You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2010.
Last week, I began an occasional series on Backwards College Ministry, one of the principles that has most affected the way I construct my own ministry work (within collegiate ministry or otherwise). My hope is that it might at the very least provide some solid philosophood to chew on… especially as many of us begin thinking about what next school year should look like.
So far, two posts have noted that:
- Backwards College Ministry means our Starting Point for planning is the outcomes we’re aiming for, rather than the methods we’re aiming with.
- So in Backwards College Ministry, outcomes are used to determine our methods, not the other way around.
You can catch up by clicking here, and be sure to read the comments – they’ve been really helpful, as people have fleshed this out AND asked some great questions.
Today, a quick – but vital – next point:
Backwards College Ministry is meant for the short-term, too.
While the focus of the last post was on the grand scheme of things, the principle of Backwards College Ministry is meant for any span of time and any method.
So let’s use the upcoming Fall Semester (or Quarter) as an example. In Backwards College Ministry, the FIRST question to ask about Fall Semester 2010 would NEVER be…
…What do we want to teach about on Tuesday nights?
…What service and fellowship events should we put on the calendar?
…How can we change our small groups to make them better?
…What do our students want to do?
Those are questions worth asking soon, but not FIRST. Questions about methods are never the first question in Backwards College Ministry. Instead, the first question – and more than that, the driving question – is…
…What outcomes are we called to aim for this semester?
Yes, some of our outcomes may be exactly the same semester to semester. But surely not all? Surely there are some new priorities, based on new ways God seems to be moving, or based on concerns that have arisen lately?
The metaphor of a shepherd is pretty handy here, because it implies an approach that never, ever simply “does its thing” while relying on “organic” growth. Nor does the smart shepherd focus only on the far-off goals. Yes, wise shepherds certainly recognize that much is out of their control – the grass grows and the sheep sheep without the shepherds’ involvement. And yes, happy and healthy and hefty sheep are the Big Goal, and that doesn’t change.
But those shepherds still take up that rod and that staff on a day to day basis. They observe this field and that field, and they pick one. They pay attention to the condition of their flocks. They seek to know what’s needed today, and they respond to today’s needs.
In Backwards College Ministry, we know the condition of our flocks and respond to what they need most, first, now. When the outcomes for this semester (or this mission trip, this social event, this message) are discerned, only then do we starting deciding the “How” that can help get us there.
—————————————————————————————
Last week, it was breadth to the four winds – and that garnered some pretty interesting comments, especially interesting for a boy from the South.
The same questions I asked then apply here, too:
- What are the unique college ministry aspects of your region? (Do you know them?)
- What college ministry aspects of other regions have surprised you?
- What don’t you know about other regions’ and other circles’ college ministry norms? (It’s something we can never answer – and that fact humbles us!)
And please remember, these are riffs, not comprehensive reviews. The awesomeness of all this is how diverse everywhere is – campus to campus, town to town, state to state. I haven’t seen enough, but I’ve been blessed to see some cool things!
Northeast
I am blown away by how much effort is put into vocational spirituality in the Northeast quadrant of our country, especially compared to the rest of us. Many in the Northeast (leaders and even students) are ahead of the game on this. (Those working on this include, for instance, Brian Musser in Philly or Manna Christian Fellowship and others at Princeton or the CCO all over…) The Northeast will (I so hope) lead the rest of us slowpokes in this urgent matter.
Southeast
Is this quadrant the cradle of American college ministry? Perhaps. It’s not simply that campus ministry giants Passion and Campus Crusade and Growing Leaders and Baptist Collegiate Ministry and RUF and Great Commission Ministries all headquarter here (who am I forgetting?). There are also many individual college ministries with a great history of success, scattered throughout this corner of our land. While size and history certainly don’t mean everything, it’s hard to imagine “knowing” college ministry without knowing these exciting, “classic” college campuses.
