You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘campus-based (specific)’ category.
Instead of the usual Fridea, I wanted to offer a little more college ministry “theory” with a continuation of yesterday’s post. I noted then two of the big areas where we see major variations within the field of college ministry – Meeting Sites and “Tribal Reach.” Today, two more areas in which variations occur.
Basic Structure
Yes, we’re all most familiar with the “full-fledged” or “classic” model of college ministry: generally autonomous ministries that try to offer a full discipleship experience for college students. But there are indeed ministries – in various branches of collegiate ministry – that differ.
Some, for example, may focus only on particular areas. Maybe they only hold a large group. Others may only (or primarily) use small groups. Others may focus on a few areas of service or discipleship – like “pods” of activity overseen by the ministry. Similar to these forms are college ministries that aim to be purposely complementary to other local college ministries. They offer one area of discipleship, while recognizing their students need other forms as well.
I’ve also run into college ministries that are purposely partnered with other ministries. These tend to involve churches that purposely make use of campus-based college ministries, which function as a sort of “outsourced” college ministry for the church. Meanwhile, some college ministries may be less officially tied but may very purposely point students to participation in the other.
Constituent Students
All college ministries – of all branches – have to consider whether to / how to involve students who live locally during the summer. Church-based college ministries and collegiate churches also have to consider how to / whether to minister to their “home-grown” students – both those who go away to school and those who stay nearby.
Once we make sense of it, the variations here are predictable. But not all of us realize that certain forms exist – like campus-based ministries that reach students while they’re home for the summer, or church-based college ministries that only focus on students at the local school (and not necessarily students who grew up in the church). Those outside of church-based college ministry also should recognize that these ministries sometimes face a real difficulty in having to maintain nearly two distinct college ministries – one for school year students, and one for the summertime crowd.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
Last Monday, I argued that we who serve as “missionaries to the campus tribes” need to avail ourselves of learning our field – our “missiology.” It’s not enough for us to learn techniques and “Best Practices” (which I’ve argued don’t exist much in college ministry, anyway). We need to care about the theory side of our work, even if some of us are wired to care about it more than others.
To that end, I wrote about some things I’d had opportunities to speak on recently: the delineation of the four branches of campus ministry, some variations I’ve seen within those branches, and some strengths of each form.
Now I arrive at some of the “struggles” in those branches. Today, I’ll look at the difficulties faced in campus-based and church-based college ministry; tomorrow I should be able to examine struggles in the other two branches.
As I noted last week (in regards to the strengths), these listed struggles generally reflect the more “classic” or common models for each area. As I discussed last week, there are variations in every branch, so some struggles apply more broadly than others.
Campus-based college ministry struggles
- Though many in this camp will – rightly – talk about the joy of locating partners for their ministry, personal support-raising can still be a difficult road. Not all campus-based groups have to support-raise, but those that don’t seem generally limited to denominational campus-based work in the South.
- For those truly “parachurch,” it’s easier to disconnect with the rest of American Christianity – whether it’s churches, denominations, new lines of thoughts, new forms of ministry, or anything else.
- Denominational campus-based ministries may face difficulties – practical, theological, or otherwise – of their denominational ties. Some have faced severe issues along these lines.
- It is often harder within this form of college ministry to connect students to local churches within their collegiate years, and even pointing them to / teaching them about “churchmanship” may also be more difficult (or simply less of a felt need).
- Autonomy has its downsides, to be sure.
Church-based college ministry struggles
- Churches often struggle with a lack of longevity – of both college ministries AND “versions” of their college ministries.
- These ministers are usually not overseen by individuals who have served in college ministry.
- Integration with the campus is trickier in this branch than any other.
- Compared to campus-based college ministry, it’s much harder to find an open position in this field; even the opportunity to volunteer to run a church collegiate outreach may, sadly, not be available!
- This branch doesn’t hasn’t had a lot of development.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
This week, I’ve been offering some learning on the various branches. Not all of this is news to most readers, I’m sure, but I still want to share what I’ve seen in the nationwide views I’ve had the chance to gain.
Today and tomorrow, I want to visit the other part of my seminar from Tuesday morning: my perspective on the Strengths and Struggles of the four branches of college ministry. First, many of the strengths that seem to exist in each branch – including some you might not have often thought about.
These strengths usually reflect the more “classic” or more common models for each area. As I discussed yesterday, there are variations in every branch, so some strengths apply more broadly than others.
