A New Look at Youth Ministry

---

A New Look at Youth Ministry Covenantal Youth Ministry Rev.Geoff Bradford If it’s not broken, don’t fix it?! “Isn’t the present model of ministry working OK? If it is not broken, why should we mess with it?

After all, we do have youth coming out regularly to events. Biblical truth is being taught. Kids are growing. Our Sunday School classes are full. What is the problem?” The deeper issue is our definition of “broken.” We in the PCA seek to be thoroughly guided by Scripture in both the content of our teaching and the structures of ministry. However, it is easy to buy into a subtle philosophy of: “if it works, do it.” This has been a potential trap to so many in ministry. Churches can always get a large number of youth to attend purely social and “fun” events—and hope that they get connected. The idea that “excitement or fun draws kids, but relationships keep them” is a mantra of American youth ministry. But we need to step back for a more honest self-assessment and a recommitment to Biblical values for ministry for our families and their children. Old Wineskins: Failure of the Traditional Youth Ministry Model Models of ministry, or philosophies of ministry come and go. The 20th century has seen the rise of the Sunday School movement, the evangelistic crusade, Promise Keepers, Small Groups, and Youth ministries. Most of these movements have arisen out of the context of necessity within the church. When the church was failing at the local level in doing outreach, evangelistic crusades and Sunday Schools for children were developed. “Youth ministry, ” youth groups and youth pastors are also a relatively recent phenomenon, an evangelistic strategy that arrived with the rise of “youth culture.” The sociological development of a period of adolescence and youth culture are new to the scene. Until the Great Depression and WWII, the idea of the high school, youth culture, dating, youth rebellion, and adolescence were not invented. Our culture tended to view the transition from childhood to adulthood as a straight-line continuum, without a “waiting period” or even a disruption called “youth.” The evolution of Youth Ministry as an arm of the church followed this trend, though its growth was arrested at first. Para-church groups such as “Young Life” and “Youth for Christ” pioneered this ground first, seeking to bring Christianity to the high schools, rather than asking teenagers to come to the church. Later, churches “caught up” and adopted this model. At the turn of the last century, no churches in the United Stated had “Youth Pastors.” Today, the absence of a youth program in a church can be perceived as a serious hindrance to the church’s ministry. Mark DeVries writes, Most “successful” youth ministries have their own youth Sunday school, youth missions, youth small groups, youth evangelistic teams, youth worship, youth budget, youth interns, youth committees, youth offering, youth Bible studies, youth “elders” (never did understand that one), youth centers, youth choir, youth rooms, youth discipleship programs, youth conferences, youth retreats, youth fundraisers and (my personal favorite) youth ministers (Mark DeVries, FamilyBased Youth Ministry, 41; all further references to DeVries are from this book).

The goals of the “Youth for Christ” or “Young Life” model of ministry: o Youth are to be built into a “group” with adults present as volunteer counselors or chaperones. o Fun is central for gathering students. o Group meetings have the explicit goal of creating a “group identity” among youths. o The ministry has a strong relational focus: “Programs attract kids, relationships keep them.” However, in tandem with this shift in ministry paradigm came an unchallenged assumption regarding the role and place of young people in the body of Christ: What I am calling “traditional youth ministry” has little to do with style or programming or personality. It has to do with the place of teenagers in the community of faith. Over the last century, churches and parachurch youth ministries alike have increasingly (and often unwittingly) held to a single strategy that has become the most common characteristic of this model: the isolation of teenagers from the adult world and particularly from their own parents (Ibid., 21). This assumption has lain unchallenged, unfortunately, as long as the programs were working. Churches were satisfied with the fruit of these ministries: youth were in church. Kids were coming out to events. Youth were being converted. There was much genuine fruit from this model. I do not want to give a “straw man” view of this model: I am very thankful for the fruit of such ministries in my own life. It was in a “traditional” youth ministry that I became a believer. But the better test of the fruit of this ministry model has come as the children who were raised on these ministries have aged. Chap Clark documents a more disturbing trend that resulted from these programs: Students graduate from a youth program they found irrelevant and unchallenging into an adult church “family” they have never really known or learned to care for. The result is church kids who have grown up without a love for the church, kids whose generation’s hard won independence from the establishment has cost them a meaningful connection to the body of Christ (Chap Clark, Youth Worker's Handbook, 8). In addition, many youth workers have commented on the failures of this model with the current generation: o All of the techniques, all of the strategies, all of the philosophies that we are using and grew up with don’t work any more. But if we don’t wake up the church and begin to radically alter and change what it is that we’re doing with kids, we’ve lost them… We need some radical new models for ministering to kids, and we’d better wake up to the fact that if we don’t, we’ve lost these kids (Mike Yaconelli, Youth Ministry to Kids in a Post-Christian World, 1989 Youth Specialties Resource Seminar video). o It was 25 years ago that youth ministers adopted the axiom, “Programs attract kids, relationships keep them,” referring to relationships with adult sponsors. The reality today is that very little attracts kids. The handful of sponsors they see once or twice a week in front of a class or meeting cannot begin to meet the relational needs of today’s kids. This generation of young people cannot be fooled and will not be won over by superficial relationships, marketed Christianity, or flashy programming. Relationships that are real, sustained, and even lifelong are what it takes to capture the hearts of today’s young people. The culture has changed, and so must our approach to

