Next Generation Essay: Longevity and Effectiveness of Youth Leadership in the Assemblies of God in NSW

---

Introduction¹

Youth leadership is a diverse and demanding responsibility. Job expectations normally incorporate all of the dynamics that come with running a major department in the ministry of the church, often without equitable status or support. Youth pastors, in fact, are subject to many of the same expectations as senior pastors, in regards to ministering and leading people. Barna makes this point emphatically clear when he states; “The multiplicity of roles that are expected for the youth leader to perform have been well noted and recognized.”² In response, the research of this paper looks at the patterns of relationship between youth ministry, educational expectations and practice. It is apparent that organisational structure and ministry demands can provoke neglect (by a youth leader) of ongoing education and preparation. This ministry pattern has been reinforced by the growing tide of successful and influential youth speakers instilling the need to be “doing the work” as the foremost priority in youth ministry.³ In his best selling book, Purpose Driven Youth Ministry, Doug Fields highlights the pressure placed on youth leaders, noting that they “can never do enough, there is always more to be done. Youth ministry never stops!”⁴ Along with Fields, I am concerned at the emerging pattern of youth leaders who are inadvertently busy doing, focusing on immediate pressures, rather than taking a long term view and becoming great leaders.

Research Methodology & Approach

The research that stimulates this paper is grounded in a survey, which took the form of a confidential questionnaire sent to all current serving youth leaders in NSW AOG Churches. Throughout mid- to-late 2007, some 434 email surveys were sent directly to youth pastor(s) or to churches. The surveys involved a series of questions that were designed to identify and determine how educational background and attainment reflects on the sense of adequacy in performing the role of a youth leader.⁵ The subsequent analysis of the replies received involved extracting and analysing correlations arising from the survey’s datasets, and then comparing these findings to the ‘vocationally oriented youth leader’s’ (VYL) educational model (discussed later). This pointed towards the definable leadership skills and learning stages which promote a process of continuing self development through formal education and other applicable forms of learning. More importantly, it highlighted the strategic factors between those who become VYL (i.e. longer term youth leaders) and those who don’t remain in this area of ministry. This provided an evidentiary basis upon which to propose models which will further help, develop and support youth leaders responsible for ministry within the AOG movement and beyond.

The Youth Leader: ‘The Place of Call’

Twenty first century youth leaders are carrying out one of the most important ministries in the life of the local church. Youth leaders are faced with the formidable challenge of being ‘Godly examples’ and leading a ministry where parents and congregations project responsibility for being the prime instigators in bringing their young people into a living relationship with Christ. It operates in the context in which research shows that there is “no difference between churched youth and secular youth.”⁶ In addition, youth leaders minister in a culture which is becoming increasingly ambiguous. The pressures on the youth leader to not only pastor teenagers but consistently perform and meet ministry outcomes and tasks are enormous, placing increasing focus on adequate training and preparation.

There is a general assumption that those who serve as active youth leaders do so out of a sense of divine call. It is our general assumption that youth leaders are serving in this ministry capacity because they feel they have been both identified and chosen, and believe that they have something to give. For this reason, subjects were requested to identify their attitude to their ‘calling’. Yet when participants were asked to respond to the statement ‘I believe God has called me to serve in the area of youth ministry and for this reason I am not looking to move on from this area of ministry in the future’, 31% of respondents (obviously non-vocational youth leaders) could not clearly acknowledge that they were called by God to youth ministry. In other words, nearly a third of youth pastors enter their positions out of a sense of organisational need or career expectation, rather than because of a sense of call which legitimises their ministry. The other two thirds (69%) recognised that, at least for the time being, youth work was their vocational call. Such VYLs can thus be treated as a separate group for the purposes of analysis. Though not within the boundaries of this research, it would be of interest whether this sense of calling relates to measures of effectiveness, e.g whether there is a correlation between the size of youth groups and self-identification as non-VYLs and VYLs. Certainly, the data seems to indicate differences in self orientation between the two groups (as responses to the following questions indicate).