Campus-based college ministry strengths
- While our entire field remains quite underdeveloped, campus-based college ministry is clearly the most developed of the branches. In general, it’s got more handed-down wisdom, more collaboration, more “lifers,” more conferences, and more history than the other branches.
- As I’ve argued – often and in ebook form – I believe all college ministry works best when it’s viewed missiologically. Campus-based college ministry seems to take this tack pretty naturally, as it usually involves some group – a number of supporters, perhaps, or a collection of churches – sending a missionary-expert to dwell within and reach a campus tribe.
- Longevity – of ministries and ministers.
- Oversight is provided – usually – by other (or former) college ministers.
- There are in some sense “unlimited” job openings, as long as individuals are willing to raise their own support.
- While many find personal support-raising (the predominant funding method here) a discouraging concept, many do report value in raising up lots of ministry “partners” – and it’s diversified funding, as well.
Church-based college ministry strengths
- When a college minister is actually employed by a church, the funding is steady and doesn’t generally have to be raised.
- Naturally provides opportunities to integrate students into church life and help them make intergenerational connections (which seems beneficial for both the present and life following graduation).
- As American Christians – possibly – seem to be recognizing a greater need for impacting students after high school, there seems to be lots of room for growth in this branch.
- Those serving within a church setting might have the opportunity to feel less isolated.
- The backing of a church can encourage longevity of a ministry and its identity, even across multiple leaders.
Institutional
- This area seems to have the best structures in place for widespread collaboration, and this is perhaps the most “learned” branch. (Some institutional college ministers serve as faculty, have higher levels of education than most, serve as “lifers,” learn from other fields – secular and Christian, etc.)
- High level of integration with the campus (obviously), thus sharing some of the proximity strengths of campus-based college ministry
- Funding is often “set” and might be an expected, long-term part of the budget (moreso than many church-based college ministries).
- The backing of the school may aid ministry longevity.
Collegiate Churches
- Share an interesting mix of some strengths from both church-based ministry (church integration, for example) and campus-based college ministry (missiological activity, among other things).
- Autonomy
- This strategy seems to have some momentum, as major groups are (newly) considering this strategy and the emergence of multi-site churches has led / could lead to collegiate sites.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
I enjoyed sharing with Dallas Seminary students yesterday, and I wanted to offer here some of the points I presented to them. But one of the areas I didn’t get to cover – fully, at least – were the variations found in each of the branches of college ministry. It was, after all, a primer, so it generally made the most sense to present the “classic” versions of each branch.
But each of the branches do indeed have variations – and they’re important to note, since often we only know the “versions” we ourselves have seen. So here’s a quick run-down of some diversifications within each branch.
Campus-based
This one has two well-known methodologies already: denominational campus-based ministries (like Wesley Foundation, Chi Alpha, and several others) and fully parachurch work (like InterVarsity, Navigators, and Campus Crusade). But even beyond that, some ministries look a little different from the “norms.”
- Niche-based ministries (based on anything from campus geography to majors to ethnicity)
- Complementary ministries (that purposely accomplish only part of students’ discipleship, leaving other portions to other ministries)
- Student-directed ministries (with no adult leader on-site or off-site)
- These have a spectrum from fully autonomous, standalone ministries to well regulated, national ministries
Church-based
- There’s a broad spectrum here of fully volunteer-directed ministries (with even students sometimes playing this role) to multi-staff-member church-based ministries running very large, well budgeted ministries… and everything in-between (part-time ministers, full-time ministers with multiple “hats,” and so on)
- Some church-based ministries (or portions of those ministries) function in a way nearly identical (“on the ground,” though not in oversight) to campus-based ministries
- Some hybrids exist – like some CCO ministries and Campus Outreach ministries – in which the college ministries function under a church but are also resourced and overseen by a national ministry
Institutional
- The primary duties may vary more widely than any other college ministry branch. Institutional college ministers may (or may not) focus on a Chapel program, mobilizing students in service and missions, discipleship / small groups, serving in more of a “chaplain” / pastoral role, involvement with faculty and staff, and/or other areas.
