How many of you go to a Church with a "Youth Pastor"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PuritanBouncer said:
Wannabee said:
I have yet to see a valid biblical argument for segregating a church based on demographic distinctions. Such arguments are invariably philosophical and pragmatic in their reasoning, with no clear biblical precedent or foundation. To answer the question, in a word, "no." But, every parent of a youth is, in essence, a shepherd of youth. Our vision is to facilitate the discipleship of every youth/child by the shepherd that God has already assigned them, their fathers.
Click to expand...

This in my experience is how "reformed" Christians seem to feel over all (majority), and while I respect it, I disagree completely. I don't think a youth pastor "segregates" a Church but instead if doing his job correctly, brings it closer together. While every parent may be a "shepherd" of youth, that doesn't always happen. Also, there are fatherless children in our churches that I feel are getting ignored by many answers in this thread. I think some make the mistake of believing all church families are healthy families.
Click to expand...

I don't assume that all families are healthy and I recognize that there are fatherless children. But there are also widows, widowers, lonely single girls and guys, etc.......should they get their own specialized pastor as well?

I think the underlying issue is differing views on the biblical parameters of a preacher, an elder and a deacon. Is there really something unique about ministering to youth compared to anyone else? Having been involved in lay youth ministry myself, I don't buy it. We all have the same spiritual condition requiring the same remedy. Much of the youth pastor idea is born of the niche-marketing mentality of the church growth movement, and the view of the pastor as CEO and therapist in chief.
 
mvdm said:
I don't assume that all families are healthy and I recognize that there are fatherless children. But there are also widows, widowers, lonely single girls and guys, etc.......should they get their own specialized pastor as well?

I think the underlying issue is differing views on the biblical parameters of a preacher, an elder and a deacon. Is there really something unique about ministering to youth compared to anyone else? Having been involved in lay youth ministry myself, I don't buy it. We all have the same spiritual condition requiring the same remedy. Much of the youth pastor idea is born of the niche-marketing mentality of the church growth movement, and the view of the pastor as CEO and therapist in chief.
Click to expand...

A little historical perspective, please. The church growth movement did not really get going until the 70s in any kind of way, the 80s were its peak of popularity. After that "seeker sensitivity" and being "purpose driven" kicked in. I sat under the guru of the movement, C. Peter Wagner, in seminary in '77. Youth pastors (at least in broadly evangelical churches) predated that by a loooooong time. My home church always had youth pastors when I was growing up in the 50s.

I suspect that the explanation is primarily twofold: size and culture.

1. Size: paid youth staff are a function of larger churches regardless of polity. My guess is that even Presbyterian congregations of 500+ in average attendance mostly have such animals on their staffs. It probably has more to do with a shift that took place in the church (at least in certain parts of the country) when any congregation of 150 attendance started adding paid music and youth staff. In part, this traces to shifting employment patterns after WWII, the role of working mothers, and an insufficiency of willing volunteers in an increasingly narcicisstic culture. In So. California, I know of one church with an average attendance of only 750 that had no less than 10 full-time pastors (M.Divs and D.Mins) on staff.

2. Culture: it is probably true that the more revivalistic tradition puts a premium upon formal youth ministry programs with paid staff than the Reformed tradition does. Couple this with the frequently smaller sizes of some of the Reformed congregations and you have an additional reason for the difference. Remember that there are some Reformed churches that would look askance at anyone who did not homeschool (witness some of the threads on the PB over the last few months) while many of the congregations I have been in would view homeschoolers with the same negative suspicion.
 
DMcFadden said:
mvdm said:
I don't assume that all families are healthy and I recognize that there are fatherless children. But there are also widows, widowers, lonely single girls and guys, etc.......should they get their own specialized pastor as well?

I think the underlying issue is differing views on the biblical parameters of a preacher, an elder and a deacon. Is there really something unique about ministering to youth compared to anyone else? Having been involved in lay youth ministry myself, I don't buy it. We all have the same spiritual condition requiring the same remedy. Much of the youth pastor idea is born of the niche-marketing mentality of the church growth movement, and the view of the pastor as CEO and therapist in chief.
Click to expand...

A little historical perspective, please. The church growth movement did not really get going until the 70s in any kind of way, the 80s were its peak of popularity. After that "seeker sensitivity" and being "purpose driven" kicked in. I sat under the guru of the movement, C. Peter Wagner, in seminary in '77. Youth pastors (at least in broadly evangelical churches) predated that by a loooooong time. My home church always had youth pastors when I was growing up in the 50s.

I suspect that the explanation is primarily twofold: size and culture.

