The cul-de-sac of youth work???

I never got involved in youth work to get a degree, I did a degree so I could get a job in youth work. This is my stock answer when I talk about my CYM experience to anyone bothered enough to listen, and it is true, however the nature of my degree is vocational. It has lead me down a path which does what it says on the tin - namely that I am a trained youth worker doing youth work.

Anyone about to embark on a CYM degree or equivalent is well warned to expect that in a few years in the Christian sector at least - you may be facing a bit of a head scratcher of what to do next...

Now I frequently get asked 2 questions in my job 'Will you ever train for the ministry?' and 'What will you do after youth work?' The former drives some of my colleagues up the wall, but I want to focus on the latter here.

What will I do next? Well before I answer that, I want to give you a very brief history of my experience in youth work.

I have both voluntary and paid experience in Council youth work, detached work, working with Travellers, private sector, sheltered housing and church based work. I have my degree and am studying for a Masters in Inclusion and Diversity and training to become a Lay Reader with my Diocese.

The reason I reveal that is so it gives you a context to understand where I am currently at with my career. Where do I go next?

Let me explain, before I go on - this is by no means me saying 'I have so much experience, where will I choose to use my vast experience and knowledge next?' (note the sarcasm). No I am currently at a fork in the road.

Where are the jobs for a graduate of 3 years in Northern Ireland? Where are the JNC level 3 jobs? They are not in the Christian sector anyway. At least not in the last 2 years that I have been working here, and if they are they are usually have external forces which drive the appointment process.

This leads to the obvious scenario whereby the Christian sector continually produces enthusiastic youth workers, trains them up and loses them to the statutory sector after a few years. Not necessarily a bad thing I suppose - afterall the more Christian youth workers in the statutory sector there are the better.

The 'brain drain' on the Church is a relatively new thing. Never before has so much energy been put into training youth workers - both through OCN (youthlink course) and the new CYM course. It is these organisations which need to be at the forefront of recognising the importance of their own courses and leading the discussion in this area on shaping what a career in youth work in the Christian sector looks like.

Thats something which needs to happen now so there is incentive for future graduates and those with experience to stick with the Christian sector in the future. However I am still left with my initial question... Where do I go - what do I do?

The fork I face is to stick where I am (I am not planning to move, but my contract is up next Summer), choose a different career altogether, or (if I want to move up the pay bracket in youth work) it'll probably be applying for a funded fixed term post outside the Christian sector.

If I can get an interview for one that is...

Vs Vs Vs

Having read through my posts, I am aware that alot of my titles contain the words 'vs' - I guess its because in this line of work working for an agency which promotes faith and its ownership as a method of acceptance results in a lot of conflicts and tricky ethical and moral scenarios for a youth work professional.

In saying that however, I will try to be more imaginative in my titles in the future.

Victims first

In light of todays report into abuse in the Catholic Church, I feel deeply saddened that the church which campaigned for childrens rights in the formative years of youth work then turned and abused its position of trust with children.

I feel ashamed that a Christian Church has so horribly let down a generation of young people - THIS is why the youth work sector in Churches needs to keep striving towards professionalism.

The only decent thing the Catholic Church can do is disband the Christian Brothers as a religious sect and hand over the names of those abusers to be prosecuted.

The victims are the ones who need to be listened to here - this is a Gospel imperative. If the Church doesn't listen and act, then who will...?

Faith vs Vocation

Many people assume that youth work and Christian youth work are one in the same. In fact some people I know even appear confused when it is suggested that youth work can be done outside of a faith perspective.

In looking at the values and principles which underpin the profession, it becomes aparent that to balance both faith and youth work principles in balance is quite a skill.

The reality of this struggle becomes aparent when it is considered that there are three unseen influences which constantly float around any situation youth workers may find themselves in, and which in turn can shape the nature of the response to the young person.

1. The expectation of the employer
2. The principles of youth work
3. A personal belief system

Think of this - Susan a young person who comes to a Christian Cell group listens intently each week; she engages with the sessions well and asks some very deep and relevant questions which really seem to get to the heart of the issue.

Susan is one of those young people who encourage you each time she comes. She adds a lot more to the group dynamic than any amout of preparation or well planned sessions could hope to achieve, and you are glad when she turns up.

One particular week Susan announces to the group that she has made a 'big decision' - that she has decided to become a Muslim. She turns to you and says that she could never have made the decision without your guidance and support, and she tells the group that because she feels 'safe' here, they have played a huge part in bringing her to this point. She eagerly looks towards you, awaiting your response...

What do you do!?

If I knew more people read this, maybe I would leave the blog there to see the responses - I would be very interested in some of them - however because I am unsure of my popularity I will continue on...