Southwest
This innovative, not-too-worried-about-tradition corner will be, I’m guessing, the site for much college ministry innovation. Already, it’s not shocking that Campus Crusade originated here, nor that the Four Circles Evangelism method did, too. Nor that the Jesus Movement spread largely from here. It’s not particularly easy to do college ministry from SoCal through New Mexico (although some places are friendlier than others), but that’s part of the fun – and I imagine we’ll see much more from all these who are happily open to following the Spirit wherever He blows.
Northwest
It’s perhaps easiest to count out the Northwest when it comes to college ministry, seeing as how the region isn’t known for Jesus-ness and isn’t as known for collegiate-ness as its secular cousin, the Northeast. But certain facts bust up our generalizations – like Don Miller’s exciting report from the front lines of college ministry up here in Blue Like Jazz, to the recognition that the most impactful church-based college ministry resides in the heart of Seattle, to the surprising prevalence (at least from what I’ve seen) of collegiate discipleship communities. Like everywhere else, it isn’t always easy… but it is interesting up there, to say the least.
—————————————————————————————
A few weeks ago, I had the chance to guest-blog on Guy Chmieleski’s “Faith on Campus” blog. I chose a topic that’s particularly dear to my heart, one of the ways I believe an individual college ministry can best be evaluated. So I wanted to make sure you guys got to check it out!
In the first half of 2007, I read Simple Church, by Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger, as part of my duties as a full-time church college minister. That would be a turning point of sorts in my study of college ministry; Simple Church, along with a few other well-timed books that year, helped me see just how much could be gained by appropriating principles from outside the college ministry world.
Little did I know that I would soon find myself observing college ministries all over the U.S. – and it would be quite handy, in a field of ministry where we have very few objective measures, to have some guidelines to inform my questions and observations.
One of those “guidelines” discussed in Simple Church is the principle of Movement. It describes the process of helping a ministry’s members transition to deeper levels of involvement. College ministry is certainly accustomed to having different involvement levels available (like large-group meetings, small groups, and leadership), but we don’t always place priority on helping our students progress through these levels well.
If your college ministry was evaluated on that basis, how encouraging would the results be?
Adapting the recommendations in Chapter 6 of Simple Church, here are three ways in which Movement is achieved:
1. Define how ministry activities correlate with students’ various levels of involvement.
When a student first comes to our ministry, what activities are they most likely to participate in? As they grow in their involvement (and, hopefully, grow in Christ!), which activities provide deeper impact? Though every student is different and our structure may end up messier than we’d prefer, we should have a clear understanding of how students can progress through our ministry – from the time they enter to the time they graduate. Having a clear picture of this “path” enables us to encourage and facilitate Movement (as described below), and it also keeps us from programming too much at any single level of involvement.
2. Encourage Movement
As shepherds, it’s our job to point students to the activities that will help impact them further. Simple Church helped me to get comfortable with discomfort; students should actually feel some urgency to deepen their level of involvement over time. We have to define the levels of involvement for our students, express our hopes for Movement (both corporately and one-on-one), teach students why each level of involvement is right and good, and use each level of involvement to point students to the next level.
3. Facilitate Movement
While we may focus lots of energy on helping students enter our ministries, we don’t generally put the same effort into helping students progress, for example, from being “regular attenders” to serving in a committed capacity. Besides defining what Movement looks like and encouraging it to take place, we must help students take steps toward deeper involvement.
Simple Church suggests various ways in which this can take place. Two of the most applicable for our field include creating short-term or one-time opportunities for “trying out” the next level, and creating “bridges” between involvement levels. Sometimes, students might not deepen their involvement because the “step” required to move to the next level simply feels too large. By creating activities that provide more incremental steps, we give students the opportunity to progress easily and successfully.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? How have you seen this play out (or not) in your ministry?
—————————————————————————————
What else could be said about this year’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament? It’s been phenomenal, and I hope it’s a cool chance for you to revel in the awesomeness of this portion to which God has called us.