1. Size: paid youth staff are a function of larger churches regardless of polity. My guess is that even Presbyterian congregations of 500+ in average attendance mostly have such animals on their staffs. It probably has more to do with a shift that took place in the church (at least in certain parts of the country) when any congregation of 150 attendance started adding paid music and youth staff. In part, this traces to shifting employment patterns after WWII, the role of working mothers, and an insufficiency of willing volunteers in an increasingly narcicisstic culture. In So. California, I know of one church with an average attendance of only 750 that had no less than 10 full-time pastors (M.Divs and D.Mins) on staff.

2. Culture: it is probably true that the more revivalistic tradition puts a premium upon formal youth ministry programs with paid staff than the Reformed tradition does. Couple this with the frequently smaller sizes of some of the Reformed congregations and you have an additional reason for the difference. Remember that there are some Reformed churches that would look askance at anyone who did not homeschool (witness some of the threads on the PB over the last few months) while many of the congregations I have been in would view homeschoolers with the same negative suspicion.
Click to expand...

I agree the roots of this phenomenon run deeper than the last 30 years. "Born" is probably not the right word. "Nurtured" or "exploited" might be a better term.

Here's an article highlighting some of the historical background:

Youth Ministry Critique
 
I don't favor the expression "youth Pastor" because, by the very term, it implies that the youth have a Pastor separate than their families. That might be unintentional but it's communicated by the very term itself. Add to this that there is nowhere in Scripture where the qualifications for a "Youth pastor" are spelled out in Scripture.

I agree with others who note that you can specialize and segmentize your Church membership until you have a "ministry" for every group. We have too much atomization and segmentation of our Church already.

I'll also be brutally honest that the felt need for a youth pastor stems from basic Biblical ignorance on the part of Fathers and Mothers in an otherwise "unbroken" home. We're not simply talking about people who don't have either but we're talking about an attitude that "...let's drop off Billy and Susan so they can spiritually grow...."

I don't know how much clearer the Scriptures can be that a child's spiritual growth in the fear and admonition of the Lord is the responsibility of a father and mother. Within the Church's visible means toward that end, the parents fall under the spiritual leadership of the elders. You don't mess with God's ordinance and rend boys and girls from those God-given means, set them in their own authority structure to be taught by a "youth pastor". All that does is further impoverishes what parents are already confused about.

I don't know how many parents I've met that mourn the fact that their children have not continued in the faith - many, many Baptists and Presbyterians. Psalm 78 is a bitter pill for parents to accept but ought to serve as a warning for us all. We don't control the election of our kids but one sure way to facilitate their apostasy is to neglect our role or turn it over to another and assume the job is getting done.

And because this attitude that the Church must have a vibrant youth ministry in order to be a good Church, I've seen family after family leave our small Church here in Okinawa that teaches a true Gospel consciously turn away from sound doctrine because they place more value on the fact that there are programs for their kids. I say conscious because I've had more than a few men and women tell me that they believe the Gospel is taught more truly here but they want "...their kids to grow too...."

Uggh! Then teach them! Don't leave a Church that is training you how to train your kids for a Church with a youth pastor so they can do it for you!

Now, all that said, I'm not one of these guys that thinks that every bit of instruction and activity that surrounds a Church has to be done with the entire family. I don't have any problem with Sunday School classes, youth retreats, and the like. Frankly, however, you don't need a youth pastor to do that kind of stuff. You need parents who are interested in the lives of their kids to help out with those activities.

And, of course, the broken families will come. But extraordinary circumstances can never be the basis for overthrowing ordinary means and you don't create a Youth Pastor to be the father and mother and Pastor of the kids from broken families. A healthy Church with catechized adults and children that love the brethren and with widows and other elderly that love the brethren and all age groups that love the brethren will care for all the segments of the Church. Once we break down the walls of separation and stop trying to create ministry boutiques for every class of people then we can all start focusing on striving together as a body that recognizes all its members as part of the same Body and not different ministries with a need for a pastor in charge of each.
 
Who is advocating turning over our kids to someone else? Like I said, our youth pastor has been a great assistance to the discipleship process we are overseeing in our kids lives. Further, I had a great Dad growing up, but God also used a godly "youth" pastor in my growth in grace.

Discipleship happens in the covenant community, it's not ONLY the parents responsibility. Our discipleship is enhanced by the various mentors God places in our lives, within the church. Certainly parents are the ones chiefly responsible, but we are a community.

I have many weaknesses. I hope my sons' exposure to their youth pastor and others will help them see people with strengths in the areas their father is weak. I could go on.
 
Reepicheep said:
Who is advocating turning over our kids to someone else? Like I said, our youth pastor has been a great assistance to the discipleship process we are overseeing in our kids lives. Further, I had a great Dad growing up, but God also used a godly "youth" pastor in my growth in grace.

Discipleship happens in the covenant community, it's not ONLY the parents responsibility. Our discipleship is enhanced by the various mentors God places in our lives, within the church. Certainly parents are the ones chiefly responsible, but we are a community.