You see this incident alone highlights immediately what happens when youth work principles and personal faith come head to head... which one wins - which set of values is used to base the resulting action on?

Before I go on, I wish to clarify that I am assuming those who work to personal faith have a vested interest in growing disciples, or increasing membership to their cause (this is not making a value judgement on such things, mearly pointing out what I am positioning myself against in writing this piece).

I wish to suggest that you cannot work to the principles of youth work as a subordinate to the values of personal faith.

Think of it like this.

1. When working to the principles of youth work, those principles act as a sort of boundary within which all work is contained.
2. When working to the values of personal faith, then that acts as a boundary within which all work is contained.

It is probably more helpful in this instance to explore how each boundaries respond when they are challenged to emphasise my point.


---

In working to the principles of youth work the youth worker has the professional principles underpinning their work. They may engage in faith based groups, but they still fall under the principles of informal education and EDI. So when Susan decides to become a Muslim in a Christian Cell group, she is supported in her decision, she is given all relevant information to help her decision and she is encouraged to take ownership. She is empowered into a full participative model of youth work even though she has inherintly rejected the faith from which the youth worker was working from (and hoping she would take on for herself).

In other words, when Susan rejected the personal beliefs of the youth worker, and indeed rejected the very purpose for which the group was established, she is still supported in her decision to reject the very thing which is most important to the youth worker.

The key point here is that the worker still supports the young person, they still continue the relationship because it was not based on a concept of formal education where a goal was predetermined for the young person from the very start.

The black line represents the young person breaking the boundary of personal beliefs, (rejecting them) but still remaining within the understanding of youth work - being supported in their journey of discovery.

This way of working demands a certain level of denying what the youth worker holds as important in order to continue with the young person. On one level this demands a denial of personal belief to support Susan in her personal journey.

However in 'denying' their personal faith to support Susan in becoming a Muslim, the worker is not so much denying their own faith - they are simply letting go of the notion that it is their words, or eliquent arguments which convince Susan of her need to follow Christianity. They are not so much denying God, as their belief in the way they understand how God works through them.

---

Placing the principles of youth work within the constraints of personal faith results in a different scenario with Susan.

Once she announces she is becoming a Muslim, then the over riding thought is of her 'wrong choice'. She has gone against the purpose of the group and denied Christianity. This is the primary concern - the principles of youth work fall under the authority the youth worker believes they have in being the conveyor of Scripture (their interpretation), and as such because Susan has made a wrong choice, she must be corrected. Youth work principles are forsaken as the more important goal of personal salvation becomes apparent.

The diagram to the left shows that when youth work principles are used within a religious setting, then when the young person makes a decision which goes against the religious expectation, they are on their own as the boundary has been broken and the worker gives the young person up for 'lost'.

There is an ethical consequence to this - when the principles of youth work are being outworked within a religious organisation they still encourage freedom of thought and promote diverse (conflicting) positions, even positions which go against the religious agenda. If the young people choose (as is their right according to the principles of youth work) to journey down a certain path then they face a real possibility of walking it in isolation if they choose the wrong option.

The black line represents the young person moving through the boundaries and out into the wilderness, where they are isolated from the institution when they choose to reject it's values or boundaries.

This form of youth work primarily has it's own interests at heart or at least the interests of the employer, funding agency or personal beliefs of the worker. The needs of the young person comes second.

Is this youth work any more?

---

Jesus said in Matthew 16:24 - 'Deny Yourself, take up your cross and follow me.'

Sometimes to follow Christ we have to deny the methods we believe lead people to Christ. In working to our own personal faith systems as a priority we put people second and objectives first.

In denying the easy route of spouting the usual Christain stuff to young people and allowing them to journey their own paths with our unconditional support - we deny the selfish desire we have of 'doing the Christian job of telling people about Jesus', and we take up the cross of doing the hard work of the good samaritan, the sheep in Matthew 25 and follow the example of Christ when he became nothing in Phillippians 3.

So in some senses I believe the principles of youth work actually out perform the old school methods of proclaiming 'Christ Crucified' when it comes to 'preaching the Gospel'.

Church and state

I support the growing professionalism of youth work and all that goes with it in Northern Ireland. Especially in the Churches. I support the move towards good practice in working with young people, in bringing a sort of understanding to what it is to do 'youth work'.

Working in the faith based sector I am wary of the work that can go on in proactively shaping young people towards certain value bases, which can fly in the face of informal education. Something I have written about before and won't dwell on here.

However at the same time I am proud to be part of the institution which was a leader in championing child protection and raising the rights of children in the formative years of youth work. See this BBC News article.

While the Church did not act alone - it certainly played its part in shaping the youth service as we know it today. For it to be marginalised by secular agencies (as is happneing) does a disservice to what it has contributed to, and continues to contribute to youth work today.

