You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘backwards college ministry’ category.
From the world of Backwards College Ministry, something I’ve been remembering recently…
When I last served as a college minister, I had the opportunity (as many do) to teach on a weekly basis. I tried hard to match my students’ spiritual needs with applicable teaching, and I often found ways to do that and still connect the weeks via some common series or theme.
But what’s interesting is that as the purposes called for it, I found myself altering the elements and even the style of my talks. I would show video clips on occasion – but certainly not always. I would use PowerPoint plenty – but again, not always. Some weeks were far more dialogue-based; other weeks I was coming very near to “preaching” in the classic sense. My talks varied in length and in style, according to the needs I was seeking to meet.
Looking back, I honestly think that’s not a bad way to go about things. It seems to me that different messages call for different styles. And if I really believe that the methods we use are supposed to serve our purposes – and never the other way around – then that means that my methods this week may differ from my methods last week.
Even in how I teach.
This week’s message may need to go 30 minutes – not because “I always talk for 30 minutes,” but because the subject matter calls for it. Next week, perhaps 15 minutes. And the next message may need to be spread across two meetings. (And that one message might have far more impact if it’s typed up and handed out, instead of spoken!)
Any given week, the purposes of a message could call for more (or less) dialogue with the audience. They could demand round table discussion groups one week – and then no matter how well those go, the next week’s purposes may call for something different. Maybe a “prop” will help accomplish certain outcomes this week; a movie clip may be best next week; the following week, a field trip may be in order. This message’s purposes may be helped by a student’s testimony mid-message. That message’s purposes might be accomplished by using an interview style throughout.
And so on, aspect-by-aspect, until your message’s methods are truly enslaved to your message’s purposes.
I recognize that there’s a point that “not knowing what to expect” during the teaching time might begin to inhibit some of the other purposes of your ministry. If students don’t know if they’ll get out of Large Group at 9pm or 10pm, that’s a major distraction.
But in general, our students – and especially today’s students – may in fact enjoy the variety. And if our various messages are designed with purposes in mind, those students will likely be impacted better, too.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
It was really exciting to see the enthusiastic response I got when I shared the Backwards College Ministry methodology at the CMU Workshop. At its heart, the principle is simply to let our methods serve our purposes – not the other way around.
Wanna know two of the scariest areas where Backwards College Ministry can come into play? Our planning and our standard forms.
planning like purposes matter
If having distinct and very timely purposes really matters – for what we teach, the events we hold, the discussions we facilitate, and everything else in our ministries – then even how (and when) we plan will look different.
We won’t plan before we know the purposes we’re aiming for.
Our plans will be adjusted/tweaked/trashed based less on spur-of-the-moment “creativity” and more on what better fits our purposes.
We won’t start or end our planning with what our students want. Yes, it matters. But only in the middle. Purposes matter a whole lot more; what students want helps us narrow down the methods that will best help us accomplish our purposes.
We probably won’t plan much of our college ministry activity more than a semester (or less) in advance. Our ministry changes too quickly. The campus climate changes too quickly – not, perhaps, in giant, radical ways, but certainly in small, subtle trends that still matter. Our students don’t run their lives on a yearlong calendar. What students need to learn / do / discuss / hear in the spring is rarely foreseeable in July. …So why are we trying to plan so far in advance?
Yes, some things – a mission trip, a guest speaker, a campus-wide event – may need foresight beyond a few months’ time. So when long-range planning fits a purpose, then long-range planning is best.
But planning – even planning – isn’t a virtue in-and-of-itself. Putting a message topic on the schedule for next February may feel good, but it’s likely keeping you from actually accomplishing as much as you could in the lives of your students or in your ministry as a whole. We tend to reason this out rather circularly: “It’s wiser to plan it out because… it’s wiser to plan.” Phooey!
(Yep, I just used “phooey.” I think that’s a first for this blog.)
choosing our forms like purposes matter
This week at the Workshop, I changed my general speaking style. Usually I’m purposely more “polished,” with lots of pictures-via-PowerPoint and a direct, point-by-point approach.
But as I pondered the topic I was asked to teach, I felt it called for a different teaching style. A lot of writing on the board, no prompts via PowerPoint, a lot of back-and-forth with the audience. It was tough sometimes. It didn’t “feel” as good (and probably didn’t sound as good, either). But I think it accomplished its specific purposes better.
Do you have a “set form” for teaching in your campus ministry?
Why?
What about leading a small group? Or throwing a party? Or kicking off the year? Or recruiting? Obviously, we may not be utterly altering our personality (and what the group is used to) for each and every activity. But if the form isn’t decided after the purposes are decided, then we’ve already lowered our effectiveness.
And yes, I just noted that even recruiting may have different purposes at different times.
I know in my life, planning and standard forms can be idols, “addictions,” crutches, dependencies, comfy little blankets that smother purposes more than I realize.
Just some bold statements to think about, mull over, or even disagree with on a Monday in the middle of the summer!
