that showed this by being “good”).
Smith’s study is profound (and Tony’s is helpful in this vein as well), because he shows us that conventionality does NOT equal spiritual maturity, depth, or discipleship—that conventionality can itself be acidic. (That is probably more dramatic than Smith would assert, but I actually believe it can, that religious conventionality may be as much an enemy to young people encountering the act of God in Jesus Christ as R-rated movies and Jersey Shore). Smith’s study points to the fact that we can actually make our kids conventional and yet they are moral therapeutic deists. These realities may have made the evangelical sensibility uncomfortable (BTW, while evangelicals were working hard to pass on conventional faith to their children, mainline liberals had their thumbs up their you-know-whats, so there are no heroes here).
Now, all that said, what is not discussed in that post is what to do with this descriptive reality, with the acidic conventionality. It may then be that the challenge for youth ministry and the church as a whole is to pop the bubble of conventionality; this may be the best way to engage young people (and yes this is risky, but the problem with the church and youth ministry is that it lacks the risk of encountering our raw humanity).
This is why in my own projects I have tried to work two major elements, the power of relationality as encountering the humanity of the young person and the theology of the cross as the theological invitation to seek for God next to our own and young people’s yearning, doubting, and suffering humanity — in those locations where convention is shown to be a hollow idol that has no mouth to speak or hands to move. In other words, I think the way to break the numbing conventionality is to engage young people around seeking for a God made known in the most unconventional of realities (especially for a deity) in the cross—to follow the early Reformation and look for a God that reveals Godself in suffering, death and the opposite of all religious conventionality. The cross is the invitation to seek for God up against our most haunting realities, next to our despair, questions, and fear—all things conventional faith is supposed to solve in a cutely wrapped religious package. On Doug Pagitt’s radio show we discussed just this a couple months ago. (I actually make a case for this congregation-wide in my book The Promise of Despair.)
http://facebook.com/andrew.root
Comments
From Paul Turner on June 07, 2010
Wow, great thoughts. I am one of those early evangelicals who saw culture as the enemy. Culture in and of itself is not the enemy. Culture is a mix and match of micro-societies seeking meaning. It is how they seek meaning and purpose that is enemy of all of us. I’m not about saving kids from culture, but from the pathways culture introduces that are unbiblical.
My daughter watches Jersey Wives (she is 17) and One Tree Hill (the re-runs). Each show is microcosm of culture and worldview. I will often sit and watch these with her asking semi-dangerous questions as to why she finds this fascinating. It usually turns into a good conversation.
I imagine she watches these for the same reason I stay up late watching Chuck Norris in Invasion USA, it’s on and we like train wrecks.
Anyway, all that to say, I agree with Andrew that culture is not something we hide from but train our students to navigate through with strong, biblical conviction.
I hope and pray Chap will respond and offer his insight as well.
From Karen on June 08, 2010
As always, this is thought provoking ministry talk!
The “average” youth workers within church settings are the ones who wrestle with this type of process, because they are the ones with the highest degree of difficulty in applying any of it to their real world. Unless a church as a whole body is willing to pay a person to no longer have youth group, be out of the office more than they are in, and for its programming pieces to be inviting to all students regardless of race, looks, or where they might live, this is a very tough ministry concept. There is no question that things are changing, but existing youthworkers who want to keep their positions along with offering fresh ways for lives to be challenged and changed somehow have to communicate these concepts and the struggle with all the theology and theory to a congregation expecting the glory days.
From Jonathan on June 09, 2010
What a great, thought-provoking article. Thank you. Christian Smith’s ideas are incredibly insightful.
I wonder… as churches tend to be behind the ‘wave’ of cultural trends, sometimes we find ourselves right back on the crest of it as it rolls around again. I perceive a craving among the rising generation for a return to the conventional: more sacred songs, more high church, more religiosity (but not necessarily in the bad sense). They crave a worldview that’s been tested and proven, that feels higher than their normal existence and daily reality. If my observations are on the right track, then wouldn’t we be right as youth ministers to continue growing kids up on the Rock, “Who doesn’t change like shifting shadows”?
