You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘church-based (specific)’ category.
This week in Ohio, I’m meeting with various college ministers and church planters, and one topic has come up a few times: how some of the most “missional” American churches and church plants actually take a very UNmissional approach to college ministry. Even if you’re not in church-based college ministry, I think this “classic” post could help you help churches think this through better. Enjoy – and new comments are welcome!
On page 30 of Reaching the Campus Tribes, I broach a subject that I believe is really important for churches to ponder. The interesting dilemma is that some modern-style churches may actually impact students worse while striving to break with tradition. In fact, while trying to be more missional, some churches may end up less missional.
Some churches have opted to go the “non-traditional” route by pointing students directly to their intergenerational structures, “fully assimilating” them into the adult programs of the church. They plug them into small groups, Bible classes, or other activities alongside the church’s adults – without any opportunity for small group discipleship as college students or specialized outreach to local college campuses.
(Certainly, this sometimes takes place by default when churches haven’t taken the time to plan anything for students, leaving collegians to trickle into other areas of the church – and otherwise not stick around. But I’m talking about something slightly different today.)
As I write in Reaching, the full-assimilation method “certainly reflects a clear respect for college students as full members of the local congregation.” So on one hand, I applaud the motivation behind not separating college students and treating them as a distinct congregation (as one leader at a famous Emerging church described).
But for these highly missional churches, the funny thing is that this approach may be LESS missional in regard to those college students. Why? Because this method usually involves yanking them out of their actual community.
Though a college campus is located geographically within a particular area, it rarely has a high degree of sociological similarity to the rest of that area. Especially at residential colleges, many college students have one primary community – and it isn’t the local neighborhood, nor is it particularly similar to the local neighborhood. It’s the campus, and it’s (obviously) a world of its own.
This means that these otherwise “missional” churches are being highly “attractional” (in a sense that’s opposite from their normal efforts). If I’m not mistaken, this format pretty clearly demands that collegians leave “them” to come away with “us” to do church – both in location and in identity.
If we desire to be missional with college students, we have to think through what that means in their special case. Just as reaching our neighborhoods missionally involves connecting with people “on their terms” and “on their turf,” impacting college students missionally involves recognizing their unique terms and turf, too. While it’s good to help college students get out of their small worlds some of the time, reaching them within their home contexts and teaching them to live for Jesus within those worlds is vital, too.
The way I put it in the book was:
At the same time, it must be remembered that many college students’ cultural identity and community are located not in the local neighborhood but specifically within their collegiate experience. Thus any church aiming to reach people “missionally” and contextually should consider the special situation of college students. Unless efforts are made to reach campus tribes on their own terms, we may actually be missing opportunities for relevant impact in this important life stage. And we will be removing students from the very communities in which they presently have the most influence for God’s Kingdom.
There are plenty of church planters and others who need to think these things through, as I continue to do the same! That’s one way we advance college ministry – through debate and rigorous thought. So while I’ll keep thinking, I did want to address this here. And I’d love to hear your thoughts – positive, negative, or illustrative.
[See several comments from the original post here] [Add new comments here]
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!]
These last two weeks, I’ve been blogging through some thoughts on the field of college ministry itself. It’s been “primer,” for sure, but a lot of us don’t have many chances to think outside our own branch of campus ministry. So I hope it’s been helpful!
Today and tomorrow, I’m heading a little further down the rabbit hole – with some things I spoke about at Leadership Network a few weeks ago. I was asked to discuss different models of college ministry I’d seen, and while my audience there included only Church-based College Ministers and those involved in Collegiate Churches, there was plenty of overlap for the other branches.
As you might remember (or may have missed), I did discuss other variations in college ministry last week. I’m not completely retreading that ground, so feel free to check out that post.
So without further ado, two more areas where college ministries vary pretty widely. I’ll hit another two tomorrow!
Meeting sites
Where a college ministry (of any kind) holds its activities obviously affects its draw, its opportunities, and its options. But there’s a wide continuum here: from college ministries that function entirely on-campus (for large group meetings, small groups, and more) to those functioning completely off-campus.
Sure, church-based ministries may comprise more of the latter group. And campus-based and institutional campus ministries more often fall into the first group. But it would be a mistake to assume it always works out that way.
More importantly, this really is a continuum. For instance, many groups that hold a Large Group Meeting off-campus offer small groups on campus, while other groups may meet on-campus midweek but offer small groups in homes or other locations. The mix of these options makes for a wide variety of “campus ministry geography” around the nation – and even on a single campus.
“Tribal reach”
It’s a mistake to assume that every college ministry only reaches one campus – especially in the case of church-based college ministries. Sure, many college ministries (of the various branches) naturally focus on one campus – simply because there’s only one campus to reach! But other college ministries focus on one campus despite the presence of other local campuses. (This might not be surprising in the case of campus-based ministries, but is in the case of church-based ones.)
Other college ministries (of the various branches) rather organically focus on multiple campuses (because students naturally show up – perhaps from a local “feeder school” or because a church has youth ministry graduates who attend several local colleges). But some college ministries strategically or “fully” focus on several campuses, running what may look like individual college ministries.