ministry (Chap Clark, Youth Worker's Handbook, 8). There were many strengths to the more “traditional” youth ministry model: a heart of evangelism, keeping the faith contextual, a relational basis for ministry, a desire to see youth involved in the faith. But at the root of this 1970’s model of youth ministry are more than just a few flaws in practice. There is a serious deficiency of Biblical thinking that undergirds this ministry model.

First, this model separates youth from the rest of the body of Christ, displacing their role within the entire congregation in favor of involvement with the youth group. Stuart Cummings-Bond has creatively referred to this isolation as a “one-eared Mickey Mouse” (DeVries, 41). His analysis diagrams the church’s functional relationship to its youth as at right. The larger circle represents the church body, while the smaller circle is the traditional “youth group.” While tangentially connected, the circles have little interaction. So the typical youth ministry exists almost independent of the larger body of Christ. Tom Lytle, in trying to describe this philosophy of youth ministry, defines it as an “isolationist approach” (Tom Lytle, "Youth Ministry for the Whole Family," Youthworker, May/June 1996, 26). When leaders in churches around the United States began to see teenagers’ growing disinterest with the church, they responded like a good mechanic: isolate and fix. Church leaders assumed that by isolating the youth department into its own independent subgroup in the church, they would instill all the values necessary for youth to grow to mature Christian adulthood. But the Christian community is not like a machine. This problem cannot be solved by isolation. As a matter of fact, this solution may have been worse than the original problem (DeVries, 43). Much study has been done on the effects of this “isolationist” philosophy of ministry, when implemented over a longer period of time in the Australian church: A startling study done by the United Church of Australia documented the long-term impact of dividing the church into age-specific groups. The researchers discovered that people who grew up in church attending worship and not Sunday school were much more likely to be involved in church as adults than those who had attended only Sunday school without attending worship (Ben Patterson, "The Plan for Youth Ministry Reformation," Youthworker, Fall 1984, 61).

Second, it separates youth from their families, displacing the place of the parent in favor of the youth worker. In many cases, the youth pastor can become the spiritual parent of a large group of children. The tragedy of this phenomenon is not when this relationship develops with a student who is from a single-parent home, but when the youth worker displaces a mature, godly parent. Steve Rabey, another youth pastor, has also named the problem and is attempting to hamstring this problem: “Over the years I’ve been convinced that the traditional model of youth ministryworking with teenagers and trying to keep parents at arm’s length-isn’t practical or biblical. Instead I’m trying to help parents fulfill their primary role as spiritual nurturers or their children” (Steve Rabey, "An Alternative Bridge Over the Parent-Youth Culture Gap," Youthworker, May/June 1996, 14).