One can conclude from this that the belief that VYLs have been called to longevity in ministry helps them to see themselves as effective youth leaders. It causes VYLs to pursue and actively cultivate areas of improvement in their ministry – such as personal efforts to read and study the scriptures, and informal study to keep up with developments in youth culture etc. One way of improving a leader’s ministry tenure, it would seem, would involve the strategic fostering of a larger ‘leadership horizon’ for VYLs.

Notwithstanding the fact that 69% of leaders felt a long term vocational call to ministry, the majority of youth leaders tend to serve as youth leaders for a 2-4 year period (See chart, next page)

Generally, they choose to move from this area of ministry either during their first year of service or after
having served a period of 4 years in succession. Thus, the average tenure of an AOG youth leader is at least 2 years but normally no longer than 4 years in duration⁷. There are clear patterns of ‘rise and decline’ in the active tenure of youth leaders. Obviously, the longer a person is successfully involved in the practice of youth ministry, the greater their understanding and experience, and the more effective their ministry. While 88% of current serving youth leaders see themselves as committed to long term youth ministry the data tells us that only 4% of youth leaders remain in youth ministry for a 6 year period or longer, again supporting the premise that the development of leaders through their youth program doubles as a training ground for the ecclesial organisation as a whole.⁸ If the latter is indeed projecting ministry as a point through which one passes, as opposed to a vocation to which one is specifically called, there may be ramifications for longevity of ministry and, further, for the success of youth groups.

Q; How long have you been actively involved (as a youth leader) in youth ministry

{draw:rect}

It is also evident from the data that the majority of youth leaders 60% serve on a volunteer basis. A large percentage, though seeing themselves as ‘called’ to this area, are not remunerated, and are therefore forced to balance a passion for ministry with the challenges of administrating and financing their divided lives. Youth leaders clearly find it hard to fulfill their ministry roles while working to bring in a consistent income, combined with the demands of managing family and marital commitments. Understandably, VYLs view their ministry as ‘God given’ and important, but many find it hard to maintain an effective balance in these areas. Interestingly, volunteer workers report that they are more likely to feel confident about their people skills than full time workers.⁹ This indicates, perhaps, an ‘identity cocooning’ effect once young pastors join a church’s staff, or perhaps a realisation that the personal skills considered adequate when one was a volunteer are no longer adequate as a professional. The consequences of this for the relatively short period of service that most youth leaders give, and therefore their commitment to ongoing training, should be apparent.

A potential lack of ministry recognition, as marked by the lack of remuneration and the reported lack of accreditation, might be a contributor to lack of self-esteem, therein, the ‘stickability’ of youth ministers.¹⁰ While this conclusion is based only on trend data, obviously one of the things contributing to a sense of longer term call is the prospect that the size of the church and the related youth group being served is sufficient to support the calling that they feel. Youth ministers, one could conclude, find more space for self-fulfillment in larger churches, simply because appropriate structures are more likely to be in
place and the reinforcers for self-respect are easier to achieve. An analysis of youth group attendances uncovers two main clusters of responses, which further support the idea that something is going on here; by showing that participants from large churches with multiple youth leaders accounts for 28% of responses.¹¹ Youth leader survivability, one may conclude, interacts with the contribution made by church polities to the ability of youth leaders to balance the pressures placed upon them – either through promotion of internal motivation and coping strategies, or through external resourcing.

The ‘character’ related data indicates that a successful VYL in current youth ministry will be a leader who is personally a quick learner, and who is equipped with flexible learning strategies. Such people are more likely to be committed to longevity in ministry, though the trend data indicates that respondents did not necessarily limit this call to ‘youth ministry’.¹² Because of their commitment to the church as a whole, these people are also more likely to be supportive of the leaders above them, willing to delegate real authority and opportunities to those who report to them, willing to be involved in the wider community, and in mentoring others in ministry. They structure their time and programs better, have an eye for excellence, are more likely to report that they see people regularly won to Christ and consider themselves to be effective youth ministers.¹³

In summary, the place of ‘call’ still remains a pertinent issue in the life of the youth leader and although 31% of youth leaders may not be necessarily convinced they are called to serve specifically in the area of youth ministry, they remain committed to focusing their efforts and avoiding distractions in order to be successful at what they do. They regularly report seeing young people give their life to Christ and are more likely to be ‘people focused’ rather than ‘programs focused’ in meeting the needs of their young people. Factors such as facilitating effective follow up with their young people and mentoring those who are committed to their ministry objectives prove that although many move on to other areas of ministry, those who are successful in youth ministry serve as if this is where they will potentially remain. Given this, the internal issues of dealing with complexity, and the external issues of institutional support, become significant.