I have many weaknesses. I hope my sons' exposure to their youth pastor and others will help them see people with strengths in the areas their father is weak. I could go on.
Click to expand...

If this augmentation is so wise, then why is it not commended in the Scriptures themselves? In the thousands of years that the Proverbs have existed as well as Pastors to guide parents in their duties, why is the "youth pastor" never lauded as commendable?

I never stated that every youth pastor overthrows this order but the name itself implies something he is not: he is *not* the pastor for the youth. The children have a session of elders and that distinction ought to be noted not only in principle but also in whatever we call a person who may facilitate catechetical instruction.

Further, by way of direct institution, it is not the covenant community's responsibility to raise children. This implies that all have been given an immediate commission by God toward that end. Parents have been commissioned by God toward this end. Elders have been commissioned for the spiritual oversight of all. Responsibility cannot be delegated. Execution of the task can be delegated but responsibility always rests with those commissioned for the task.
 
At Maranatha Baptist Church we have two pastors, myself and another younger gentleman whom I love dearly. He works with the youth and leads the music program. He preaches also when I'm not there.

My main areas of responsibility are preaching, teaching and pastoral care.

We both share in the administration of the church.

We are both pastors.

So...no youth pastor. We're both "just" pastors.

It's working very well. God is blessing.
 
So we're talking semantics here? If a Church has a second "pastor" who works with the youth and "fills in" on ocasion that would be fine with most of you? But if you call him a "youth pastor" all bets are off?
 
PuritanBouncer said:
So we're talking semantics here? If a Church has a second "pastor" who works with the youth and "fills in" on ocasion that would be fine with most of you? But if you call him a "youth pastor" all bets are off?
Click to expand...

It isn't simply semantics, Adam. Rich's comment bears reading again:

I never stated that every youth pastor overthrows this order but the name itself implies something he is not: he is *not* the pastor for the youth. The children have a session of elders and that distinction ought to be noted not only in principle but also in whatever we call a person who may facilitate catechetical instruction.
Click to expand...

Of necessity, IF (and I say IF for good reason) the church has specific "youth" activities then of necessity SOMEONE must take charge of them. It is NOT thereby necessary that one of these be labelled "youth pastor", and in my opinion such a labelling and task-orientation is divisive and not useful. It teaches the youth of the church that they have "someone to go to", someone who has "their needs" most in the forefront of their minds. They have someone SPECIFICALLY to serve THEM, as opposed to other elders of the flock. This just feeds the extreme selfishness of the current generation of youth, and I think both Biblically unwarranted and harmful in their development as adults.

If they are going to be brought up in the church, as contributing adult members, then both their parents and the church leadership structure need to work together in order to effect this development. Cordoning off the youth of the church with a young, newly-trained (if trained at all) "pastor", who's their "buddy" is highly detrimental to this goal.
 
Cordoning off the youth of the church with a young, newly-trained (if trained at all) "pastor", who's their "buddy" is highly detrimental to this goal.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a fear as well, obviously I am thinking of something like this for myself (and have been for some time) and I am pushing 40 and well trained in working with youth and could get trained for ministry.

The "buddy" comment annoys me (no offense to you personally) because I have worked with people who used that as slander towards those who worked well with kids and those who tossed it around did so out of envy/spite. (Not saying that's what you are doing).
 
Ivan said:
At Maranatha Baptist Church we have two pastors, myself and another younger gentleman whom I love dearly. He works with the youth and leads the music program. He preaches also when I'm not there.

My main areas of responsibility are preaching, teaching and pastoral care.

We both share in the administration of the church.

We are both pastors.

So...no youth pastor. We're both "just" pastors.

It's working very well. God is blessing.
Click to expand...

Amen!

I agree here. This is a good description of our church also.

I think the prime responsibility for training children is given to parents, no doubt. But to say the Covenant community has no responsibility in this would be too much.

Deut. 6 is written to the Covenant Community also.
 
Reepicheep said:
Ivan said:
At Maranatha Baptist Church we have two pastors, myself and another younger gentleman whom I love dearly. He works with the youth and leads the music program. He preaches also when I'm not there.

My main areas of responsibility are preaching, teaching and pastoral care.

We both share in the administration of the church.

We are both pastors.

So...no youth pastor. We're both "just" pastors.

It's working very well. God is blessing.
Click to expand...

Amen!

I agree here. This is a good description of our church also.

I think the prime responsibility for training children is given to parents, no doubt. But to say the Covenant community has no responsibility in this would be too much.

Deut. 6 is written to the Covenant Community also.
Click to expand...
I never stated that members have no responsibility to one another. In fact, to the post you responded to, I alluded to the language of Hebrews that commands us to strive together and noted the importance that the entire Church think properly of its role toward that end.