Third, this model cultivates a consumer mentality toward church and ministry. Youth raised in an environment in which they are taught that the church’s purpose is to minister to them may never mature out of this mind-set. Churches across the nation have been discovering the failure of this model, primarily due to the poor fruit and the high cost of this ministry. Our churches are in danger of losing the next

generation. We have come to regard as normal a “rebellion period” in which a youth must leave the church, only to come back when he becomes a parent. However, many are not returning. And the high cost of this ministry in hours, energy and financial resources burns out both volunteer and paid youth staff. The average youth worker lasts only 18 months. Many churches expect to spend an average of $1000 per student in their program in order to make it successful. And volunteer youth staff are often overwhelmed by the enormous investment of time that is often required. Old Wine: Unbiblical Perspectives on Youth and the Family In tandem with challenging our model of ministry, it is important to challenge some common assumptions and perspectives that are simply worldly thinking with regard to teenagers. Often we come to adopt a worldly perspective not because we are logically convinced of the truth of a given assertion, but because we have experiences that instruct our thinking. However, the church needs to distinguish between what we are seeing as normal in culture and the tendency to make this perspective normative. The difference lies in the way that our observations affect our expectations. Just because we see something as the norm (typical of our everyday observations) does not mean that it is normal (therefore acceptable), nor should we make it normative (controlling our expectations). Normalizing Rebellion. In his book, Age of Opportunity, Paul Tripp recalls a conversation with parents who were anticipating with great dread their children’s imminent transition into adolescence. He reflected on the conversation with a sense of grief over their perspective: Something is fundamentally wrong with the way we think about this time in a child’s life. Something is inherently wrong with the cultural epidemic of fear and cynicism about our teenagers. Something is wrong when a parent’s highest goal is survival. We need to take another look: Is this a biblical view of this period in a child’s life? Does this view lead to biblical strategies of parenting and biblical hope? (Paul Tripp, Age of Opportunity, 14; all further references to Tripp are from this book) Are we comfortable with a view of teenagers that says that because of the significant biological changes going on inside them, they are essentially unreachable? Are we comfortable with a hormonal view of youths that reduces them to victims of biological forces, freeing them from responsibility for their own choices and actions? Do we really want a view of youths that would have us believe that the truths that give life and hope to anyone who believes cannot reach a teenager? We cannot hold onto a robust belief in the power of the Gospel if we continue to buy into our culture’s cynicism about the youth years (Ibid., 15). Are we comfortable with a perspective on the youth years that basically expects a period of rebellion as normal? The gospel offers hope to families who challenge this premise. Normalizing Individualism. Many contemporary authors, even Christian youth pastors, see the adolescent years as a time for youth to develop their personality over and against their families. Even Mark DeVries, an author that I have quoted often in this paper, talks of “individuation” as one of the two basic needs of youth in the youth years (DeVries, 132-4). But Paul Tripp challenges this perspective as unbiblical. It is important, he says, for youth to own the faith, rather than simply leaning on that of their parents. This process is rightly understood,

though as the “internalization” of the faith. Individuation as a philosophy of the church is exactly the problem, according to Tripp. What better place to internalize the faith than within the context of the church body? Are we comfortable with a perspective on the youth years that basically expects individuation as normal? Should teenagers be expected to experience a period of rebellious individualism in their development into adulthood? Normalizing a breakdown in relationship with parents. Benjamin Keely studied the religious behavior of both Christian and non-Christian high-school students. His study documented that young people who perceive their parents as deeply committed to their religion are significantly more religious than youths who see their parents as less committed. A 1990 Newsweek article entitled "The New Youths: What Makes Them Different?” explained that, in general teenagers reflect their parents’ lifestyle and values. The study found “far more congruence that conflict” between the beliefs of teenagers and their parents. In 1986, Roger and Margaret Dudley from Andrews University studied the transmission of religious values from parents to their teenage children in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Their conclusion? Even though the teenagers as a whole were slightly less traditional than their parents, the teenagers’ values did, in fact, parallel the values of the parents. The study concluded, “Youth tend…to resemble their parents in religious values held… and even the independence of adolescence cannot usually obliterate these values completely. The Search Institute’s 1990 National Study of Protestant Congregations indicated that the most important factor in a teenager’s faith maturity was the level of 'family religiousness.' The particular family experiences most tied to greater faith maturity were the frequency with which an adolescent talked to mother and father about faith, the frequency of family devotions and the frequency with which parents and children together were involved in efforts, formal or informal, to help other people. As might be expected, the Search study’s first recommendation for change in Christian education was to 'equip mothers and fathers to play a more active role in the religious education of their children, by means of conversation, family devotions and family helping projects' " (Ibid., 84). These secular organizations correctly understood the enormous role that families play in the shaping of the values of their children. However, this role is often challenged by the common expectation (and our experience) that teenagers rebel against their parents. The rebellion that our culture almost expects in the teenage years is most often directed against parents. But again, does the “typical” fallout between youth and parents have to occur and be labeled as “normal?” Are we comfortable with a perspective on the youth years, that we basically expect such tension at home as normal? Normalizing the influence of peers over parents or other adults. Steve Haymond, another author on the subject of Covenantal ministry, has likewise challenged the common shift in allegiance that accompanies the teenage years: If we really believe our children are foolish by nature and vulnerable and susceptible (like the “young man lacking sense” in Proverbs 5), why do we group them together so much apart from our direct guidance as parents? … Many of us parents seem unaware of the danger of peer dependence because we ourselves are peer dependent and, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, have slowly adopted the values of the world almost unawares. Our children are merely following us. Another thing I have seen is that children begin almost immediately to transfer their