Other than that note, I’m going to jump right in to this week’s review of some of the great content from the college ministry blogs around the internet! And because of Spring Break last week, this one’s bursting at the seams with two weeks’ worth of great stuff! (Be sure to check out the bottom, where I link to great college ministry methods as well as books worth checking out for you or your students.)
And away we go…
connected to the ncaa tournament: An awesome Wall Street Journal article explains how the game of basketball originated from college ministry! Then, the New York Times checks out how John Calipari uses social media. (Hat Tip for both of those links to Emerging Scholars.) Lance Crowell offers some college ministry events that could tie in to the remaining tournament games. I provide some links to other various stories – even a short essay – right here. On top of all that, Tim Ehrhardt examines how this year’s gorgeous Cinderella, the University of Northern Iowa, provides traits campus ministries can learn from.
scripture for campus ministry: We need more of this! Billy Crain examines planting, watering, and trusting God about growth – from I Corinthians 3:6 – on the RUF Blog. And Michael Mears riffs on Acts 19:26-27, wisely dreaming of great college ministry that leads to a decrease in idol-purchasing.
understanding millennials: A simple & very helpful quiz by the Pew Research Center: How Millennial are You? provides a lot of understanding (about several generations) along the way. (HT: Emerging Scholars) Tim Elmore, meanwhile, looks at the problems associated with “extended adolescence” – starting here and continuing here.
and more college student understanding: Tom Greentree very intriguingly asks, “Are college students homeless?” Meanwhile, Mark Parker suggests that college ministers have at one thing to offer college students that they desperately need: skill in Discernment.
no more boredom (why speaking well matters in college ministry): A well-developed article on the topic, by a smart college minister who happens to be well-known for his speaking ability: Curt Harlow.
backwards college ministry: I finally started posting about one of the principles most fundamental to my understanding of college ministry. That series is still underway, but you can read the first installment and the second!
various tensions when working with college students: Guy Chmieleski remembers an enormously important discussion he had as he began college ministry – about the under-discussed tension of sexual purity in college ministry. On a related topic, he also examines how to wisely let students in to our lives. Another tension is explored as Guy gives a very timely encouragement to avoid “auto-pilot” after Spring Break. And finally, he shares his own longtime view on how we’re supposed to have a healthy life balance in the midst of our work.
How-tos, Big Ideas, and other Methods posts
- Nick Melazzo ponders experiments in practical missionality in the middle of campus
- Steve Lutz examines integrating with the campus, which he cleverly calls “breaking down the glass wall“
- Brian Barela examines student leadership: wondering whether we’re handing out too many student leadership positions and offering an encouragement to “double down” on truly potential leaders.
- Brian Barela also looks at encouraging change: first, by discovering “statues” in your ministry that might need to go – and then tips for making those changes, despite predicted negatives!
- Exploring College Ministry (that’s me!) looks at using specific methods for the various niches within our ministries
- D. J. Chuang offers links for finding a ministry job (including college ministry)
- Scot McKnight‘s thoughts could come in handy for teaching students how to choose a church
Books (& potential curriculum!) discussed
- Tim Keller’s new book and curriculum: The Gospel in Life, reviewed by Byron Borger
- a satirical assault on the New Atheism: The Loser Letters, reviewed by Scot McKnight
- …and many other books covering belief topics, annotated quite fully (as always) by Byron Borger (with a 20% discount if you order something!)
- Seth Godin’s newest – Linchpin: Steve Lutz connects it to college ministry!
- mini-reviews of various recent reads: here and continued here, by Youth Ministry guru Mark Oestreicher
—————————————————————————————
“Tell us where we really stink” and “You don’t have to sugar coat it” are two near-quotes from my experience yesterday dialoguing with a few local college ministers about their campus ministry. We talked (and I drew on a whiteboard) for about four hours total, and these guys were hungry to think about improvement.
“Sell me on that” was something else they would say, when they weren’t sure why I might make a certain statement. (And I know I definitely had a few surprises in there.)