- Somewhat like church-based college ministers, those serving at Christian colleges could have spiritual development as only one of lots of duties… all the way to having large staffs
- The religious spectrum of schools obviously affects the institutional college ministers, and not all college ministers are necessarily of the exact same theological bent as their institution
- While the institutional college minister is often the only college minister serving a Christian college directly, many are impacted by local church-based ministers and some even have campus-based ministries present
- The amount of freedom these college ministers have varies, since they are completely tied to the college they serve
Collegiate Churches
- The main variation I’ve seen here is in autonomy. Some of these collegiate churches are independent church plants. Others were planted by a “mother church” that still has some tie to them. Some are part of a larger church-planting body (particularly Great Commission Ministries). And a few multisite churches have planted a campus site – which still fits this branch, certainly, but functions as a site of a larger church.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
Today I have the chance to share a brownbag seminar at Dallas Theological Seminar. I’ve been asked to speak on “The Four Streams of College Ministry,” introducing for students the branches that make up our field.
I’ve found it immensely helpful to think about collegiate ministry in four branches. But it’s actually been through my journeys that this nomenclature has developed, and I wanted to revisit that issue before jumping into further thoughts later this week.
In October 2009, I first broached the subject of broadening my original 3-branch system. I received some great comments on that post – comments that truly helped me digest that issue. Here’s (most of) that post, followed by a link to the comments it received.
———————————
I believe I first outlined my classification of the “three branches” of college ministry in a post way back in February 2008. I had variously referred to those three branches before, including in my book:
- Campus-based college ministry (including parachurch, denominational, and independent ministries centering their activity on the local campus)
- Church-based college ministry (ministries overseen within individual churches)
- Spiritual development at Christian colleges (the specific people or departments in Christian colleges dedicated to student discipleship, often called “spiritual life” or “chaplaincy”) (from Reaching the Campus Tribes, pages 17-18)
Those branches are distinguished, in my mind, by a few major things:
- Campus integration (the connection of the ministry to the college campus, including where it centers its activity)
- Oversight (who tends to hire, govern, and evaluate a ministry’s leaders)
- Function (the way the ministry operates and “feels,” particularly to students)
- Field reception (the lines the college ministry community has tended to draw between these areas)
While any of these factors might be clearer or fuzzier for an individual ministry, I do feel they fairly well delineate between the various branches. So using this terminology has been really helpful to me.
But as I continue to explore and ponder, I always want to be open to tweaking my approach! One question has especially led me to consider adding a “fourth branch” to my classification (it’s the first question listed below).
The big questions:
- Collegiate Church Planting is a major strategy employed on a significant number of campuses. Should it be considered a fourth branch of college ministry, or does it fit better under one of the present branches?
- Should campus-based ministry be split into two branches: denominational / church-related and fully parachurch?
- Should ministries run entirely by students be considered a separate branch of college ministry?
- What’s the best term for Branch #3? “Spiritual development at Christian colleges”? “Chaplaincy”? Something else?
- Any other adjustments you would make to this system?
———————————
A handful of college ministers weighed in on that post with some outstanding thoughts, leading me to the four-branch system I now use. I highly encourage you to check out those comments here.
Those thoughts also helped solidify the names I tend to use for these “Four Streams.” Here’s how I’ll describe those branches with the seminary students today:
- Campus-based college ministry (which includes both fully parachurch and denominational ministries)
- Church-based college ministry
- Institutional college ministry (specific spiritual development organized by Christian schools)
- Collegiate churches (including independent church plants and campus-focused sites of multisite churches)
In the days to come, I’ll observe some of the differences, similarities, and unique aspects of these branches! And as always, I’d love your thoughts on how this is organized – in our underdeveloped field, this is one sort of discussion we need a lot more of!
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
If you missed it, Campus Crusade for Christ unveiled its new name for the U.S. ministry this week! “Cru” will go “official” in 2012, although your various campuses will probably adjust on different timetables. (And some of you have probably seen simply “Cru” for awhile already.)
They have an open discussion board up to discuss the name change, and I’ve read through quite a bit of it. Like many forums, it’s drawn plenty of nonsense, but there are definitely some good discussions and good questions taking place, too.
I also really encourage you to check out the videos if you haven’t – there’s some great stuff there, including from Bill Bright’s widow and from an Executive Director who was originally not a fan of “Cru” (a very wise addition to the testimony list).
I presented my first thoughts on this yesterday. From the discussions on the forum and some additional reflectin’, some thoughts:
- This will like affect college ministers more than college ministry activity. On campus, few people will have any problem with the name “Cru” (except for the branding issue mentioned yesterday), and it will indeed avoid the barriers “Crusade” erects. But sadly, there will likely be supporters of our Campus Crusade staff friends who pull funding because of misunderstandings about the name (see below). Pray for them.