loyalty from parents to peers when exposed to peers apart from parental oversight and relationship (Steve Haymond, quoted in DeVries, 2). Again, is this the biblical pattern? Should we simply expect this trend, as teenagers shift their allegiance from family to peer group, and subtly adopt the values of the peer group, unquestioned? Do we encourage this in the type of programming we offer? Are we comfortable with a perspective on the youth years, so that we basically expect such peer dependence as normal? Normalizing the role of church programs as a substitute for spiritual discipleship at home. At the turn of this millennium, we in suburban America are likely in one of the fastest-paced societies in human history. Never before have there been so many demands on the time and attention of every member of the household. Never before have there been so many options and choices available to young people. Most of our youth are involved in a dizzy schedule of sports, music, academic, and other clubs and activities—many of them very positive in their influence and role. But within all this busyness, spiritual nurture in the home can tend to be pushed aside by the enormous amounts of activity and homework. Many youth workers have then seen the trend for church and youth activities not to supplement the spiritual instruction and discipleship at home, but to substitute for it: So the more a family is drawn into modern church life, the more its members are drawn apart. Each family member goes to his or her own class, group, committee, worship service, outing. Rather than following the natural age-integrated pattern of the family and church in Scripture, today’s churches follow the age-segregated approach of mass public schooling. And instead of the biblical training method of discipleship rooted in relationship, the church borrows the world’s method of classroom teaching focused on the mind and divorced from real life (Ibid., 3). For most Christian teenagers, Sunday school and youth group have become a substitute for religious training in the home. Interestingly enough, the Sunday school movement itself began as an outreach to unchurched poor children. Its founders never intended for it to take over the role of Christian parents (DeVries, 168). Somehow we have come to feel that dropping our kids off at Sunday School or youth group fulfills our obligation to “train up a child in the way he should go” when in reality it merely sets the stage for the creation of a “generation gap”, courtesy of today’s culture. … We need parents who understand that parental accountability for their children cannot be delegated to others. Realizing the buck stops with them, we need parents who will make sacrifices for their kids (Steve Haymond, quoted in DeVries, 5). For example, a youth ministry program that has a strong small group ministry and several highpowered weekly meetings may actually push a young person away from his family (Chap Clark, A Youth Worker's Handbook to Family Ministry, 19). Are we comfortable with this trend? Is the church prepared to take on the role as surrogate parent rather than supportive community? While these circumstances may not be a direct product or the fruit of “traditional” youth ministry in every case, these tendencies are definitely realized in some situations. This leads us to the question: should this trend be normative? No: this is an age of opportunity!

Let us not buy into the bankrupt values of the world regarding our young people. The teenage years are not to be feared, but are, for families and for our church, an “Age of Opportunity”: It is time for us to reject the wholesale cynicism of our culture regarding adolescence. Rather than years of undirected and unproductive struggle, these are years of unprecedented opportunity. They are the golden years of parenting, when you begin to reap all the seeds you have sown in their lives, when you can help your teenager to internalize truth, preparing him or her for a productive, God-honoring life as an adult (Tripp, 20). This is also an age of opportunity for the church to seize upon, in building a corporate culture that encourages the proper functioning of the household and the body of Christ, as families that nurture our young people in a purposeful and intentional way. New Wine: Recovering a Robust Theology of the Family Matthew 9:16-17: “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull

away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” In order to discover a more biblical model for youth ministry, we first have to reject a pragmatic orientation in favor of a biblical worldview. Very often, modern ecclesiological practice is more determined by what “works” than by what is prescribed in Scripture. Our churches must require sound principles before outlining practice; we must demand right doctrine before determining methodology. In many cases, our stated conviction regarding the authority of Scripture may instruct us to repent and unlearn unbiblical practices. This is not saying that traditional youth ministry was sinful or explicitly contrary to Scripture. However, these may be “the traditions of men ” which the church has favored over the “commands of God” --Mark 7:8-9. While Scripture does not speak of youth ministry, it has much to say concerning the family, and the role of the family in the spiritual development of children. A weak theology of the family will bring more harm to the body of Christ, and take from the glory that is rightfully his own. We need a “word of God” on the family. Adoption God’s word on the family begins first in the relationship between God as Father and his children. God is designated as Father in relationship to his Son, Jesus. This relationship is not simply a description of the events of Christmas; rather we say that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father (The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, II, 3, 11). This relationship is the anti-type of God’s relationship with every Christian through adoption. In adoption, a legal act, God brings an orphan into his household as a son. Paul thus refers to the church therefore as “God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (Ephesians 2:19). Christ himself is the very cornerstone of this household, and the mercy and grace of God are the gateway into this new fellowship: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20). The title of “Father” for God and the corresponding designation of “children” for his people are not simply a convenient metaphor. Rather the very definition of human sonship is built solidly on this relationship as modeled on God’s covenant with man. They express how very close to the heart of the Lord is his adopting act and his relationship to us as Father. Earthly families image this

relationship, rather than vice versa. In the parenting role, Mothers and Fathers serve as God’s instruments in the work of not only providing for their children’s material needs, but in the discipleship process as well. Our adoption also means that we have unique relationships within the body of Christ, joining us together with those who are very different from us. It also is a greater bond than simply membership in any other civic or social organization: The covenant community is not a self-centered attempt to meet my needs. The covenant community is a wild and wonderful conglomeration of God’s children, most of whom probably have very little in common except our kinship with our Elder Brother Jesus. But it is this kinship that binds us together in an eternal bond. God establishes this community. It is our privilege and responsibility to maintain, nurture, and cultivate a community life that will be a compelling evidence of our adoption (Susan Hunt, Heirs of the Covenant, 32). The Covenant A theology of family has its taproot firmly in the covenantal relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a “bond in blood, sovereignly administered” (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 15). God unilaterally administers this covenant both for his own glory and for the end of making a people for himself. In Genesis, God calls Abraham out of the household of his father, implying assimilation into God’s own household: The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:1-2, NIV). The very purpose of this covenant is that God would have a people for himself. It is a gracious covenant, since there is nothing inherent in the chosen nation that makes them worthy of such favor. But Abraham was not to bear this gracious designation alone: God’s plan was generational in scope. In Genesis 17, God promises that his progeny also will share in this special relationship. Such a relationship is not only available to parents, but children, too, are included in the scope of the covenant: When the Bible declares that children are covenantal beings, it means that children were made for a relationship with God. They were made to know, love, serve, and obey him. Children were not made to live autonomous, self-oriented, self-directed, and self-sufficient lives. Everything a child thinks, does, and says was purposed by God to be done in loving submission to him. . . . [And Scripture] says that if children are not living in joyful submission to God, they will live in submission to someone or something else (Tripp, 43). Implications for youth ministry: o Christian education must be intentionally covenantal, or it will simply be a feeble attempt to sanctify the world’s philosophies and methods by scattering some Bible verses through them. o Christian education must be integratively covenantal, or it will degenerate into insipid moralism that aims for behavioral change apart from grace. o Christian education must be inclusively covenantal, or it will fragment the people of God into artificial age divisions that rob them of learning from and growing with one another (Susan Hunt, Heirs of the Covenant, 15).