They were, in other words, engaged in the process of thinking well outside their usual game plan. And they wanted to find out truth about their ministry, no matter the annoyances in the process.
If you had the chance, would you want to know the truth about your college ministry?
That’s not an easy question to hear, or an easy question to answer. But if we’re going to make Aggressive Progress – which, I argued in the book, is part of a missiological approach to college ministry – we have to answer Yes at some point.
(And that “some point” will probably have to come before the Aggressive Progress does.)
—————————————————————————————
Of course, there are several ways to go about finding out those truths. But if I can ever help you think about questions – and answers – about your college ministry, let me know. There are some cool options for getting that done.
West
It’s surprising (to the rest of us) that an enormous number of campuses up and down the Left Coast operate on the Quarter System. That means college ministers are dealing with a quite different school calendar, have only eleven or twelve weeks in each period, and even need to shift their summer plans by a month.
South
It’s surprising (to the rest of us) how many college ministers in the South don’t personally raise their own financial support.
Bonus: It’s surprising (to the rest of us) that many church-based college ministries must have collegiate Sunday school (either because of their overseers or even because their students demand it).
East
It’s surprising (to the rest of us) that so many amazing, college-student-filled metropolitan areas with dozens of campuses can still be such difficult ground for college ministry work (especially when they have no “focus campus”).
North
It’s surprising (to the rest of us) that plenty of places across the North are perfectly comfortable with or receptive to Christian faith and college ministry work. There are good reasons that the very multi-campus Grand Rapids has been called the “suspenders of the Bible belt,” that the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities made the cover of Christianity Today recently, and that Moscow, Idaho (home of University of Idaho) reflects a very Reformed influence.
———-
What are the unique college ministry aspects of your region? (I promise, there are some.)
What college ministry aspects of other regions have surprised you?
What don’t you know about other regions’ and other circles’ college ministry norms? (That’s the question we can never answer – but it’s a great humility-catalyst!)
—————————————————————————————
On Monday, I started looking at a principle I’ve found fundamental to my own college ministry practice. Today, I want to share how I first learned this stuff; since I can’t say this any better than the guy who taught me, I won’t really try.
A couple of years after college, I got a hold of a sermon discussing how an entire church best produces disciples. The pastor was Denton Bible Church’s Tommy Nelson, who’s pretty well-known here in Texas. (You might have encountered his widely dispersed Song of Solomon series.)
In the first 12 minutes of that message, Nelson shared a principle that has affected most of my college ministry work since then. Yes, he was applying it to the local church – but it’s a very basic methodology applicable to any ministry form.
In the message, Nelson describes learning this himself as a 26-year-old, from renowned Bible teacher (and teacher-of-teachers) Howard Hendricks.
And after 30 years of pastoring, Nelson said this is still the one thing he offers young pastors looking for guidance. “If you get this,” he tells them, “you’re going to be successful. If you don’t, I don’t care how many people [are in your church], you’re going to get frustrated.” He even describes this principle as the “Power Sweep of the church,” comparing it to the unstoppable offensive play run by Vince Lombardi’s teams of old.
Remember, this is coming from a guy with one of the most long-term impactful pastorates in Texas.
So here’s the principle. Any quotes are Nelson’s, as he described what he learned from Hendricks. While I’ll leave things basically in the form he presented it (discussing local churches), I personally apply it very directly to campus ministry.
the principle of backwards ministry
“Normally, when you talk about how to do a church, we do it backwards.”
He described watching Hendricks draw, from left to right, something like this:
A ministry usually begins with its pastor and leadership in place. Then, those people decide structure and activities – when the ministry meets, regular activities, organization, message topics, guest speakers, etc.
Of course, the structures and activities determine what kind of people, at the end of the day, are produced within this ministry. (Nelson calls them the ministry’s “gun barrel,” because that’s the part of the gun that most determines how the bullets fly and what targets are hit.)
In this form of ministry, deciding the structures comes first; the “product” comes about simply as a natural result of all that.