- Hopefully Cru will give its staff all sorts of tools for sharing about the name-change. One concern that does seem to be coming from the campus ministers via the discussion board is a difficulty knowing how to explain the new name. Hopefully well-written letters from national staff, brilliant “talking points,” DVDs, and other tools will be provided… quickly. If I was a staff member, I’d want to contact my supporters this week with some really choice words.
- I’m glad they’re allowing the airing of views. The discussion board is a good thing, even if it doesn’t produce solely good material. A big company like Crusade should go over-the-top in transparency as often as possible.
- I hope the “higher-ups” see the value of addressing concerns. Sadly, it seems like regional or national team comments on the forum are few and far between. On the other hand, I’ve really appreciated the comments from my friend Ryan McReynolds (a Regional Director in the Northeast) – they’re well-said, for one thing, and sprinkled conservatively rather than saturating the discussion. I hope others will jump in, or that new responses will be constructed that honor the valid concerns but also address them directly.
- Explaining the “removal” of “Christ” is going to be an uphill battle. Since discussion boards always draw out the discontented, they’re not good “surveys” as such. But it’s still clear that among those upset by the name, their biggest issue is likely to be the absence of “Christ” in the name. Hopefully Cru can repeatedly point out that they didn’t actually remove anything. They felt the need to completely start over on the name and ultimately landed on “Cru” as an reflection of the past… not a shortening of the past name. (That’ll be a tough sell for some, I’m sure, but it’s true.)
- Is “Cru” going to feel dated? This seems a more valid concern, and it’s got me wondering, too. It’s possible “Cru” will sound like a relic sooner rather than later – especially if they try to emphasize that it’s a modification of the word “crew.” But this effect is also probably heightened when a group goes from a clearly “old-school” name to a clearly more modern name; the renaming of the Baptist General Conference denomination to “Converge Worldwide” is one recent example. It may be that “Cru” stands the test of time just fine.
- I hope they’ll buy the domain(s). Right now, cru.com hosts a directory of sports and leisure clubs in Ulster, Northern Ireland. (And you have to imagine that a site like that has had way more hits than they’re used to in the last couple of days.) I’m shocked they weren’t able to find a donor to help grab that domain before the announcement. Cru.org is apparently registered by Campus Crusade, even though they didn’t have it set up yesterday when I checked. There are probably other domains worth going for, too (.net, .co, etc.).
- This is national news. For now, let me leave you with some good links. I’m sure you can Google to find more:
- Christianity Today offers a great run-down of the story.
- The Washington Post provides a short, helpful article.
- Baptist Press gives a great synopsis of the situation.
- USA Today‘s Faith & Reason blog actually covered this in a rather awkward way, like the author was trying to stir up concerns rather than cover the issue.
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
If you’re interested in college ministry at all, you’re interested in this: The country’s best-known, best-branded college ministry (by far) will change its name in 2012. Campus Crusade for Christ will officially become “cru” nationwide.
(I was going to post about something college ministries can learn from Justin Bieber – really – but I’ll save that for this week’s Fridea. Check back in a couple of days!)
Campus Crusade has done a good job with their announcement page for this change, including the official press release and a very strong Q&A page. It’s interesting to note not only the whys (and the hows) of the name-change, but also to read between the lines and see some of the concerns others have already expressed.
(See some additional thoughts & links in the next post.)
the why of the change
In their words,
There’s only one reason we’d change. We want to do a better job of connecting people to God’s love and forgiveness. It’s all about helping people experience the good news that Jesus offers.
Since 2009, Campus Crusade for Christ International has been officially looking at making a change for its U.S. mission, but various levels have felt this need for a much longer time. The key issues involve both “campus” and “crusade.” The former is a problem because Campus Crusade does have much work beyond college campuses.
But for the huge part of U.S. Campus Crusade that is collegiate work, it’s the word “Crusade” that has been problematic. (I wrote on those “unexpected shiftings of vocabular connotations” back in 2009.) While “crusade” actually has a much more general meaning, newer generations may not associate the word with anything other than the historical Crusades. And when you add the fact that Campus Crusade sends lots of students to the mission field each year, the level of concern increases all the more.
Very interestingly, they write
Our surveys show that, in the U.S., twenty percent of the people willing to consider the gospel are less interested in talking with us after they hear the name. We are changing the name for the sake of more effective ministry.
my first thoughts
From my viewpoint – not only of Crusade but also in broader Evangelical campus ministry – here are some first reflections on this far-reaching decision in the world of College Ministry.