The Youth Leader: ‘The Challenge of Ongoing Vocational Learning’

It doesn’t take long for any youth leader to recognise that there is a lot to learn, and the expertise required to do the job well is not quickly learnt or attained. Youth leaders are aware of their limitations, with 55% acknowledging that their ministry job demands more time than they currently have. Further research would be needed to discover if belief in a call from God actually contributes to youth leaders feeling under qualified.¹⁴

With the majority of current serving youth leaders between the ages of 21-29 (still at a critical stage of ministry learning and development), most are doing the best they can with what they know, in the light of current youth culture and meeting the needs of young people in their delegated ministry care. One could conclude that the active youth leader is not only open to learning and to educational opportunities in the area of their ministry, but are actively pursuing the learning and educational opportunities (within their practical means) available so as to better train themselves for the task required of them. Youth leaders subsequently admit (in the top ranking response) to having to learn from their own/life experience and from the advice of others as the primary means of education and self-training. The importance of this result (from an organisational perspective, and with regard to why youth leaders need to be encouraged to pursue a broader ‘learning horizon’) is highlighted by Senge: “Herein lies the core learning dilemma that confronts organizations: we learn best from experience but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions”¹⁵ In youth ministry especially, this has implications for church communities.

Youth leaders either agree (27%) or are neutral (25%) with regard to their responses to feeling disorganised due to lack of ministry specific training, leading to ineffectiveness and frustration. They feel many times that they are lacking the specific skill set necessary to lead young people while managing the ministry and themselves. This may well affect the way they view themselves and their ministry call. Adequate and specific ministry education and training may well be factors that need to be revisited to ensure that our youth leaders are effectively trained and equipped. From these trends there seems to be a definite need to redefine and refocus efforts, and to adequately and effectively train active youth leaders in areas of their personal and professional organisational skills.

In determining ‘sense of adequacy’ in a youth leader it is important to ascertain what attitudes are held towards vocation-related learning and education. How do they learn? And is what they learn able to help them to achieve what is expected of them? In being asked whether they find learning new things in their area of involvement as a youth leader ‘relatively easy’, data indicates that the majority (51%) found this to be the case, while 18% strongly agreed that this was not a concern for them. Some (29%) however were either neutral or disagreed, reported learning difficulties, or a lack of certain types of skills training in their area of ministry. This represents a significant number of youth leaders who report that they are open to the opportunity of ongoing learning and being educated with the necessary skills and information to be successful as a youth leader.

When investigating the educational background and training of current youth leaders, it becomes apparent that, although open to educational and ministry specific training, there is still a large percentage of respondents that sense their abilities and training do not help them adequately to minister in the areas required of them. Many of these express a desire to become a part of a ministry specific training process. It is also apparent that those who have undergone specialised training in youth ministry feel strongly about the need to see all youth leaders undergoing formal education and specialised training in relation to their ministry vocation. Some 44% agreed and 8% strongly agreed (Σ= 52%) that ministry training had positive effects, and was needed to produce successful long term VYLs. Interestingly, 26% remained neutral about whether their training (as experienced) had any effect on their ministry efforts. This possibly points to the need for real time contextual training topics linked to the felt needs and concerns of both youth and youth leaders themselves.

Q; I have had specialised training in some aspect of youth ministry

N/A 2%

No 43%

Yes 54%

Although over half of the surveyed youth leaders have had some form of specialised training in youth ministry (54%), nearly as many have not (43%). This indicates that although we acknowledge youth ministry as increasingly complex in terms of ministry expectations, we still have a large percentage of youth leaders that have had little or no specialist training in the area. This should certainly be of concern to organisational leaders at large.