The value of youth work

There seems to be an increasing agitation among youth workers that the profession is moving away from the values upon which it was formed. I base this on the following articles which appeared in youth work magazine CYPNow:

• Youth workers launch campaign for a return to core principles.


• Give youth work freedom to deliver.


• Youth work's values under threat

The use of youth workers to run these courses is what is causing the most consternation as they argue they are moving from enablers to enforcers in their role.

Now this government is not really big into trusting the professionals to do their jobs, as the NHS and teaching prove - however forcing the profession to undertake roles which fundamentally oppose the voluntary relationship between young person and youth worker, effectively is an immoral abuse of the role youth workers play in engaging young people the formal involuntary education system has let down.

In effect this creates a compromised form of youth work, and if the government continues down this path, then the only professionals working to the principles of informal education will be those not in receipt of funding from the government; in the private sector; or in the very place where youth work has its roots. Churches.

Now before those who work for Churches or Christian organisations sit smugly in their chairs - think on this. The policies which are being pushed by government to move youth work into a formal process are not so different to some of the 'expectations' in the faith based sector.

The following quote from CYPNow suggests where the annoyance comes from: The shift in policy signals

(...) a wider frustration that government policy of recent years has undermined youth work's core principles - namely, of young people's voluntary participation; and the importance of young people building relationships with youth workers on their terms and with their peers so they get provision that meets their needs. These are under threat, the argument goes, because of the emphasis on accredited outcomes and targeted interventions...
CYPNow - 23 April 2009

Does this sound familiar? Does the vocation of youth work in the Churches and related agencies really work to meet the needs of young people as they themselves identify them, or does it work to the needs of young people as perceived by the agencies in question?

Are the Churches (etc) already working in the way that government is trying to manipulate the statutory sector into? Who is doing the better youth work?

It's probably unfair to compare like for like, but the uncomfortable question remains, what do churches and even government seek to gain from youth work by employing youth workers?

What is their dividend from the 'experiment' of informal education?

I have a question - is it simply another method to try to engage young people into establishments or regimes which have no relevance to young people as they themselves identify? (Church or community cohesion).

Are youth workers simply being used because they bring a new method to engagement? If so then are the organisations employing them willing to also adapt to a new method of measuring 'success'?

If not, then those who employ youth workers to engage young people through informal education deny the fundamental principle behind it if they have a pre-defined goal already in place to measure the value of their investment.

This is not only ethically corrupt, but morally deceptive to the young people they are reaching out to.

The value of youth work is built upon relationship and when we put conditions on that relationship we risk damaging not only the relationship already built up with the young person, but we run the very real risk of damaging the very understanding of 'relationship' full stop.

Truth vs Youth (work)...

In youth work there is a call to be true to yourself, your beliefs, values, ethics etc - while at the same time working to the mantra of E.D.I. There is no demand that youth workers deny their own values in order to become more sincere or relational to those they work with, to whom they may have completely opposing views on issues, and similarly youth work is not about convincing young people to become more like 'me', but there are times when challenge must be given from the youth work role - when awareness needs brought, and when learning needs to be facilitated.

Youth work is about relationship, but also about moving young people from one stage of their development to another. This wording is important as it is not about moving young people from one place to another, not from one belief to another, or from one set of values to another. No youth work is about moving them from one stage of development to another. The reason the wording is important is because it is primarily about facilitating the process by which decisions can be made in a secure context, by giving young people the tools to become interdependent.

The purpose of youth work is to facilitate and support young people’s growth through dependence to interdependence, by encouraging their personal and social development and enabling them to have a voice, influence and place in their communities and society.

(Working with Young People, 2008: 17)

What separates youth work from teaching is the focus on informal education. Informal education is youth work – youth work aims towards empowerment and participation, informal education is the method of delivery.

The process is fluid, not working to some curricular goal but to an open ended unknown destination where learning is continual by both ‘sides’ in the relationship between worker and young person.

A good example of this may be when John tells me he is gay. We both claim to follow Christianity. I (the youth worker) believe homosexuality is a sin. John does not.

This is what may be described as an ethical minefield. Issues are raised for the informal educator who works from a Christian value base which says homosexuality is a sin.

I can think of two main settings where this could happen for most youth workers.

Setting 1:

The young person comes to a session where it is explicitly understood that its purpose is to teach them about Christianity. The young person becomes a student of sorts, and the youth worker becomes a teacher – there are no hidden agendas here – the only variable in this setting is the understanding of the youth worker of the place of Scripture. This is a key and fundamental point to the whole understanding of the response involved. The youth worker is working to a set of goals (regardless of how admirable or otherwise those goals may be) the method of delivery shifts from informal education to formal.