Households: Context of the Covenant The designation of the family or household as the primary metaphor for God’s new covenant people is not accidental. New Testament writers speak of individual households as units of the body of Christ, the context of the covenant: o John 4:53: Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed. o Acts 11:14: He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.' o Acts 16:15: When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us. o Acts 16:31: They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." o Acts 18:8: Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. o 1 Cor. 1:16: (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 1 Cor. 16:15: You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. Perhaps what is most striking from several of these accounts from the book of Acts in particular is that entire households, rather than mere individuals, are converted. Christianity was never meant to exist as an individualistic enterprise. The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms the relationship between covenant and household: The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, XXV, 2, 187). Entry into the covenant community is thus not open only to adults. Circumcision, and its New Testament counterpart, baptism, signify entry into the covenant community. The Christian faith is always viewed as practiced within the bounds of a community, of which the household is the most foundational unit. The earthly family is the most basic Christian community. It is the church on a microcosmic scale. It is with this perspective that various Christian writers have proffered their definitions of the family. Jonathan Edwards thus wrote that, “Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rule” (Jonathan Edwards, quoted in Clyde A. Hollbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics, 83). Marjorie Thompson calls the family a “laboratory for soul work” (Marjorie J. Thompson, Family: the Forming Center, 23). Paul Tripp writes: “What is a family?” functionally? What are we really asking is, “What did God intend the family to

do?” This is important because our functional definition of the family will shape our goals for our children and our actions toward them. The family is God’s primary learning community (Tripp, 39). Implications for Youth Ministry: To differentiate between family values and kingdom values is a devastating distinction because it undermines the essence of the covenant community and the strength of the Christian home. The balance between home and church is delicate. It is easy to lose our equilibrium and drift off-center (Susan Hunt, Heirs of the Covenant, 91). Role of Parents: to Pass the Covenant If the household is the context of the covenant, what is the role of the parents within the household? As the “laboratory of the soul” or the “primary learning community,” the household thus defined has certain implications on the role and function of parents. Parents are to be regarded as the primary ones who are entrusted by the Lord to pass on the covenant. In the Old Testament, the role of parents is defined principally as that of spiritual mentor. The book of Deuteronomy specifically lays out the calling of mothers and fathers: o “Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, ‘Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.’” --Deuteronomy 4:9-10 (NIV). o “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” --Deuteronomy 6:6-9 (NIV). These commands evidence the comprehensive nature of this calling. “The task of rooting our children’s identity in the existence and work of God is placed in an everyday life context” (Tripp, 55). These are not isolated and hypothetical case studies. Rather the call of the Christian parents is constant, covenantal instruction. Paul Tripp writes, “You see, the family is radically different from the classroom a setting for learning. The classroom is a vacuum, separate from life” (Ibid., 41). The call to pass on the covenant is extremely contextual and immediately relevant. In addition, these passages show the relationship between the covenant and the family. Susan Hunt writes of this connection: The covenant is generational. God’s faithfulness is generational: “The children of your servants will live in your presence; their descendents will be established before you” (Psalm 102:28). Our responsibility is generational. The promises, privileges, and obligations are to be passed from generation to generation. “I will utter hidden things from of old-what we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done. He decreed statues for Jacob and established the law in Israel, which he commanded our forefathers to teach their children, so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born,