1. The name. I knew this change was coming, and my best guess was they’d land on one of three options:
- Cru, since it is the common nickname across many campuses.
- CRU – as an acronym – since it keeps the common nickname but adds meaning. It could be something like “Christ Reaching the University” (at least for the campus work).
- Campus for Christ, which is the Canadian name already and is (obviously) stinkin’ close.
Officially, the new name is “cru” for the logo and “Cru” in normal sentences. (“Lowercase letters are used in the logo to “avoid confusion as an acronym or abbreviation.”)
2. A tough situation. When it comes down to it, I think they had to change the name. (That 20% statistic alone is enough to sway me!) So once that decision was reached, it’s sensible to go with something derived from what they’ve had, and something already connected to many of their chapters (which they call “movements”).
But having to change at all still makes things tough. There’s no college ministry out there with nearly the name recognition among outsiders; pastors and parents seem far more likely to know to tell their students to “look for Campus Crusade!” than anything else.
As a point of comparison, second prize in “brand recognition” probably goes to the Baptist Student Union… the former name of the Southern Baptist Convention’s campus-based ministry. BSU is now called “Baptist Collegiate Ministries” nationally and all sorts of different things state-by-state. Yet those outside the world of college ministry continue to point students to “BSU,” even though that name is only used in a few states. (You can read about their situation here.)
So Cru is likely to face something similar for a long, long time: As students, donors, and others come looking for “Campus Crusade for Christ,” they won’t find what they’re looking for (immediately, at least). That’s a huge loss from a branding perspective.
3. Growing in Cru vs. Rowing in Crew. While it may sound silly, there will be places the new name will cause confusion with rowing teams. “Cru” and “Crew” are homophones, obviously. So at campuses where “rowing crew” is a big deal – yes, there are such campuses – this may cause a bit of a hiccup. Remember The Social Network? (Fortunately, Cru is known as “Real Life” in Boston!)
The funny thing is, Cru will now share this difficulty with InterVarsity, whose name has long caused some to assume an athletic connection.
4. Internal pressures. No matter what we outside the Campus Crusade family think about the name-change, I imagine it’s probably a bit nightmarish dealing with detractors from throughout the staff and donor base. (The FAQ makes clear what some of the concerns are.)
We should pray for our Cru brothers and sisters as they, again, do the best they can with a tough situation. And we should pray for those on the local level; it’s never fun being told you have to change your name, even if you can see why. Those who haven’t already shifted to “Cru” or something else entirely probably have reasons for keeping the status quo, so I’m sure there will be some level of grumpiness and difficulty!
5. The larger campus missionary community? In describing the process, Cru noted that they solicited ideas from thousands within the organization. The decision itself involved 30 staff members from throughout the organization, as well as input from two outside agencies. All of that is superb.
What I missed in reading the site, however, was any mention of discussing this with those outside the Campus Crusade family. (Of course, they might have involved staff from IV, Navigators, Chi Alpha, etc., but I didn’t see it mentioned.)
Rightly or wrongly, one of the biggest concerns I hear about local Cru ministries is the classic “They’re just interested in doing their own thing” complaint. It seems like both the name-change process and the announcement were big chances for this largest of campus ministries to clarify that they see themselves as members of a much larger community of those “reaching the campus tribes.” But hopefully this was a part of the process; if so, maybe they’ll note that at some point.
6. God cares about names. I really appreciate the emphasis they’ve placed on God needing to direct this process (especially in the video announcements). In the end, the decision may seem “simple,” but it’s good for all of us to remember that God cares about directing us in our individual ministries, too – whether we’re picking a name, designing a T-shirt, or writing a blog. We should be praying about it all!
7. Of course, they’re phasing it in. Don’t be surprised if “Campus Crusade for Christ” is still used at your campus for semesters or even years to come. The page states they’re waiting until “early 2012″ so they can make sure “Cru has high name recognition with our stakeholders.”
But I imagine (and hope) there will be major leeway given to those “on the ground” to phase this in. The tough thing about a major change at the campus level is that word-of-mouth and branding are so key. The nice thing, though, is that within 3 years no one even remembers there was a change!
More tomorrow. This is a big moment in the history of our field. I’ve got additional thoughts & links in the next post. Further, if you’re interested in getting to know Cru better, here are my reflections after attending the DFW Winter Conf, and part two is here. (One of the best ways to get to know a college ministry is to participate in what it sees as a cornerstone activity.)
