Looking around the congregation during the course of my first months on staff, I noticed that families didn’t sit together for the service. Children sat with their friends, while adults rocked babies not their own and elder adults shepherded toddlers trying to make their escape down the aisle. This congregation was raising its children together. As the pastor who urged me to check out this church said to me, “The big ones care for the littler ones right down the line.” It was remarkable.
Why was this church so different? What made these adults invest in children who were not theirs? Who trained them to step into the mix of one another’s lives? This church had no programmed men’s or women’s ministries, and youth ministry was brand new.
Sunday school for all ages occurred before the main service; children’s church only met during the sermon time. If babies or toddlers made noise in the service, people smiled. If the children ran, skipped or otherwise acted like children, no one complained. If teenagers were gifted in music, prayer or service, they were invited into situations to offer those gifts to the congregation. This church put feet to the scripture that says, “Let no one look down on you because you are young.”
When the young people I observed in those early months grew, graduated and headed for college, they not only found places to worship; they stayed involved in ministry.
This small, urban congregation was marked by trust in one another. As a result, it embodied the “closest thing to a silver bullet” finding cited by Kara Powell and Brad Griffin in their article, “The Church Sticking Together:” “High school and college students who experience more intergenerational worship tend to have higher faith maturity.”
By the light of the research cited by Powell and Griffin, the church I described is unique. For the small, urban congregation that isn’t generationally integrated or that desires to improve intergenerational interaction, there may be significant energy expended in rising to Powell and Griffin’s 5:1 challenge.
A small church, even the one I described, has a small pool from which to draw and equip adults for leadership. Burnout is a concern that would require further creativity due to the likelihood that the same adults are active across a number of program activities already.
Initiating church-wide action by a number of adults to make a level of investment in the lives of individual students could feel like a seismic shift in the life of a small congregation. A worthy shift, to be sure, but one that would require a high level of buy-in for the vision. Creating opportunities for intergenerational, communal interaction that feels natural to everyone will be another aspect of introducing and fostering this shift.
Add to the mix the density of challenges faced by students in inner-city congregations: the potential for higher than average proportions of single or never-married parents, transient students due to homelessness or foster care, as well as students who attend on their own, often without the support of any adults at home.
In fact, this church’s youth fit into the broad picture painted by the intergenerational insights yielded by the research Fuller Youth Institute conducted and examined for its College Transition Initiative. The youth there do serve and build relationships with younger children.
These children are both from church families and from the surrounding neighborhood through intentional program initiatives. Students there also struggle to feel supported by the adults in the congregation, although many adults in the congregation show interest in them outside the Sunday morning context.
I reject the idea that simply more adults involved in the life of each student will become something close to a magic bullet; there are simply too many variables. It is clear that Powell and Griffin realize this, but I found myself wondering why and what else as I examined my context.
When a high priority on intergenerational relationships already exists and the students are doing far better than average at sticking with their faith as they enter their college years, what’s next?
When adults capable of investing in the lives of students are doing so and many of those who aren’t involved with students are facing life circumstances that would preclude them becoming so for now, what’s next? When there aren’t a lot of programs and events that can be tweaked for more interaction, what’s next? When the 5:1 ratio is difficult to apply in my context, does it become a do-the-best-you-can situation?
The authors assert that a sticky church is intentional about providing intergenerational aspects in teaching and worship, about offering memory-making rituals and including ministry that loops parents into—rather than out of—student life. I agree. However, as both a parent and a youth worker, I find the last by far the most challenging aspect.
Through my parent lens, I do want other godly adults investing in my children’s lives in more than a passing way. I do want them to know they are important in the life of the church.
Keeping up with all the ways my kids are busy with church, school and community activities is difficult, and my time with them is fleeting. How do we fit more meaningful interaction into life?
As a youth worker, I would love having the partnership of parents and other adults be a given. I also know that not every student—maybe not even the majority—is going to have that support at home. For many, the church is the only approximation of family they have. No pressure!
When seeking to apply the findings of the sticky faith research to any congregation, consider the logistical changes of combining programs, mixing activities and implementing a strategy for investing in students.
In addition, consider the geographic context, level of programming, demographics of the congregation, potential for leadership among students and adults for mutual ministry and allowance for ministry to those in atypical family structures and solo students.
As I reread that last paragraph, I realize how easy it is to complicate the conclusion the congregation I described made natural and the research offered by Powell and Griffin supports: A sticky church is a church committed to ministry that leaves no one out of the opportunity to care for someone. A sticky church is a family.
Comments