and they in turn would tell their children” (Psalm 78: 2-6). Peter accentuated this generational characteristic in his sermon at Pentecost when he said, ”The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call” --Acts 2:39 (Susan Hunt, Heirs of the Covenant, 32). The parental role is extremely vital to the life of the church. What other position does a human have in another person’s life that is so laden with responsibility? Paul Tripp writes, “As parents we must accept our position as God’s primary teachers. It is a high and life-long calling. There is nothing more important that we will ever do” (Tripp, 71). In defining this role, it is tempting to settle for less-than-biblical fruit. The calling to “train up a child in the way he should go” can be short-circuited in multiple ways by a “heart that is deceitful above all things.” Paul Tripp cautions here as well: I am convinced that much of what we have called Christian parenting is nothing more or less that “fruit stapling.” It is an artificial attempt to replace fruit with fruit. It focuses only on ways of changing behavior. It doesn’t hunger to know and shepherd the hearts of our children. This “sin is bad, don’t do it” brand of parenting forgets that sin is not only a matter of behavior, but a matter of the thoughts and motives of the heart as well. It fails to recognize that if the heart does not change, any behavioral changes that take place will be temporary or cosmetic, because they will not be attached to roots in the heart (Ibid., 50). Also, parents can abdicate this spiritual authority to the church: For most Christian teenagers, Sunday school and youth group have become a substitute for religious training in the home. Interestingly enough, the Sunday school movement itself began as an outreach to unchurched poor children. Its founders never intended for it to take over the role of Christian parents (DeVries, 168). Somehow we have come to feel that dropping our kids off at Sunday School or youth group fulfills our obligation to “train up a child in the way he should go” when in reality it merely sets the stage for the creation of a “generation gap”, courtesy of today’s culture (Steve Haymond, quoted in DeVries, 2). None of these attempts at discipleship, regardless of good intent, is wide enough to include the entire role given to parents as the spiritual mentors of their children as defined in Deuteronomy. Implications for Youth Ministry: First, the church has its work cut out for it in this area. Mark DeVries suggests, “Equipping parents for their work as the primary nurturers of their children’s faith has been essentially untapped resource in youth ministry” (DeVries, 66). Apart from books on family-worship, the church has done little in evangelical America to undergird the ministry of parents to their children. Much intentional work in teaching, discipling, and empowering parents is needed. Second, youth ministries can play to the sin patterns of youth workers and parents alike. Youth workers who long for influence plus parents who may wish to abdicate spiritual authority are partners in crime. It may be time to step back from traditional models in order to force a change. Heart of A Child: Foolishness “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” --

Proverbs 22:15 (NIV). Proverbs gives a rather unflattering picture of youth. However, it is one that needs to be examined in the light of the current models of youth ministry. Steve Haymond questions that traditional youth ministry in this regard: If we really believe our children are foolish by nature and vulnerable and susceptible (like the “young man lacking sense” in Proverbs 5), why do we group them together so much apart from our direct guidance as parents? (Steve Haymond, quoted in DeVries, 2) In my conversation with Paul Tripp on Covenantal Youth Ministry, he also mentioned this reference from Proverbs. It is too often, in his mind, that youth groups do more discipling in folly than in things of the Lord. While many youth ministries offer solid Biblical teaching and discipleship, the cumulative effect of the youth ministry as a whole is discipleship in foolishness. The youth ministry is simply another place to pass on youth culture, unchecked by real involvement with adults. Implications for Youth Ministry: In most traditional youth retreats, for example, an individual may receive a few hours worth of teaching and worship, while getting 48 hours of socialization (i.e. discipleship in foolishness!). The Church as Family Moving from the household as the smallest unit of Christian community, the Bible speaks of the church as a family. The comparison is made in many places in the New Testament: o Matt. 12:46-50 “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” o Gal. 6:10: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” o Eph. 3: 14-15: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name . . .” o Heb. 2:10-11: “Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.” o 1 Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” o 1 Timothy 3:15: “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The designation of “family” for the body of Christ underlines the fact that the spiritual nurture of those within the body is the responsibility of the entire community. Parents are given primary spiritual authority in the life of a child: their role, as stated above, is to pass the covenant to their children throughout the entirety of their communal living. But surrounding the parents are those of “God’s household, which is the church of the living God,” whose role is to act as a family as well. This connection between the members of the household and covenant children is affirmed in our

(PCA) baptismal vows. The pastor asks the congregation to affirm their commitment to help raise a child: Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child? (PCA Book of Church Order, 56-5). This relationship between the body of Christ and a covenant child is termed the “extended family par excellence,” by one writer (DeVries, 121). A sister PCA congregation has written this statement regarding the place of the church family in supporting the parents and helping “pass the covenant”: We need men and women of the covenant to pass this covenant down to the generations. As John Knox said, “Seeing that God has determined that his church here on earth shall be taught not by