When asked whether youth leaders felt they needed to receive specialised training in order to serve in their church, 64% (10% more than have received any training) felt they should be receiving this kind of specialised ministry training. This denotes a positive trend (21%), indicating that those who have not received specialised training (previously 43%) recognise the need for and desire the opportunity for ministry specific training, and recognise that this contributes and is needed to help build better youth leaders.¹⁶

To further understand the educational background and training of youth leaders, respondents were asked as to what percentage of youth pastors have current degree level theological qualifications in their area of ministry. The survey results are self evident.

Theological Degree 6%

No Theological Degree 94%

This figure is similar to Strommen’s 1996 survey of 7,500 youth leaders which found that only 9% of AOG youth leaders had a seminary education.¹⁷ This may well point to an idea that youth ministry is not taken seriously as a theological task, or a more general anti-intellectualism in the Assemblies of God. Further research will be required to disentangle these factors. Although positive attitudes prevail towards specialised and ministry training; therefore, we can conclude that youth ministers as a whole do not connect this with academic formation and higher learning (only 16% of respondents acknowledged that academic training would benefit them in youth ministry). This trend is further supported by 76% of youth leaders clearly acknowledging that training in the areas of academic and knowledge skills was not what they required most to be ‘more effective’ in youth ministry.¹⁸

Significantly, despite these attitudes towards academic training, when asked whether they have a good grasp of theological concepts, some 74% of youth leaders either agreed (60%) or strongly agreed (14%). It may well be (and the data trends promote this) that VYLs are confident in the biblical concepts they currently understand and have seen acceptable levels of success from their ministry endeavours. This would indicate that their denominational setting protects them from realising that there are other and broader sources of ideas which might contribute to their theological understanding. Further, when asked whether they feel competent when teaching the Bible, 88% of respondents either agreed (63%) or strongly agreed (25%). These are predominantly youth leaders who view themselves as VYLs, who have had specific training in this area of ministry, and report themselves to be confident in this area of learning and ministering.¹⁹ Inevitably, however, this closing down of educational horizons affects expectations with regard to further training and education.

Some 86% of youth leaders report confidence in their ability to teach and preach biblical truths in the context of their ministry setting. When asked whether they felt confident in their knowledge of Scripture, 76% agreed or strongly agreed. There is no doubt that what youth leaders feel they understand, they have had to learn from direct praxis, and therefore feel confident in their profession. The confidence that they exude in their ability to grasp biblical concepts to teach and preach from Scripture correlate strongly with their perceived level of self-effectiveness as a VYL, which may well be a key motivating component in being active in their approach to being a ‘self directed learner’.²⁰

Though the data supports a trend for VYLs to be motivated in their learning, many respondents acknowledge that their pursuit of ongoing learning and education has a ‘God factor’ associated with it. This essentially is the purpose and aim of all theological study. Smart, in his educational research on the need for
leaders to be continually learning, says, “It is God who educates, and this is an ongoing process.”²¹ The challenge of ongoing education -- especially in this area of how youth ministry and theology interact -- continues. Kesler notes the importance of this when he states that “Your personal theology will have an effect on everything you do in youth work, In short all we do relates to what we actually believe.”²² There certainly is a need for youth leaders to be appropriately skilled and trained for their calling and vocation so as to avoid leaving “critical gaps in their theological knowledge.”²³

One of the key areas of the focus of this research was to discover those areas in which youth leaders feel they most need support, and those areas that are the sources of inadequacy in the performance of their ministry task. An interesting correlation is that nearly double the amount of respondents said they needed training in the practical skills of ministry as opposed to the pursuit of academic and knowledge skills for their ministry.²⁴ This may again be pointing to the pressure that youth leaders face by needing to value skills that get the job done rather than looking at ways to train and develop themselves so they can be better leaders over a longer period of time. From the previous responses we can note that 76% of youth leaders don’t feel they need any further academic and knowledge skills. Some 84% declined the need to expand their value approach to their ministry and only 14% felt they needed help in all three key categories that were deemed areas to be continually improving in as a leader in the church. Interestingly, the ‘no’ answers to these ‘training most needed’ questions always outnumbered the ‘yes’ answers. This highlights the fact that a sizable number of youth leaders may not exactly see need of such training and knowledge at this point in their vocation.

