You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘college ministry poles’ category.
At this past weekend’s CollegeLeader Conference, the topic of organic campus ministry seemed to come up quite a few times. So I figured I would (organically) take that opportunity to introduce the next entry in the College Ministry Poles series!
I doubt there are too many many college ministers who actually camp fully on either side of today’s spectrum. I think most of us would say, “We need to have both sides.” But college ministers do seem to vary widely on the degree to which they lean one way or the other. And further complicating matters is the fact that what we argue for and what we do may differ. So this entry really asks,
Should a college minister lean more toward organic development or systematic development?
As usual, I’m hoping for some great thoughts on this one (see the questions at the bottom if you’d like some specific prompting!). But first, it might help to define what “organic-leaning” or “systematic-leaning” might look like in our world. But these are just generalizations or even “guesses”; I’d love for you to add your own thoughts in the comments!
organic-leaning college ministry
- More concerned with responding to the day-to-day opportunities than to somehow “organizing” for the future
- A premium on allowing space and time, so relationships / discipleship can develop naturally
- Programs often occur as an outgrowth of relationships
- High premium placed on students taking ownership of the ministry
- Recruitment may be a major concern but might not seem to “fit” the organic nature of this ministry. In some cases, it may not be a focus at all, or may happen primarily through word-of-mouth and one-by-one relational connections
- Connections (both leaders-students and students-students) will likely be decentralized; it might be more difficult to help students progress to deeper modes of discipleship
- May be harder to determine measurable success
systematic-leaning college ministry
- Considers organizing for upcoming ministry very important
- A premium on creating activities and moments, so relationships / discipleship can develop purposely
- Relationships often occur as an outgrowth of programs
- Still may place a high premium on student ownership, but it might be “given” to students rather than “taken” by them
- Recruitment, like other aspects, will likely be planned and programmed
- Connections (both leaders-students and students-students) will likely be centralized; it might be harderr for connections and ministry to develop outside the bounds of the established systems
- May be easier to measure success, but may also be easier to assume “success” based on poor measures
Those are some defining aspects I thought of, but I would love those to be enhanced, corrected, or otherwise adjusted!
And here are some other questions for consideration:
- How would you define “organic” collegiate ministry – or its opposite?
- Where do you fall on this spectrum in your thinking? Do the actions in your ministry bear that out?
- Which direction do you think college ministers generally need to move on this spectrum? Are we more often “too organic” or “too systematic”?
- How would you argue your position – or train a new campus minister to approach this work?
see the other entries in the series, including people’s great comments, right here
written from Riverside, California
—————————————————————————————
[Click to comment or see any comments on this post!]
Road Trip 13: Day 15 recap
got to feeling sick, so largely took the day off. kinda nice.
T-shirt: the Lions of Columbia University
today: Riverside, then on to more central Los Angeles (see all explorations so far!)
As I noted in the last College Ministry Poles entry, there are certain areas within campus ministry in which a surprising chasm exists. These are philosophical or methodological “camps” that, from what I can tell, may only have a hazy understanding that the other side exists. Parallel universes!
Reflecting one of those areas, today I ask, Does your ministry assign adults to disciple students (in small groups, for example), use students to disciple their peers, or offer a combination?
It would be easy to assume this one cuts nicely along the campus-based / church-based line, but that’s not the case – and we don’t want to leave out the Christian-college branch, either. Here’s what I’ve seen:
1. Certainly, many campus-based groups do largely use students to disciple other students. But this isn’t always the case. Adult leaders may lead many of the discipleship aspects of a ministry; in the case of smaller ministries, students may only be led by these adults. Meanwhile, there are campus-based ministries that use adult volunteers; Young Life College, for example, has aimed for large adult involvement in their chapters. And I recently encountered a Chi Alpha ministry (at Texas A&M Corpus Christi) with former students who continued their involvement in a discipling capacity.
2. Christian colleges vary along these lines. Because of the intergenerational campus community, Christian college discipleship ministries may use faculty or staff to lead student groups. Of course, students may also be involved in the same way.
3. Among church-based ministries, there’s also a mix. While church-based college ministries might generally have the best access to adult volunteers, that doesn’t mean they all use them. Certainly, many do, whether exclusively or with a mix of adult disciplers and student disciplers.
4. There are deep philosophical differences at work (sometimes). Here’s the most interesting thing: I’ve heard a significant number of college ministers express a belief that students aren’t effective as peer-leaders. The arguments I’ve heard tend to center on the idea that students rarely have enough maturity / knowledge to have much to offer people who are roughly their same age.
Of course, there are lots of ministers who would claim they’ve seen much benefit from using students to disciple their peers. Yet many of these ministers might have never considered using adults in the same way.
5. My guess is that many of us could ponder this more than we have. Because our use (or non-use) of adult leaders most often happens “automatically,” there’s probably room for most of us to spend some time thinking and tinkering in this area. Could a campus-based group “import” some adult volunteers, if they felt like that might be helpful? Sure. Could a group that primarily uses adults consider or even measure the value of using peer-disciplers? Absolutely.