On the other hand, some college ministries may choose to reach only a portion of a single tribe. They may focus on one geographical area, perhaps, or (more often) a more specific niche – like athletes or members of a certain ethnic group.
Again, it’s important to note that most of the branches participate anywhere within this spectrum. Only Institutional College Ministers, perhaps, would be highly unlikely either to reach more than one campus OR to reach only a portion of the campus they serve. Of course, church-based college ministries might be more likely to target multiple campuses (either “organically” or “strategically”), but campus-based ministries and collegiate churches do at times, too.
—————————————————————————————
[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!]
Sometimes it’s just helpful to have a pile of ideas or resources to think about in regards to college ministry – especially as we enter the summer and start thinking (or continue thinking) about next school year. (Meanwhile, some of us – including many church-based college ministers – are jumping right into their “second college ministry” with summertime students.)
This small pile of ideas, links, and thoughts comes directly from my amazing time with the BASIC College Ministries leaders at their Propel conference this week. I wanted to give everybody those same things, as well as provide an outline of my talk – which obviously provides a whole “pile of ideas” itself!
So here you go. Hope it’s helpful.
- Simple Church. I brought up this great book several times to help college ministers think through the “path of progress” they’re providing for / expecting of their students. Though it’s written about churches, it’s easily “translatable” – and profoundly helpful for us.
- The Books of Daniel and I Peter (and probably Esther, too). These all came up in the context of how campus ministries live “under captivity” (or something like that). How do we work, serve, witness, and thrive within a campus tribe that may be not only indifferent to our message but even concerned about our methods? These books of the Bible answer this question differently than popular Christianity and even some college ministries do.
- The Dip. This came up a couple of times, especially in the context of newly forming college ministries. Are you prepared to do what it takes to establish a long-lasting and long-effective campus mission? And have you considered all the options for the scope of your ministry – including not aiming for a traditional, full-fledged college ministry? This secular (and very short) business book will help you answer those questions.
- CruPress and NavPress both came up multiple times as great places to look for tips on leading small groups (especially the former) and curriculum for small groups (especially the latter).
- Veritas Forum came up multiple times as a great example of an outside group that can be awesome for multiple ministries on a campus to rally around (and thereby unify around). I also discussed Veritas as really helpful for providing Christian forums that can still appeal to a fully secular campus.
- I actually failed (I think) to give most of the group the address for my (free!) ebook. You can find that at www.reachingthecampustribes.com.
Here’s the outline of my two seminars from the weekend. Remember, I was speaking to leaders from multiple church-based college ministries, so these seminars tilt that way. But there’s lots in there that would apply to most of us.
SEMINAR ONE: WHO WE ARE
We Are College Ministers
- we have an awesome and noble calling
- we must be learners (whether our personality tilts that way or not)
- we are missionaries to a specific tribe
We Are Missionaries
- this is difficult
- long-term and short-term strategy is vital
- we should be building toward longevity
- contextualization is fundamental
We Are Part of the Campus Tribe
- we should respect the land we’re called to
- we should love the land we’re called to
- we should connect with life there
- we should connect with and join in with what God’s already been doing there
We Are Sent By a Church
- there are some advantages to being church-based; use them!
- we should share our story and our specific role with our church; help them understand and support us!
- we should help our church own the vision and work toward a long-lasting, fruitful campus mission
- we should consider how we’re shepherding home-grown students – perhaps even first
SEMINAR TWO: (NEW?) IDEAS WORTH PONDERING
- Purpose-based Methods (every time)
- Preparing students for an excellent Transition Out (to the “real world”)
- Don’t be afraid to love your campus
- Don’t be afraid to take a step back and make sure you’re building the best possible College Student Plan
- Don’t be afraid to invent
- Be excited about what you can do
- Learn more about the Millennials (since they’re our mission field right now)
- Don’t be too student-centered (they need adult direction and wisdom)
- Prioritize teaching students to be “great in the basics”
- Get great in the basic skills of college ministry
- What you’re doing – campus ministry – is so very worth it
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
I’m on my 15th multistate, college ministry-exploring road trip! (Details here.) So whenever I can write, I’ll be posting an “under the hood” look at what I learn and experience on these trips. Enjoy!
This morning I had great chats with two college ministers here at UNLV: Mattie Goins, director of InterVarsity’s chapter here, and Steve Timmons, head of the Christian Challenge ministry here (and the guy who brought me in to speak tomorrow). As usual, these college ministers were able to give me an amazing “insider’s” view of this campus – including the tricky, sticky efforts to reach it for the Lord.
I might post later in the week about the uniqueness of this Rebel tribe, once I’ve got time to get pictures posted. But what I wanted to list here were some of the interesting ideas today’s conversations left me with.
1. Why aren’t we all about planting college ministries on community colleges and other under-reached campuses? Mattie described efforts in her region along these lines, but people who are willing to stand up for reaching less “name brand” campuses are few and far between. That stinks.
2. I’d be intrigued to hear from ministries that are the ONLY Jesus-devoted org on their campus. It would be fascinating to hear the experiences and insights from those ministries that have no counterparts in college ministry reaching their particular tribe.