“That’s generally how churches are done, and that is exactly backward.”
Instead – and this time, Nelson said, Hendricks started drawing on the right side of the board – the setup should look like this:
We begin our work by establishing, “Just what do we call ‘success’?”
“When that guy has been through your church five or six years, what do you want him [the stick figure] to look like? … Because whatever you determine is successful, that’s how you’re going to organize…” Further, if that definition of success isn’t correct from the start, “then you’re going to succeed at the wrong areas.”
Only after the “Product” is established do the leaders decide the “How” of the ministry (the structures, processes, and activities), and they base those decisions entirely on the “What” they’re trying to produce! Following that, the leadership is chosen or placed based on the needs of those structures and activities.
[As I've learned since, others have called this "starting with the end in mind." I often call it "purpose-based" or even "outcome-based" ministry.]
Nelson continued, “What’s the most important part of an oxcart? The ox. The cart. The wheel. No – the most important part of an oxcart is the blueprint. Because that’s the mind of the guy who makes the oxcart. And as long as you have a blueprint, you know what an oxcart is supposed to be and how it’s supposed to function.”
You can always acquire oxen and materials to put together a solid oxcart. But “you lose that blueprint, and now you’re going to make – successfully – something that doesn’t correspond to ‘oxcart-ness.’”
“If you’re right here” – Nelson continued, pointing at the right side of the diagram – “this follows and this follows. If you’re wrong here, this’ll be wrong, and this’ll be wrong.”
———-
All the posts discussing “Backwards College Ministry” can now be found here. And in case you didn’t read it, I fleshed this out from a different angle on Monday.
—————————————————————————————
As you may know, I’m a big fan of the NCAA Tournament. As a fan of colleges in general, it gets me fired up to see 65 campus tribes on display for a few weeks. It’s a great time, as I’ve noted before, to call people’s attention to this amazing mission field; if they’re fans of the tournament, it’s pretty easy to bridge the conversation into what we get to do!
As I’ve been very much enjoying this year’s Tourney, I picked up a few things you might enjoy, too. Not all are ministry-related (but some are).
First, some facts that are of little importance but perhaps some interest:
- I filled out 18 brackets this year, 10 of which are at ESPN and 3 of which are on Facebook. Except for two “pick-with-my-gut” brackets, I employed a weird, tedious, educated-but-chance-influenced method this year. It was actually pretty fun, and it gave me much more variation among my brackets.
- Of my ESPN brackets, 2 are in the top 90 percentile (95.8 and 92.9), and 2 are – shockingly – under the FOURTH percentile (2.6 and 3.9). In many ways, it’s probably harder to make that many bad picks than to be in the 95th percentile… All in all, I don’t seem to be doing great, although several brackets have a lot of Possible Points Remaining – and that matters a lot.
- Of the 16 teams remaining in the Tourney, I’ve had the marvelous blessing of visiting 14 of them. (Sadly, St. Mary’s and Butler haven’t made it into a trip yet.) Of the original 65, I have visited 45.
making the case for college ministry: If you missed it ’cause you were on Spring Break (or want to see the pictures I added a few days ago), I posted my 2010 edition of “Sixty-four: A Vision Trip.” It’s a short essay connecting the tournament with our campus “missionary” work. Hopefully it encourages you – and highlights the importance of college ministry to those who should support it!
those crazy tribe identities: Glen Davis sent me this awesome bracket of crazy mascot nicknames from a blog I’ve never read before. I’m including it because it’s really fun, but it’s also a chance to discuss the uniqueness of the students and campuses we serve!