And if either “camp” has formed its opinion without collaborating with ministries that have found success using the opposite model, then we’ve been a little hasty, right?
So what can you offer: A strong argument for students leading their peers? A strong argument against students primarily discipling other students? A strong argument for adult leadership?
Remember, your arguments and examples can help others think through this stuff. You might be surprised by how many out there fall on the opposite side of this spectrum!
to see the other College Ministry Poles entries (and all the great comments from everybody!), click here
—————————————————————————————
[Click to comment or see any comments on this post!]
written from Motel 6, Tempe
Road Trip 13: Day 2 recap
drove Big Spring, TX, 12 hours to Tempe, AZ
miles so far: 1,068
T-shirt: the Majors of Millsaps College
Throughout my travels, it’s been interesting to see cases in which two quite different methodologies are widespread, but few college ministers seem to have considered any sort of combination or compromise.
Such is the case with today’s entry in the “College Ministry Poles” series, which asks, “Does your ministry provide single-gender or co-ed opportunities for spiritual discussion?”
See the College Ministry Poles series (so far) here, and feel free to engage in the conversation!
The question: Do we focus on building our ministry in the present, or work toward better impact in the future?
It’s easy to say, “Let’s do both!” But the reality is that we all have limited time and resources. Every day, we have to choose whether we’re looking at what is or what can be (even if, at times, the two efforts aren’t utterly mutually exclusive).
Tuesday’s first post in the College Ministry Poles series produced some great commentary from readers. Thanks, friends. (Besides that post, you can read the intro to the series here.)
Today’s entry touches on a big question: How much should students be used / ministered to within their own collegiate context, and how much should we point them toward and bring them into the greater world apart from their campus?
Any ministry has to choose how – and how much – they’ll point students to activity, relationships, and learning that go beyond their collegiate environment. But they also have to decide how specifically they should disciple students within their actual, very distinct collegiate lives – as lived out in dorms and classrooms and organizations and friend-circles.
[This just in: DON'T miss J.D. Greear's analysis of this issue from students' point of view, that he blogged just today! He's the pastor of Summit Church, a large church in a very collegiate environment - the North Carolina Triangle. And he arrives at a unique model that certainly falls between these poles. (Hat tip: Phillip Bethancourt)]
integration
On the one hand, many college ministries want to encourage students to plug into local churches, to participate in off-campus service, and to live Christianly among their families, workplaces, and others who don’t attend school with them. Each of these areas is outside the “collegiate community.” Further, one of our major jobs as college ministers has to be preparing students for successful transition to their young adult years.
So, to accomplish any of these aims, ministries have to “drag students out of their collegiate setting” – either bodily or at least in the discussions they pursue.
The most polarized ministries in this direction don’t segregate collegiate impact at all, instead assimilating students into a larger ministry – with youth or young adults, or even an entirely intergenerational group. Yes, it’s usually churches that do this. But other kinds of ministries can come close to this pole, when their ministry pulls students out of their collegiate lives into a “Christian enclave” – even if that “enclave” is on campus!
incubation
On the other hand, college campuses often look very different than even the neighborhoods in which they’re found, and students’ lives are often lived very differently than even the non-students who live next door. Whether we personally like that setup or not, this situation could indicate a need to serve students primarily on their own terms and on their own turf.
Those who fall on the Incubation side of this spectrum might argue something like this: The main goal is helping students grow in Christ, and an incubation approach maximizes that opportunity. By teaching students to live for Jesus within their own world, we’re setting them up to do the same thing in every “world” in which they find themselves. This is a hinge moment, when the stakes are high and spiritual growth (or decline) can be rapid. So it makes sense to limit ourselves to the training ground of their collegiate environments – especially since students, as citizens of these communities, are therefore “outsiders” anywhere else.
The most polar in this camp include the many ministries that do very little to point students off-campus, including to local churches. Likewise, even some church-based ministries may function in ways that keep students entirely in collegiate environments, even if they do happen to drive (or walk) to the church once a week.
notes & questions
- If you want more on this, I encourage you to read “The Surprisingly Unmissional Approach to College Ministry,” where I point back to this discussion in Reaching the Campus Tribes. The comments on that post really illustrated these issues – and struggling with the tension – well.
- Which pole do you lean toward? Or do you fall somewhere in between? Why?
- What if we just tried to do both sides really well? Is that even possible?
- Do any issues here “trump” others? For instance, is a successful post-college transition more important to aim for than helping students be academically faithful now? Is it more vital to let students learn ministry by leading each other, or to learn intergenerationality through being led by adults? Tricky stuff!
—————————————————————————————
Yesterday I announced the beginning of a new semi-regular series, “College Ministry Poles,” looking at key collegiate ministry issues that are often fleshed out between two extremes. My hope is to stretch our thinking, especially as we realize that in many cases, a large number of college ministers have chosen – and found success with – methods from across each spectrum.