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
I mentioned yesterday that I have the chance to speak at the national EV Free church leaders’ convention this week. Today, why my topic matters to everyone in college ministry, not just churches.
I care – deeply – about college ministry in all its branches, including certainly campus-based ministry, collegiate churches, and institutional college ministry. But I personally spent lots of years in church-based college ministry. I’ve also had the chance to examine the college ministries (or lack thereof) in most of the country’s best-known churches, along with plenty of churches that aren’t as well known.
And it’s a tough scene.
The toughest (or at least most under-developed) of all the branches.
And the difficulties don’t just affect those churches. They affect all of us who hope to minister to students.
I believe one BIG solution to the difficulties – and one with BIG ramifications for other kinds of college ministry, too – is an approach that emphasizes forming the College Student Plan over the building a “classic” church college ministry.
I first mentioned College Student Plans in my book (pp. 98-103), including:
Perhaps some churches feel they must either have a full college ministry program or nothing at all. But this is simply not the case. In fact, if I began my trip with the faint illusion that every church should build a full-fledged college ministry program, my research quickly cured me of that notion. Not every church needs a standard, holistic college ministry, and obviously not every church will be able to support that level of investment. In fact, our Christian cause among campus tribes would actually be damaged if every local church began competing for the students on the campus.But every church that encounters college students must plan for that encounter.
The College Student Plan Approach to church-based college ministry begins with the assumption that every campus climate is an individual ecosystem, a culture, a “tribe.” It also recognizes that every church is different, too, including (of course) the nature of the collegians actually under its care or in its vicinity.
For a church to begin with any sort of pre-packaged “checklist” for starting its ministry is, at best, foolish. And this includes assuming that the church needs to aim for a stand-alone, full-discipling, classic “college ministry.” Nor should any church assume that its ministry to students needs to look a certain way (like the church down the street or across the state), needs to draw a certain size to be viable, or even needs to look the same season-to-season.
Instead, the College Student Plan Approach begins with “exegeting” or “decoding” the entire context. The point is exegeting before building. Sadly, most churches seem to either jump forward with lots of gusto in an “if we build it, they will come” mentality… OR they take the organic approach and just “see if we can get something going.”
As I’ve seen in churches throughout the country, these two approaches seem to have terrible overall track records.
The College Student Plan Approach urges churches to put all possibilities on the table, and carefully evaluate what’s needed where they are. Their eventual result could include one or more of the following ingredients:
- particularly focusing on their “home-grown” students, both locally and away at school, including helping them plug into college ministries that will impact them well
- pointing attending students to campus-based ministries to receive their specialized collegiate impact
- offering a really solid intergenerational experience for students who attend
- offering ministry to students that complements the work being done by other college ministries
- cooperating with like-minded churches to establish a single ministry for college students
- cooperating in direct partnership with campus-based ministries (or institutional ministries, in the case of Christian colleges)
- and yes, perhaps creating a full-fledged college ministry to impact the local campus(es)
Should some churches start “classic” college ministries? Absolutely! But one reason we should ALL care about the College Student Plan Approach is that it only implements that option when it’s best. In that way, it encourages health throughout our local campus tribes.
[Later, I reprinted an article I wrote outlining a possible process to discern a church's College Student Plan. You can find that here.]
But there’s another way the College Student Plan approach encourages health. Because it slows down the church’s process, emphasizing exegeting before proceeding, the resulting college ministry – even if it does ultimately involve a “full-fledged” college ministry – will be far healthier, a better fit within the campus community, and longer-lasting. The entire tribe is weakened when a local church’s college ministry undulates in strength over a decade, restarts constantly, or turns out to be unhealthy.
So we should all rally here, encouraging churches to weigh their attempts wisely, exegete fully, and (as needed) build strongly!
Any thoughts on this – from the church-based among us, or from ministers in the other branches?
For more info on my opportunity this week – and how you can pray, check it out here!
—————————————————————————————
As I wrote yesterday, I’m finding a 4-branch categorization most useful for thinking about American college ministry. Since it was on my mind (and since I shared about these things at my seminar last weekend), I thought I’d do a little riff on the four branches – particularly some points that might be surprising.
Again, I’m not comparing or contrasting. Just riffing.