angels but by men, it is necessary to be most careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm.” Parents are the primary passers of this covenant and are bridging the gap as ambassadors of our Lord between His glory and the lives of their children. Their love of the Lord is evidenced in their faithful obedience in the covenant. The command to be keepers and passers of the covenant, however, are not for parents alone. God has adopted for His glory a covenant family, the church. This covenant family needs to take seriously their role in passing the covenant to the generations of those who come after them (Golden Isles Presbyterian Church - Reformed Student Ministries - Philosophy of Ministry). This exposure is not simply for teaching covenant theology. A network of relationships with mature, believing adults (not just a few youth staff) allows individual youth to have multiple models for them to emulate as they grow in the faith. Faith is not just taught: it is also caught in relationships. Every Christian teenager needs an extended family of Christian adults—adults who can be a part of the “cloud of witness” that cheers him or her on. And the church should be the primary vehicle through which teenagers are exposed to the adults who make up their extended family in Christ . . .. An extended Christian family is a community of believers who affirm and encourage growth toward Christian maturity. Although having a set of peers who affirm one’s Christian faith is important, teenagers particularly need adults who can help provide a consistent, lifelong structure of Christian maturity (DeVries, 116). But it is not the youth and children alone who need the support of the church body. Parents as well need the encouragement of the church. This is why ministry to the nuclear family is such a critical piece. Mark DeVries writes of this purpose in his youth ministry: “The goal is to build extended families for our teenagers and their nuclear families so that the extended family, in turn, can provide the personal support necessary in each situation” (Ibid., 110). Implications for Youth Ministry: From several youth ministry gurus on this subject: If our youth ministries are going to have lasting impact, we must move away from our traditional model of placing highly programmed youth activities at the heart of our work. Instead, we must give a central place to the more significant ministry of connecting young people to their own “great cloud of witnesses” (Ibid., 125-6). Because teenagers are an integral part of the body of Christ, we need to understand this problem as a physician would. When an organ is removed from a living body, that organ dies, and sometimes the body dies along with it. The same principle is true in the body of Christ. Whatever

new models for youth ministry we develop must take seriously the fact that teenagers grow toward mature Christian adulthood as they are connected to the total body of Christ, not isolated from it (Ibid., 43). New Wineskins: Covenantal Youth Ministry The call to try something new and different with respect to family ministry is finding fertile ground in many churches. For the past 3 year, the National Youth Workers’ Convention (offered by Youth Specialties) has offered workshops on Covenantal Youth Ministry. The call to change will not come from the grass-roots. Often, people are afraid of the unknown, of changing what is familiar. This will particularly not come from the youth themselves. They may be most reticent to invite a new model, particularly one in which parents play a significant role—at first. But, “rather than depending primarily on our teenagers’ perspectives of what they want and need, it is our role as adults to know what their primary needs are and to create programs that will be responsive to those needs” (DeVries, 132). This will call for faith and vision from leadership. It will call for a commitment to a more biblical vision of youth ministry, and much wisdom in implementing this vision into programs. But this is not a “throwing the baby out with the bath.” Mark DeVries writes that Covenantal youth ministry is not about abandoning traditional forms of youth programming as much as it is about building the foundation of solid connections with mature Christian adults (Ibid., 141). In many ways, the challenge of Covenantal youth ministry may seem to be quite radical. Yet, the root meaning of the word “radical” is “radix,” the Latin word for “root.” In proposing a change, I am not simply trying to be radical in order to create havoc, but taking up the older sense of “radical”: returning us to our roots. In many ways, Covenantal youth ministry is not a “new” model as mush as a return to God’s original design. Christian educator John Westeroff affirms, “No matter where you look in our JudeoChristian heritage it is the parents who have the prime responsibility to bring up their children in the faith.” There is a “table spirituality” that is central to the Christian faith. From the Jewish family rituals of the Passover and the Sabbath to the Lord’s Supper and even to the “banqueting table” of our Lord in heaven, the undercurrent of the family meal is consistent (Ibid., 165). I believe that a strong commitment by our entire church to prevent such isolation could be extremely effective in helping to resolve these various issues and prevent other situations from developing, for many reasons: o A ministry in which parents observe their children in relationship with other children in an intentional and structured way could give individual parents great insights into the heart issues that their kids are facing. o A ministry which brings the parents of our church together in an intentional and structured way allows for these adults to minister, encourage and help one another in their task of rearing and discipling their children. o A ministry that encourages the involvement of parents with one another’s children in an intentional and structured way promotes the building of significant relationships across family lines. It also puts those with the most experience in dealing with youth--parents, as opposed to singles or young adults--at the helm of the youth ministry.

o A ministry that invites the body of Christ to supplement and support parents in an intentional and structured way breeds a true corporate culture in which teens are nurtured by a “village” of “spiritual aunts and uncles.”