We begin with a big issue that unites and divides college ministries “on the ground”: Cooperation vs. Independence.
For heavy cooperation between ministries
I’ve heard it argued that various college ministers at a single campus could/should function as “elders” over the campus, ultimately comparing calendars, avoiding overlapping segments of campus, and nearly meshing ministries. Clearly, this model is one “pole” along this continuum.
Not quite as polar but still on this side of the spectrum are ministries that have fleshed out cooperation in various forms:
- Direct partnership in regular ministry activities
- A college ministry taking a purposely complementary approach
- A ministry purposefly focusing on a niche not already reached
- Direct cooperation in single events / efforts on campus
There are some obvious positives here – like not duplicating ministry activity, revealing Christian unity to a watching campus, gaining wisdom from “many counselors,” increasing group size, helping disciple students in diversity / unity, and so on.
For clear independence from other ministries
While I don’t necessarily hear it argued too often, it’s clear that many other ministries have placed a low priority on intentional cooperation or partnership. Instead, these ministers’ focus is impacting students through their organization as best as they possibly can. In the more extreme cases, there is little or no contact between leaders of these ministries and other leaders in town.
But before the more collaborative-minded blame those who seem isolationist, realize that there are clearly good reasons to take a stance somewhere on this side of the continuum:
- All of us have chosen our ministry organizations for real reasons, presumably; cooperation and partnership often take us away from (or at least water down) our ministry’s own distinctives – both methodological and theological.
- Supporters and overseers expect ministers to practice ministry according to these sorts of distinctives, too.
- We all know college ministry is time-consuming and difficult. Collaboration – to any degree – always takes time and energy, while always producing messiness. It makes a lot of sense to focus on what we’re best at.
- In some cases, past cooperative attempts might not have produced hoped-for results, might have been championed by ineffective people, or might never have had well-defined purposes to begin with.
Between the poles and other questions
My guess is that most college ministries in the country believe in being somewhere on the cooperative of the spectrum, but that most function pretty far to the right side of the spectrum (even by default). Hmmm…
Remember, every aspect of a college ministry has been chosen, even if we don’t realize it.
Thoughts to ponder (on your own, or in the comments):
- What’s your stance? Are either of the poles necessarily wrong? Is being “somewhere in the middle” necessarily right?
- Are there any good keys for choosing cooperation vs. independence?
- How could a ministry functioning on one side of the spectrum possibly move toward the other side?
- What are some Best Practices for more cooperative college ministry styles? What about for more independent college ministry styles?
Remember… Day 30 of College Union’s 40 Days of Prayer for Campus Ministry!
—————————————————————————————
A few days ago, I used an old post by Matt Jensen of Mars Hill Seattle to discuss how common it is to find college ministries that vary widely in the “nuts and bolts” of their ministries. While “classic” campus works are, on the one hand, uniform uniform in their overall structure (large group meeting, small groups, big events, service projects), they’re surprisingly dissimilar when you actually look “under the hood.”
What I’ve found is that it seems like many college ministers don’t realize how many choices they’ve made about their programs and methods. Little do they realize that how they do small groups, what they happen to teach, who leads within their ministry, and on and on… little do they realize that there are other options they could have chosen.
There are, in fact, other options that are chosen. By lots of college ministers, all over the country. But because of the lack of collaboration, many of us may not realize that some ministers have found success using the polar opposite of the method we have chosen…
…like these:
- Small groups: co-ed vs. single-gender
- Relationship with other ministries: cooperation vs. competition / isolation
- Growth: aim for bigger vs. aim for better
- Structure: organic vs. programmed
- Church: no priority for students vs. singular priority for students (and this has lots of shades in between)
I’m starting a series this week on what I’m calling “College Ministry Poles.” I’ll be discussing the “two sides” of basic methods and issues in campus ministry, things that most of us deal with regularly – but may not realize are approached quite differently by a number of college ministers. And even when we do realize our options, we might not have heard a strong argument for both sides.
You’re probably already saying, “But it’s not always either/or!” I agree, and that’s part of the fun. I’ll be presenting the “poles” – as well as shades in between, combinations, and compromises – that seem to be fairly well-represented in the tableau of college ministries I’ve gotten to explore (or, on occasion, that I think should be better represented!). The point is really exposure to the possibilities before us… and a chance to consider that our present methods might not be the only way to serve our particular group.
Lastly, I want to point out that because the point is exposure, I really hope you’ll think about chiming in and adding to the “debate.” While I will hopefully give a fair rendition various views, I’m all for people presenting their own helpful arguments – even vigorously. Devil’s advocates are welcome, too! I really believe that by dissecting the possibilities for the ins-and-outs of our ministries, we all come away having thought a little more about what we’re doing. Win!
And don’t forget, it’s Day 29 of College Union’s 40 Days of Prayer for Campus Ministry!
—————————————————————————————
Recent Comments