Similarly, I would push back on the idea that a happy church kid is putting up a shallow facade. While it’s vital not to try and craft every student into a conventional mold, I find that the students whose parents have “passed faith and character on to their children” (Dr. Rob Rienow, Visionary Parenting), tend to be relatively joyful, simple, and pleasant kids, regardless of circumstances. That’s part of what the Gospel does in people, isn’t it?
Ah well, I’m in over my head. Thanks again for the article.
From Brandon K. McKoy on June 15, 2010
The conclusions of this blog remind me of the old-school youth group game called “telephone.” This is the game where youth form a line, the youth pastor whispers a phrase or statement in a youth’s ear, and the youth attempts to repeat the phrase by whispering into the ear of the person beside him/her. The last person in line tells everyone what they have heard through everyone’s interpretations. Typically, the last phrase has been completely altered when compared to the original utterance. I am afraid we have a similar result occurring within this blog, and those reading this blog may leave with a misrepresentation of scholarly work from three different books.
Those who have played the “telephone game” know it is virtually impossible to trace where all of the interpretations shift; therefore, I will offer a timeline of events followed by a few reflections and highlight two shifts.
April 2001 “Postmodern Youth Ministry” by Tony Jones
October 2004 “Hurt” by Chap Clark
February 2005 “Soul Searching” by Christian Smith and Melinda Denton
February 26, 2005 L.A. Times Article “U.S. Teens Share Parents’ Religion, Survey Finds”
September 2009 “The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults” by Christian Smith and Patricia Snell
January 13, 2010 Blog posted on Tony Jones’ site: “Souls in Transition: Chris Smith, Chap Clark, and Me” by Tony Jones
January 20, 2010 Blog posted on Tony Jones’ site: “Souls in Transition: Guest Post by Andrew Root” by Andrew Root
June 6, 2010 Reposted Blog on the Youth Specialties site: “Is Youth Ministry working too well? Is it making kids too conventional?” by Andrew Root
The L.A. Times was the first to make a comparison between “Soul Searching” and “Hurt.” The L.A. Times article is mainly concerned with Smith’s conclusions from “Soul Searching” and adds a few quotes from Clark concerning his research in “Hurt” at the end of the article. They are not conducting a detailed account into the methodology espoused by these authors or their major differences. Just a reminder, we are citing the L.A. Times.
The L.A. Times has Clark arguing that “the number of religious teenagers was far fewer and estimated that fewer than 10% had religion as ‘an important part of their everyday life.’ It was ‘simply not on the lifestyle map.’”
Clark also questions Smith’s methodology, but the L.A. times (or Clark?) is vague concerning specific methodological differences. Clark does allude to one difference as the L.A. Times notes, “Smith’s study methodology might have skewed the results in favor of more religious-minded teenagers. ‘Kids who are going to church are more likely to stay for the entire survey,’ he said.” In other words, if I announce I am conducting a survey on the religious lives of teenagers, then who will be more prone to participate?
I, too, have a few questions about Smith and Denton’s methodology. Where are the parents when teenagers are responding to the questions concerning their faith being similar to their parents? If parents are home, which I believe they had to be, then there is always the possibility that the teen’s response may be skewed because they know parents may pick up the phone or overhear the conversation. The only qualitative analysis that Smith and Denton utilize (267 in-depth interviews) are sampled directly from their quantitative analysis (3,370 phone surveys) (see Soul Searching, 302). Plus, “the questionnaire followed closely and expanded on topics that were included on the NSYR telephone survey” (302). Let’s not forget about the $30 cash incentive for each youth who completed the survey, and all conversations were digitally recorded. Would I respond authentically if I knew I was being recorded? Would I answer the researcher according to what I thought they wanted to hear if I was getting paid?