3. Short-lived church efforts are legion. This wasn’t news to me; in fact, there’s a small chunk of my book devoted to the topic. But a history of “turbulence” or “fragility” in church-originated college ministry work came up again today. Not so coincidentally, fixing this is a big focus of tomorrow’s seminars…
4. Come from abroad or learn broadly. I was also reminded of how helpful it can be to have college ministry staff that has experienced another campus. Too often our ministry worlds are way too small. If we do have limited experiences, then we’ve got to make up for it by learning others’ contexts all the more.
5. But… be local or get local. But Mattie reminded me of the flipside, too: There’s value in understanding Las Vegas and UNLV as she (a local and UNLV alumna) can. Outsiders sometimes don’t realize nuances that locals do. So for us who aren’t actually locals or alumni of our ministry campuses, we’ve got to do all that’s necessary to “get local” – learning our context beyond just surface measures, and loving our context as our very home.
6. Money. Needed. This came up with both ministers, too, but Steve described the recent vote to defund various college ministry work around the state of Nevada. (Southern Baptist ministry is, in many states, funded via churches collectively rather than through individuals.) For all of us, it’s worth considering alternates and additions to the funding we’re used to. My Books-to-Impact project is one way to help campus ministries do this, but I betcha there are many others we can come up with! Maybe it’s time to start trying.
By the way, this idea-generation happens in nearly every conversation I have with campus ministers – I’m left with something cool to ponder for our field, whether it’s something I’ve never thought about before or just something unique I haven’t considered for awhile. Asking good questions – and even moreso, just plain listening to a college minister talk about his or her ministry – yields a surprising bounty of ponder-able goodness!
Written from the Student Union of the University of Nevada – Las Vegas
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
I have been asked on occasion what has surprised me as I’ve trekked around the country researching college ministry. So though I’ve mentioned things along the way, I figured I’d post a better list of some such surprises. Maybe these things will surprise you; maybe they won’t! But my hope is that more and more, we’d all become further familiar with our field – beyond just our own portions, areas, and organizations.
The existence of major college ministries I was unfamiliar with.
Remember, I had been involved in doing college ministry for 8 years and had attended maybe a dozen college ministry conferences before starting my cross-country research. So I was pleasantly surprised to find college ministries I’d never heard of.
The most prominent of those were probably Coalition for Christian Outreach, which I first heard about from Greg Carmer, the Dean of the Chapel at Gordon College, and Campus Outreach, which I first heard about from College Church Wheaton’s College Pastor, Jay Thomas. Funny how you remember that stuff. I’m not sure when I first heard about Great Commission Ministries and their network of collegiate churches, but that’s another prominent one I discovered.
The missional activity taking place in college ministries all over.
Though I wouldn’t necessarily have used the word “missional” at the time, I was encouraged by how often I did indeed run into missional activity taking place through college ministries and/or their students. As I wrote last week, there are indeed ministries out there that seemed to have reached a sort of “culture” that encourages such things, and it was always exciting to find.
The “turbulent ten years” and churches’ perennial difficulties.
I wasn’t surprised that churches struggle to build successful, long-lasting college ministries, since I myself had been involved in church-based college ministry for those 8 years. (In my last gig, I was hired as the fourth college minister in – you guessed it – four years.)
Don’t get me wrong – there are quite a few really strong church-based college ministries out there. But I have been a little surprised by the number of churches that have perpetual difficulties. And even while making few changes, many just hope that this time is going to work. As I’ve argued a’plenty, there has to be a better route for churches to develop successful College Student Plans, because the track record for our present attempts isn’t so hot.
(The pic of the George Mason University fountain at the top symbolizes the ups-and-downs of churches’ experiences in college ministry. It’s what I used for this point in my recent seminar at the EV Free churches’ annual conference.)
The preponderance of collegiate churches.
Though they compose the smallest branch of college ministry, collegiate churches are by no means rare. I mentioned GCM above, but there are plenty of other campus churches, as well, dotted all over the landscape but not all that obvious unless you’re looking for them… or unless you’re on that campus. In fact, several collegiate churches draw hundreds of students.
Our (incorrect) extrapolations about college ministries.
I was surprised to realize how much I’d innocently presumed based on my own semi-limited experience. And then I ran into this same sort of extrapolating throughout my visits. College ministers regularly mentioned things like, “Nobody’s doing X” (but I knew of several ministries that were, in fact, doing X); “That’s probably the biggest ministry of its kind” (but I’d seen several larger); “This is really unique” (but I knew how common it was); and so on.
I can’t really blame those guys and gals; I was the same way, even after 8 years of college ministry work. But it’s healthy to realize how often we extrapolate based on our own region, or what we’ve heard, or what we’ve seen.
Here’s the key principle for all of us: In an ultra-diverse field like ours, our broad statements only have validity if we’ve observed an enormous number of ministries. So even after I’ve gotten to see hundreds of ministries, I’ve learned to be very careful about what I “declare.” Honesty requires it.
There are more surprises, but that’s good for now. Questions? Comments?
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
Recent Comments