So what learning tools does the survey data indicate that youth leaders most value? Such data helps us to determine how a VYL tends to learn and what they feel helps bring value to their ministry efforts. The top four categories are ranked from the highest to lowest.

Q: As a youth leader, on what learning tool do you place the highest value?

Ranking 1: Revelation from God

Ranking 2: Relationships with others

Ranking 3: Real life experiences

Ranking 4: Reading materials

Reliance upon a revelation from God is a primary concern to the VYL, with 76% of youth leaders reporting that revelation from God is their most valued learning tool (it would be interesting to do further work in terms of common spiritual disciplines, in order to determine what constitutes ‘revelation’ for this cohort). Noticeably, in that same question, most youth leaders valued training or knowledge based materials well down the list. This points to a generalised belief in Pentecostal circles that God will reveal the answers through revelation for most things as we need them. This is both a hermeneutic, and an ecclesiology. ‘The leader’ in Pentecostal churches is a charismatic individual, identified precisely with the ability to hear from and work for God. The place of ‘natural’ knowledge and skills is thereby relativised. Such a high dependence on revelation as the primary ministry tool of choice for VYLs may also reflect a defacto pragmatism, a tendency (attractive for harried youth leaders) to receive a quick answer from God. Given the models of leadership in their tradition, this has considerably more appeal (from a practical perspective) than the discipline of pouring over texts and reading materials (the least preferred option by VYLs) and other perceived laborious study and self learning activities. This is another area where useful research could well
be conducted.

The reported need of youth ministers to be ‘relationally dependent’ is fundamental to how they learn and grow and gain ministry confidence within an organisation. No doubt this is the channel by which they pick up such attitudes towards learning strategies. The relational aspect of ministry is the second most preferred learning approach. This reflects the culture of dependence among VYLs, whose marginality in ‘apostolic’ organisations forces them to fall back on strong relational links with those they interact with in ministry. In many cases VYLs focus on key relationships to help bolster a sense of greater ministerial and organisational acknowledgment (especially in smaller churches), a factor viewed as essential to the establishment of their ministry and leadership effectiveness. The age old relationship adage, ‘it’s not what you know but who you know,” seems to ring true of the VYL in the ministry context of the Assemblies of God. Relationships and knowledge combined make for a more effective leader, but the trend data shows that VYLs may well find it naturally easier and of greater ministry effect to build relationships before pursuing ministry related knowledge.

The top 5 responses to learning style and approaches to new ideas and principles were as follows;

Q: What are the ways you find easiest to learn new ideas and principles?

Ranking 1: Learning from your own experience

Ranking 2: Listening to others via sermon or conversation

Ranking 3: Trusting God to reveal things to you

Ranking 4: Undertaking short courses

Ranking 5: Undertaking formal study

Again the trend shows that VYLs learn and grow through reflection on practical life and experiences. They tend to learn ‘as they go’ through people they meet, the sermons they hear, and conversations they have. In the light of contemporary thinking about leadership training and development, this almost exclusive emphasis on personal experience is far from an ideal learning philosophy for Christian leadership. This raises important questions for the Assemblies of God. What, for instance, are the ministry dynamics of youth leaders as a result of experiential learning (either good or bad)? To what degree are their experiences in ministry informing and shaping their theological and attitudinal frameworks? Perhaps some answer to these questions may be seen in the tendency for 27% of all youth leaders to leave this area of ministry within a two year period. Lamport notes similar statistics with alarm, in his chapter on the ‘Significance of Calling’. He states that:

One of the most discouraging realities of the profession is the startling dropout rate for this career. Some estimates indicate an average ministry of less than five years, some youth ministers staying as short as two years in a given location.²⁵