Personally, I am surprised that no one else is questioning Smith’s or Clark’s methodology and focusing on these differences rather than simply accepting their results. After working with teenagers for quite some time, I find there is a great deal of difference between 1) giving youth a survey and asking them questions, versus 2) observing them in their daily environments and conducting follow up focus groups concerning my observations. Obviously there are weaknesses in both, but more sociologists and anthropologists are acknowledging that data is extremely limited when one limits their research to surveys and one-on-one interviews. People, and particularly youth, change and adapt according to the relationships in which they are engaged; therefore, a survey and interview would rarely scratch beyond the surface to the depth of youth’s social interactions.
I think Clark’s statements, gained from his ethnographic observations, fit well with Smith and Denton’s qualitative work (in-depth interview questions). Smith and Denton discovered that “religion is alive and well among most teenagers, but it is only under very specific conditions” that religion appears to play a part in the person’s daily living (Soul Searching, 130). When Smith and Denton began questioning youth’s religious views, they found that most youth could not articulate the meaning or place of their beliefs and practices in their lives (131). Overall, Smith and Denton found the majority of Christian teenagers to be incoherent in their articulations of their beliefs (137). Youth could not articulate matters of faith, not because they were incapable (they could do this with many other things), but because they were not provided the relational interactions needed to learn how to speak it (133). I believe these results fit well with Clark’s assessment that religion does not seem to be an important aspect in most teenagers’ lives or on their lifestyle map (other than simply being able to talk about it – especially when one is engaged in a religious survey).
First Shift in Interpretation:
Although Tony’s blog posting is focused on Smith’s prior book, “Soul Searching,” the “telephone game” begins to take its toll. Some believe Jones is contrasting his book “Postmodern Youth Ministry” and Clark’s “Hurt” with Smith and Snell’s “Soul’s in Transition.” (see the blog comments on January 13). One blogger responds, “First, ‘Hurt’ focuses on midadolescence, not emerging adulthood. Why are you trying to compare two different things?” The title of Tony’s blog is creative, yet misleading. Although the title is a continuation of Jone’s series of reflections on “Soul’s in Transition,” he is not reflecting on the book “Soul’s in Transition.” Jones’ sole interest is centered upon Smith’s prequel, “Soul Searching” Clark’s, “Hurt,” and his own work, “Postmodern Youth Ministry.” Jones also posted the picture of “Soul’s in Transition” at the top of his blog which may also be confusing for those who do not pay attention to his introductory paragraph.
Second Shift in Interpretation:
When Andrew Root posts on Tony’s Blog, and reposts on Youth Specialties, the false comparison between Smith and Snell’s book “Soul’s in Transition” and Clark’s “Hurt” continue. Again, Tony was never comparing Smith and Snell’s book on Emerging adults and Clark’s book on midadolescence, but Root continues this shift through his hyperlink. Furthermore, Root’s following sentence may create more confusion as it seems that Christian Smith is the one who asserts that Tony’s book and Chap’s book speak of distinct young people on the fringes. This is Tony’s assessment from his January blog not Smith’s.
All of this to say, by the time one begins to read the first paragraph of Root’s blog, shifts in interpretation and misrepresentation have occurred, and the “telephone game” is just beginning …
I hope that each work will be recognized in its own right, and youth ministers will utilize and further the good in each. I also hope that those working in the academic side of youth ministry will discover (or co-create) a more positive and productive discourse when addressing the works of other authors. Polarizing works, utilizing general statements and categories, and highlighting one’s own work throughout these processes does not provide youth ministry with a fruitful direction or path. I value and appreciate the works of Root, Smith, Snell, Clark, and Jones, and I will continue to advocate their works as they all have valuable contributions toward the future of youth ministry. I pray all youth ministry “professionals” will overcome the popular academic discourse of argumentation – where one emphasizes one’s position in contrast to another – and we seek a relationally transformative approach – where each person recognizes the value and interdependency of the other. The “telephone game” concludes, and the final statement that we all should hear is spoken, “We are one.”