My point, however, was that we tend to segment the Church into classes and the most obvious of all is the youth with their own "Pastor". Words and titles have pedagogical value to them. We communicate ideas by the titles we give things. Especially in a culture given to profound ignorance of the role of the parents in training a child in the way they should go, is it really wise to call a man a Youth Pastor with all the meaning that every Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Charismatic under the sun pours into the term? Or is the point, perhaps, that we want to assure the newly Reformed to rest easy because, just like the others, we have youth Pastors too?

As I stated, I'm fairly critical of those that think that the only good type of Church activity is the activity done with the entire family. I believe there is a place for catechism of adults at a level above where the children would be able to understand (hence the WLC) and there is a place for the WSC. I've also noted (in other threads) that I've taught youth and even been an adult who helped at Junior and High School retreats.

What I do not abide with my Confessional understanding of the Scriptures is the addition of a un-Biblical Church Office that not only finds no Scriptural warrant but undermines the Covenantal goal of the Church to train parents to train kids. Yes the Church aids the parent. The parents are directly commissioned by God to train the child. The elders are commissioned by God for the building up of the entire Church (and therefore are responsible for the children and adults), while the members are commanded to strive together and spur one another on. One way to ensure that members understand how they are supposed to spur one another on is *not* to make them believe that they have to join "children's ministries" in order to fulfill that goal (or "elder ministries" or "widow ministries" or "orphan ministries", ....)
 
One of the dangers of current youth ministry trends is that it enables parents to forsake their responsibilities. But, perhaps more importantly, the question arises as to why a church would promote segregation based on demographics, specifically based on age. Is there really a justifiable reason why it would be better? Is it better to separate families along age based lines? Is it better to segregate our churches based on age? If you haven't, read Schlect's article. He's faced this challenge. Simply put, are we reactive or proactive?

Another booklet that has good insight is from Silver Beach Community Church's Teen Discipleship Ministry. And a good model of this in action, in addition to Silver Beach, is Mark Dever's church.

I think it is a great sign of vitality in a church to be able to support two, or even several Pastors. In this way one’s strengths might complement another’s, resulting in a stronger ministry and healthier sheep within the fold. I am concerned that the trend to segregate one group based on age, social status or marital status may be detrimental to the spiritual health of the church as a body. The young learn to be a great godly Christians from those who have walked with the Lord for many years. A single person can learn how to be a good spouse from interacting with couples. A young couple can learn how to be good parents from mature couples much more effectively than other newlyweds. Godly examples are our best teachers, as Paul exhorted in Titus 2:2-8 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. (3) The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (4) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, (5) To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (6) Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. (7) In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, (8) Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

I wrote on this a few years ago, if anyone is interested.
View attachment 178
 
Semper Fidelis said:
What I do not abide with my Confessional understanding of the Scriptures is the addition of a un-Biblical Church Office that not only finds no Scriptural warrant but undermines the Covenantal goal of the Church to train parents to train kids. Yes the Church aids the parent. The parents are directly commissioned by God to train the child. The elders are commissioned by God for the building up of the entire Church (and therefore are responsible for the children and adults), while the members are commanded to strive together and spur one another on. One way to ensure that members understand how they are supposed to spur one another on is *not* to make them believe that they have to join "children's ministries" in order to fulfill that goal (or "elder ministries" or "widow ministries" or "orphan ministries", ....)
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
We have a "Director of Student Ministry". He spends time with the youth, leads the School of Discipleship class (our "cutting edge" name for Sunday School) and leads a weekly Bible Study. I would guess he spends a max of 4 hours per week with our youth, aside from any special events, and offers another model of living out the gospel for them which is very covenantal, I believe. Our kids need models of faithful Christian living within the body. My saying is that if his 4 hours per week with the youth is somehow replacing the family, then a family has problems- and its not the youth director.
 
Yes, our church has a youth pastor. His name is Mark Wells and he fairly new. He has been doing a great job so far in the last few months.
 
What are some does and dont's of youth ministry?

Should we do away with it?

Or should churches that do not empahsize this...should they start paying more attention to the needs of the youth and start a youth ministry?
 
PaulB said:
We have a "Director of Student Ministry". He spends time with the youth, leads the School of Discipleship class (our "cutting edge" name for Sunday School) and leads a weekly Bible Study. I would guess he spends a max of 4 hours per week with our youth, aside from any special events, and offers another model of living out the gospel for them which is very covenantal, I believe. Our kids need models of faithful Christian living within the body. My saying is that if his 4 hours per week with the youth is somehow replacing the family, then a family has problems- and its not the youth director.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't those 4 hours be better spent with the parents modeling and teaching these things rather than having it done by the youth pastor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top