1. Campus-based college ministry. Campus-based work is of course the best-known of the branches, so there are probably fewer “surprises” here than in the others. But for those outside of campus-based work (or even inside), a few important-but-sometimes-ignored points include:
- This is certainly the most developed branch within college ministry.
- While these ministries may look similar on the surface, each ministry has real distinctives. In fact, there is plenty of variation even within the same organizations. Some organizations, of course, have more diversity-of-methodology or diversity-of-theology than others.
- Denominational ministries and parachurch ministries are two distinct sub-categories in this branch.
- Denominational ministries don’t consider themselves fully “parachurch” (generally), since each ministry is in fact organized by churches (or, in some cases, a single church).
2. Church-based college ministry. Perhaps the hardest to pin down because so many churches have such a vicious turnover cycle (in both leadership and methodology), but here are some surprises from this branch:
- This is by far the least-developed area in the field of College Ministry (and thus the greatest opportunity for immense improvement in our field).
- While many church-based ministries have struggled, there are still plenty of them that have seen great success for many years. It’s also not entirely uncommon to find ones drawing hundreds of students.
- Even within denominations, there are very few support structures (training, resourcing, collaborating, etc.) for this branch.
3. Institutional college ministry. The spiritual life departments of Christian colleges participate in college ministry, too – and that right there is a unique thought for some. Other surprises include:
- This is the branch that seems to take professional development and wide-ranging learning most seriously.
- While many institutional college ministries are (purposely) the only recognized discipleship organization at their campus, other Christian schools allow for various ministries to reach the campus alongside them. (There are good reasons for either of these positions.)
- In recent history, this seems to have been the area of college ministry most likely to partake in campus-wide revival.
4. Collegiate churches. Those churches planted with a major purpose of reaching a campus might surprise us a little, too:
- There are a lot more of these than people seem to think. While it’s not easy to track down, at least several dozen campuses are reached by a collegiate church.
- There’s also a wider range of methodologies here than people seem to be aware of. While many of these churches are nearly student-only (except for the leadership), others have a large percentage of adults – either because members grow older and stay, the church reaches adults in the community, or the church “imports” adults in some way.
Anything you would add? Anything you would change?
—————————————————————————————
Back in October, I blogged about adding another “branch” to my categorization of college ministries. Previously, I had always discussed three branches: campus-based college ministry, church-based college ministry, and the formal discipleship that takes place in Christian colleges. I realized, however, that the prevalence and distinctives of collegiate churches might indeed merit a new branch. (I go into more detail at that post.)
I got a lot of GREAT comments on that post – I really do encourage you to check it out, because it’s a great example of some people really bringing some smarts to bear on our field.
In light of their ideas and what I’ve continued to see, I have indeed begun to refer to Collegiate Churches as a fourth branch of college ministry. This is the first major departure / addendum I’ve made to my discussion in Reaching the Campus Tribes, but it certainly seems merited. (What do you think?)
I used these categories when providing a brief overview of the “wide, wide, wonderful world of campus ministry” for students at the Jubilee Conference this weekend. Here’s the slide I used in that portion of my talk, with pics from my various trips:
- Campus-based: The Baptist Collegiate Ministries at UNC is a denominational ministry, like many campus-based ministries. Obviously, other campus-based ministries are fully parachurch.
- Church-based: “The Annex” college ministry of First Pres Boulder is one of the largest college ministries (of any kind) in the country. (And it’s hosting the upcoming Ascent Conference for church-based ministries.)
- Institutional: Asbury College. (More and more, I’m liking the term “institutional college ministry” for those ministries at Christian colleges. Credit for that term goes to Guy Chmieleski (an institutional college minister himself), who provided a similar idea in the comments on that post in October. Still, I’m open to suggestions on that one (and on any of these!).
- Collegiate Churches: This picture is from the Sunday service of New Life Church at the University of Michigan, one of the larger collegiate churches out there. Like a good number of collegiate churches, it’s connected to Great Commission Ministries.
So there you go.
Any thoughts on this categorization? Remember, placing things in categories doesn’t suggest my agreement or preferences with any of ‘em – just the reality of what’s taking place in the world of college ministry.
Also, do you have any thoughts on what I’ve titled the “fourth branch” here? In the past, I’ve tended to call these ministries “collegiate church plants,” but many of them are decades old – so “plants” might not apply so well. And the term “campus churches,” while fitting, seems to leave out the many collegiate churches that don’t actually meet on campus.
—————————————————————————————
Recent Comments