Georgia Tech, fasting from cell phones, and community: This ESPN article about Georgia Tech’s players giving up their cell phones makes really valuable points about the benefits of putting that stuff on hold in any group trying to build community. Could be great for sharing how that stuff distracts your students from “real life” sometimes, as well as suggesting a policy you might want to introduce (like at a college ministry retreat, for instance). And it’s a pretty fun article. (After GT finished playing the other day, it was hilarious to see those guys texting away in the stands, too, since I knew they had been “abstaining.”)
the smarts of this year’s Tourney teams: Inside Higher Ed posted its fifth annual “Academic Performance Tournament,” which takes the same bracket as March Madness but advances teams based on the players’ academic achievements. While some low seeds like Holy Cross have won it all in the past, this year was very good for the #1 seeds… except for one, which faced a bitter loss in the first round.
A few more Tourney-related items: A recent story on some college ministry success at Syracuse. The newest WVU Mountaineer mascot is also the prez of FCA. And Athletes in Action apparently hosts an annual breakfast during the Final Four.
—————————————————————————————
Today’s post examines one of the most important methodologies I’ve learned along the way. It’s also one of the topics that seems most beneficial to a wide range of college ministers. Hopefully that’s true! (If not, check back in tomorrow; the nice thing about a daily blog is that I’m bound to provide something useful once in a while!)
In the past few years of conversations with 400+ college ministers, I have regularly asked one particular question that is especially dear to my heart. And very often – perhaps more than with any other question – the college minister across the table from me had no immediate answer.
That simple question went something like this:
“What specific outcomes are you aiming to produce?”
I believe a college ministry’s success – decade-by-decade, semester-by-semester, and even activity-by-activity – should be measured in large part by the achievement of specific, aimed-for outcomes. I should have specific goals for what I want students knowing, feeling, or doing – at the end of a message, at the end of a small group time, at the end of a semester, at graduation, five years after graduation… And meeting those goals (or not) should be a primary indicator of success (or failure).
Though it is quite wise to ask ourselves if we’re “hitting what we aim at,” the problem is that it’s really easy for college ministries not to “aim” at all!
Instead, I’m tempted to “run the College Ministry Playbook” – choosing methods that have worked before and being content with the fruit… without ever stopping to ask if that particular harvest is everything God wanted to provide. God gets plenty of “good licks with crooked sticks,” so the presence of fruit doesn’t mean all is best.
I am called a co-laborer with the Lord, so it stands to reason that God might include me in on the planning and not simply the program. Though He surely has “hidden purposes” in mind, I believe He also wants to give us actual, specific aims for the ministry we do. Then He gets the glory as initiator and architect, not simply as the divine Manual Labor blessing our designs.
When we develop aims based on what God indicates our students need MOST and need NEXT, we are able to work with Him toward meeting those real needs.
An example: When I served as a church college minister here in Dallas, I knew we needed to start by laying a foundational culture of character. So my short-term targets were four basic qualities – Focus, Direction, Integrity, and Commitment – and nearly all my teaching (for a whole year) centered on those areas. I varied my words and the angle at which I approached these themes, but my aim was pretty static and very intentional.
Meanwhile, I also recognized that our ministry would need leaders. So raising up student leadership was another outcome I aimed for (through a regular leadership prep study).
And even individual activities were tied to specific outcomes – like choosing a Spring Break “Mad Libs eBay Road Trip” instead of a traditional mission trip, in part because our Dallas students needed to learn that planning shouldn’t be an idol.
In other words, I was bound to the targets God provided.
I’ll post some more on this in the days to come, including more explicitly discussing why this is “backwards” college ministry (as the title of this post implies). Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your feedback, either in the comments or otherwise.
And whether this resounds with you at the moment or not, I hope you’ll at least consider the original question – What specific outcomes are you aiming to produce? – and decide how prominent a role that question should play in your decision-making.
If you do decide to prioritize that question, I believe it will revolutionize your college ministry. And while that may indeed be a bold statement, I know from experience how much it’s changed my own.
The second post in this series – and why this is “backwards” college ministry – can be found here.
If this sounds somewhat familiar, it’s an edit of a post I guest-blogged at Heart of Campus Ministry awhile back. But hopefully it’s even better after the edits and other fixes, and I do plan to explore further in the coming days.
—————————————————————————————
Recent Comments