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
In my occasional series on Backwards College Ministry, I’ve explained a practical principle that has been invaluable in my own college ministry work – and it’s been an interesting point of evaluation as I’ve explored ministries around the country.
Backwards College Ministry, in a nutshell, dictates that purposes determine methods. It’s encompassed in the arrow between “What Success Looks Like” and “How” in the diagram below. (You can read further explanation in the other posts in this series.)
As many of us begin to plan for the Fall or the entire next school year*, I wanted to point us toward what this really requires… if you’re inclined at least to give this “Backwards College Ministry” methodology a try.
It means taking the mission-tailored approach towards every individual activity or long-range Plan. In every case, an activity is purposely, openly, and carefully tailored to the “mission” for that activity. Let all your methods be mission-tailored, and you’ve set the stage for a college ministry that could be more impactful than you would ever imagine.
Remember that great scene in Apollo 13 when Mission Control (along with the astronauts) had to cobble together a way to remove excess carbon dioxide? In Ed Harris’s words, they had to “invent a way to put a square peg in a round hole.” Using only the materials in the spacecraft, they marshaled all ingenuity towards tailoring a solution.
The mission was clear: Lower the CO2 levels. So their solution – their method – was mission-tailored. They simply built something that fit their purposes – no more, no less. Less would mean failure. More would be a waste.
Looking back at your last 5 methods, how many were actually tailored – purposely, openly, carefully – around the purposes they were intended to fulfill?
- Was that Midnight Pancakes event designed only after you’d determined its key purposes?
- Was that last talk (including the video you showed and the story you told) built carefully around what you hoped students would know, feel, or do as a result of the talk?
- Was the curriculum for last semester’s small group chosen very specifically to meet actual needs of actual students?
- Did you determine the Why for your message series long before you gave it that catchy title or determined its length?
I am completely comfortable with the fact that some may prefer a different methodology. But for those willing to give this a try, I think you might be surprised. Yes, choosing to precede every methods-discussion with a purposes-discussion will seem a little tedious at first. But it will lead to better impact – and greater creativity, too**!
And if you do disagree here, at least we’re thinking about college ministry methodology! That’s something we could use a lot more of.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
*As an advocate of college ministry methods that are driven by needs, I have a hard time seeing any reason to plan more than a semester at a time – except for methods (like a mission trip) where months of planning are actually required. How in the world can I expect to know what my students will most need next February? And if I don’t know the purposes, I can’t plan the methods, can I?
**because necessity is the mother of invention. By establishing “necessities” at the beginning, we’re forced to get creative to accomplish those purposes.
—————————————————————————————
“Sell me on that.”
That was the encouraging reply from a college minister, during a recent “consultation” / evaluation I was conducting for his ministry. He wasn’t sure about a statement I had just made, but he was very willing to hear why I would hold such a surprising notion.
The notion? A college ministry should have introverts on its Greeting Team.
(And while that’s pretty specific, just wait – the principle can apply throughout your student leadership.)
I understand why that idea may be surprising. Indeed, if the Greeting Team is only focused on the act of greeting, then extroverts and other “naturally good greeters” are a logical choice.
But what if a Ministry Team isn’t primarily about
doing a task
but instead is about
getting purposes accomplished?
In Backwards College Ministry, a Greeting Team isn’t only about the act of greeting. It’s about helping people feel welcomed, along with perhaps other outcomes: helping visitors know “next steps,” getting contact info from visitors, helping connect visitors with others in the ministry, or whatever you’ve determined.
And when a Team isn’t just for “doing” but is for accomplishing, then establishing teams with various sorts of people simply makes sense. Varied opinions, talents, and approaches are a major asset, as students work together in planning AND doing.
In the Greeting Team example, a diverse team helps
- details and important actions not get overlooked
- introverted visitors not be overlooked, and be greeted in ways that fit them
- the team better evaluate its own effectiveness (from all angles)
- balance and deepen the spiritual understanding of this specific ministry
Sure, the team may still assign the extroverts to do most of the actual greeting on Tuesday nights. But everyone has a hand in accomplishing the purposes …by praying through the needs, planning based on the purposes, and following through on the plan.
If a Ministry Team isn’t primarily about doing a task but is instead about getting purposes accomplished, then who might you need on the Team? Imagine:
- a Recruitment Team with those who do the recruiting AND those who help the recruiting be extra-effective
- a Social Events Team with skilled partiers AND students who have trouble fitting in
- a Men’s Ministry Team with solid guys… who regularly consult the Ladies’ Team about how the ministry’s guys need to grow (and vice versa)
- a Prayer Team with all kinds of individuals – not just those who have a natural inclination towards or love of prayer (as with any spiritual affinity, having diversity helps maintain health)
Yes, there’s wisdom needed as this all comes together. Not every possible personality, gifting, or skill-set will be a fit on every possible team. The point is to understand ministry teams as more about accomplishing outcomes than doing methods – or at least that’s the way Backwards College Ministry approaches this key area.
To catch up on the concept of Backwards College Ministry, see the series here.
—————————————————————————————
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.
—————————————————————————————
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.
—————————————————————————————
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