It would be worth further research to see if these high ‘churn’ rates (amidst which one might expect to find levels of burnout) could be restrained by greater levels and varieties of training. The least preferred option for respondents (as a way to learning new ideas and principles for youth ministry) is some form of formal study in the area of youth ministry. As noted, VYLs learn essentially ‘on the go’ in an interactive manner; and swimming in a culture which holds that formal study does not make you any better prepared for youth ministry and may even be a hindrance. This is a combination of Pentecostal doubt about the value of intellectual formation and personal doubts about the value of investing in lengthy and expensive formal approaches to a ministry which may be short lived and volatile. The influence of this on the data set is self evident; the overwhelming majority (82%) of respondents are not convinced, or not fully persuaded (19%) that academic training makes any difference to the effectiveness of a youth leader. This flies in the face of other research, which indicates that “the most highly trained ministers experience the greatest satisfaction and fulfillment of professional ministry goals.”²⁶ Strommen, Jones and Rahn also note that “It just makes sense that the more training one has received for a task or profession, the more qualified that person will feel.”²⁷ While this may not indicate effectiveness, it will certainly have an impact upon indices of longevity and self perception.

Reflecting on the confidence and sense of personal adequacy displayed here among VYLs, it seems logical that churches would try and develop appropriate learning pathways. Jagelman has also strongly stated that organisations and senior leaders need to be able to “provide a pathway they can take to make that development possible.”²⁸ It stands to reason that one of the key advantages of strategic vocational and ministerial education for the youth leader is a heightened sense of job and leadership competence. Pazdan’s synopsis (though not easily applied) suggests that the real challenges at the heart of educating leaders lies in the essentials of rigorous intellectual effort as well as a deepening and expanding the faith of individuals that will bring about ecclesial growth and integrity²⁹ to the life of the church.

The reality is that youth ministers face many challenging and sometimes very vulnerable situations during their ministry tenure. They desire to minister to adolescents in a variety of contexts but often have little information to work with apart from opinion, conjecture, and experience. While many youth leaders are in their early to mid-twenties, continual learning is important for the VYL but may well - given the nature of time restraints and ministry pressures - remain a perpetual challenge. Moran highlights (on the basis of Thorndike’s research on adult learning) that between the ages of 25 - 45 there is a decline in learning ability.³⁰ The need for the VYL to be growing in their ministry and theological capacity from an early stage is thus essential to longevity of ministry tenure in VYLs. Burghardt notes that what is really needed in teaching youth leaders theology is “a man or a woman who not only knows a theology of God but more importantly knows the God of theology”.³¹ Narrow theologies interact with narrow spiritualities, and it would be another item for further research to indicate how each contributes to ministerial longevity.

Contextual Concerns for Today’s Youth Leader

Using self perception in relating to calling, this paper has distinguished between VYLs (‘vocational youth leaders’) and non-VYLs (self perceived ‘non vocational youth leaders’). The remaining comments will continue to look at and analyze survey research results between these two categories. It is by comparing these two categories that we can extract contextual concerns for today’s youth leader.

As noted above, the strongest indicator delivered by the data of a person oriented to formal education is the well-situated VYL, someone whose primary sense of calling is to youth ministry, and whose primary skill is flexibility both in learning patterns and organisational responsiveness. Such people are well situated within defined role definitions – they are confident in teaching scripture, confident with other people in the organisation and about their own function within it, are proactive learners with regard to culture and scripture, and involved in efforts to improve the effectiveness of their youth ministry. These people may well choose formal education as one of their sources of personal improvement, but are also actively engaging with a variety of sources for such improvement.

Again, it falls outside the ambit of this study, but the high covariance of data in this area indicates the importance of role definition and leadership in shaping effective youth ministers. Those who report themselves to be most proactive in improving the effectiveness of their youth ministries are those who are actively supportive of the leadership in their own church, and most engaged with assessing changes in youth culture as opportunities for ministry. It may well be worth investigating as to whether (as seems likely) the supportive relations noted are shaped by the leadership culture which flows down from senior ministry and which shapes the expectations of VYLs towards expectations of longevity and productivity within the organisation. It is observed that the interaction between effective youth ministry and good leadership is essential. One might almost predict, therefore, that there is an effect on openness to formal training from the internal cultures of churches established by the senior leadership. As M. J. Anthony has recognised, it is a common facet of contemporary church leaders that most learning is done via “identification and observational learning or imitation which involves patterning ones thoughts, feelings, and actions after a model.”³² This is where the value of the pastoral team relationship seems important in this group of results, and an open attitude to change in youth culture seems to predict a sense of effectiveness in the role. Detonni notes that VYLs tend to “instinctively analyse, interpret and predict youth culture thus allowing them to live and minister harmoniously within that cultural framework”.³³ It is this sense of accomplishment with regard to both the people and the organisation they serve that gives a heightened sense of fulfilment of call and personal self motivation to VYLs.

Again, longevity in ministry results from and bears upon organisational commitment and integration. But it is also linked to VYLs having a strong ministry commitment to young people, something which becomes the defining factor as to whether they perceive themselves as VYLs or not. Banks notes as the basis for successful Christian ministry and praxis the foundational need for the leader to “clarify vocational identity.”³⁴ Longevity in ministry for VYLs is strongly reinforced by their ability to mentor others around them and to then delegate and provide opportunities. This brings a heightened sense of calling and perceived vocational success and status to the VYL.

A ‘people’ rather than a ‘program’ focus seems to be interactive with a commitment to a longer (rather than a shorter, more hierarchy climbing, incremental) perspective on the nature of ministry. These people (VYLs) are more flexible, more personable, more personally responsible, and more spiritually oriented than others in the survey.³⁵ It is this sensitivity to people and youth culture and the ability to initiate change for the betterment of people and the good of the organisation that sets VYLs apart from Non VYLs. VYLs perceive themselves as effective if they are seeing the effects of their leadership influence others by the active involvement of those to whom they minister. VYLs are inspired by being able to provide opportunities for those they are currently mentoring, and perceive the involvement (taking personal ownership) of their young people as a critical key to why they have been called to youth ministry.³⁶ Personal interaction for the VYL is highly structured – mentoring is an outflow of the need to engage for the sake of ministry effectiveness, and for building the relational networks which will help make their ministry effective. They are goal setters for a divine cause, and their relationships are thus purposeful and structured - even when educational experiences are not. Indeed, as noted above, the two are not mutually exclusive -- relationship is a form of education for the existing crop of VYLs.

The Model & Its Consequences For Today’s Youth Leader.

The diagram below outlines the learning/educational model consisting of 5 leadership dimensions, (Circles) and 3 stages of development (Squares). The recommendation is to allow the model to serve as the first step in developing a curriculum designed to teach leadership principles to youth leaders. Each stage represents a construct of leadership development as found in a learning organisation. The conceptual model
is heavily influenced by the research of Fertman and Long³⁷, Fertman and Chubb³⁸, Long, Wald, and Graff³⁹, and Bloom⁴⁰.

VYL Educational Model:

The ability for youth leaders to take these 5 leadership dimensions and be able to process these through the 3 learning processes (Integration, Interaction, Awareness) to become competent VYLs, is the basis we will use in determining sense of adequacy.

There is a clear hierarchy of skills (5 dimensions) that must be developed for long term youth ministry effectiveness. Vocationally-focused youth leaders are aware of this need and reported that they were actively involved in efforts to improve the effectiveness of their youth ministry. This commitment to self improvement in the VYL promotes new initiatives and fosters a positive and self-motivating work ethic, and proves to be a vital indicator in identifying those who will and won’t remain in youth ministry over a longer period of time.⁴¹ The areas where youth leaders most need specific ministry training and skill based knowledge have been identified, but the imperative remains for youth leaders to receive specific training to help them grasp a greater contextual awareness⁴² of their role, rather than relying on generic leadership roles and expectations that they may be required to fulfill.

Clinton’s statement is pertinent to this process: “Leaders must develop a ministry philosophy that simultaneously honours biblical leadership values, embraces the challenges of the times in which we live, and fits their unique gifts and personal development if they expect to be productive over a lifetime.”⁴³ This can be approached positively (through the educational model) – which recognises that VYLs clearly acknowledge their need for continued growth and development if they are going to be successful and remain in youth ministry. It is in the simultaneous attainment of greater training and skills development and personal alignment to the learning process that the VYL will potentially be viewed and accepted by the organisation in a greater capacity allowing for redefinition of position and credentialing etc.

Each of these factors impacts on the Non VYLs orientation to receiving ministry training, and impacts on their engagement, satisfaction and effectiveness in their ministry. Much responsibility lies with senior leaders and the wider church community (including colleges and training organisations) to work together to provide opportunities that address the issues of Non VYLs. These opportunities help provide a sense of confidence in the youth leader (that they are valued and of worth) and helps overall in the performance of their ministry tasks. Jagelman in his book Identifying and Developing Christian Leaders highlights the importance of the local church to participate in this area when he notes that “local churches should provide consistent opportunities for members to be exposed to sound theological education.”⁴⁴ Obviously, how youth ministry is constructed in the local church (as vocation, as a transitory stage, as central to the church curriculum or as appendage) will affect whether youth ministers take their callings seriously (or rather, whether they identify their roles with their sense of calling) and so seek training to prepare themselves for it.

DesMaria, Yang, and Farzenhkia point towards what they consider to be necessary elements in the development of youth leadership. As noted in the model underpinning this research, they listed the critical elements as: “youth/adult partnerships, granting young people decision making power and responsibility for consequences, a broad context for learning and service, recognition of young people’s experience, knowledge and skills”.⁴⁵ The data has indicated a strong tendency for VYLs, linking a good relationship with their senior leader to their ability to learn and grow and thus be viewed as effective by the organisation. Recognition by both senior minister and congregation play a vital role in the way a youth leader sees themselves and views their ministry. This again reinforces the sustained need for relational cohesion between youth leader and senior minister which tends to elicit longevity in ministry and a sense of adequacy for the youth leader.

Conclusion & Future Projections

There is no doubt that this generation of teenagers are in need of spiritually inspired and well trained youth leaders who see themselves as called to be VYLs. In conjunction with spiritual leaders, colleges, training institutions and local churches, there needs to be a focused effort to bring youth leaders into a new confidence and efficiency in their ministries in the conundrums elucidated by this research data. As Professor of Youth Studies, David Rahn, notes, there are three key areas which underpinned effective education for youth ministry, “Christian maturity, youth ministry understanding, and youth ministry competencies”⁴⁶. All of these are based on the personal growth and understanding of the youth leader. Essential to this taking place, Rahn also notes that “we must lead youth leaders into a love of learning that will compel them on a self-directed lifetime of continuous improvement”.⁴⁷

VYLs need both relational and learning pathways to succeed. The tests of difference⁴⁸ between VYLs and Non VYLs is where much of the conclusive data lies. Importantly the research data points out that if stakeholders can identify key ministry traits within the Non VYL at an early stage and train and coach them through these issues, it may well be that we can lengthen the tenure of youth leaders, building experienced and confident VYLs who view themselves as successful in their ministry efforts. There is more research and modeling required, and not merely for research alone. After all, the future leadership of the AOG/ACC lies in those who are now leading a youth ministry or are involved in one.

VYLs should be encouraged to actively seek professional help and assistance in designing a ‘vocational development pathway’ that helps them to pursue their plans for further study, growth and development, thus creating a solid theological foundation that will support them in ministry and life. Jack & McRay note that the ideal youth minister should know “How to plan, design, and carry-out an educational objective.”⁴⁹ If this were to be a goal of youth leaders, obviously it would help for them to have had formational experience with educational objectives in expert settings. Dunn and Senter reinforce the reality that this type of development involves “a long term process of focusing theological, developmental, and sociocultural lenses”⁵⁰ Dave Livermore’s statement is compelling, “I long to see youth ministry education lead the way in forging a new paradigm of developing future ministry leaders.” ⁵¹ It seems imperative in the light of this paper that we continue to work towards initiating vocational development pathways for as many youth leaders as possible in the understanding that in so doing we are building bigger and better leaders for the church of the present and Church leaders for the immediate and long term future.

“I pray that more and more godly men and women would answer the call to full time youth ministry as a life long, professional vocation that is worth investing your life in!”__⁵²