In this setting the youth worker is primarily teaching, the young person is primarily learning (though not exclusively). The principle is to refine, to disciple to educate in the ways of Christian teaching according to the Bible. Or to put it another way, the student is refining their understanding and skills in applying the subject to practice.

This is not youth work, this is formal education through a direct approach.

The needs of the worker take priority over the need for John to reason things out for himself. This is not participatory or informal, and so cannot be called youth work. The context of this occurring in a ‘Christian class’ helps to keep the boundaries a little clearer, but this cannot be called youth work – yet it is passed as such by many practitioners up and down the country.

This is all based on the premise of bringing change to the young person. From a place of mis or no understanding to understanding. It is focussed on the youth workers perceived needs for the young person.

Setting 2:

John comes to an open access drop in, a Friday Night youth group, open for anyone and everyone regardless of belief, creed, gender or DNA. There are no restrictions (apart from age). So John arrives in and tells me, the youth worker that in his current relationship with Dave he finds it hard to tell him his breath smells. Of course the issue for John is Dave’s bad breath, but the issue for me is the homosexual relationship.

However the context of the setting is open access and welcoming, the purpose of the Drop in is to provide a safe place for young people on a Friday night, the ethos is inclusive and participatory. I know John claims to be a Christian (as do I) so in the context of relationship, the questions arise;

• Do I still have a right to challenge him on his understanding of the Bible – even though the context of the setting is different? – after all we have built up our relationship though our shared beliefs as Christians.
• Which set of values do I work towards? Do I change my values depending on what setting I am in? Not doing so risks alienation of John from the open access drop in. This goes against the ethos of the drop in, but the Bible says X Y or Z. Can I work to both agndas with integrity?
  
• Can I not just be up front about what I believe?

Allow me to edit a quote from ‘Ethical Issues in Youth Work’ by Maxine Green which may help move the discussion forward:

Although the worker may listen to John (when he tells the worker he is gay), there is a script at the back of the workers mind which impairs the informal education process. Thus Johns’ ‘problem’ may be seen in terms of the faith of the worker, and tenets of faith may be used to solve the problem, rather than enable John to address the problem as he sees it. (...) The youth worker may continue to work to reinforce and support john encouraging him to adopt his own ideological framework.

(Edited quote from Green. M. in Ethical Issues in Youth Work. 1999: 116)

It is imperative to realise that it is possible therefore to believe homosexuality is wrong and still work in harmony with the principles of youth work. The important thing in this is that the worker realises their value base, and ensures they do not work to an agenda of conversion or change.

I can (possibly) see the questions forming in your mind - 'whats the point in that?' Well the point is the relationship upon which this whole scenario rests is the vehicle which carries Truth or the Gospel. Subverting the relationship by promoting behavioural models of inclusion damage the relationship, deny the journey that John is on, and ends up with two oppositions opposed to one relationship working with two understandings in an attitude of tolerance and respect.

Working to a behavioural model of inclusion results in 'homophobia' being alleged; as the core message which is being conveyed is one of 'change to be like me' with no understanding of the personal cost this demands.

One side sees this as working to the Truth, the other sees this as defining a homosexual person simply by their sexuality.

The context of the interaction bettween young person and worker dictates the method of response. The question upon which this all rests is, which is more important - remaining true to Scripture, or working with integrity to the principles of youth work?

The answer is not a clear cut as may first appear.

Working to the Truth of Scripture may result in an obvious declaration that sin is sin and Truth must be proclaimed. After all the Truth shall set you free, however:

When there is an aim to convert or evangelise there is a tremendous pressure not to take the ‘risk’ of exploring a divergent range of choices with the young person but to present a single viewpoint or solution. (...) This may mean that the work is based on a behavioural model with the young people being rewarded for making certain choices and electing to adopt the values of the institution.

(Edited quote from Green. M. in Ethical Issues in Youth Work. 1999: 117)

When youth work moves towards behavioural models then the integrity of Christianity (Faith) is damaged. Any decision to follow a faith based on adapting to a behavioural model will not produce good fruit.

... it is questionable what sort of attitude change there is in the long term (...) (Decision to follow a faith) may be short lived compared to a more reasoned faith acquired through a more open informal education process.

(Edited quote from Green. M. in Ethical Issues in Youth Work. 1999: 117)

The process of engagement with young people is important in getting to the heart of the issue. Denying the informal process and all that goes with it, even in situations with young people where there are diametrically opposed positions on issues will only result in short term change being made.

The young person is not given ownership over how to proceed or deal with the issue and in time they will realise this, with the likelihood that they will not only reject the decision they came to (based on a disempowered behavioural model or education) but they will resent the institution which pushed it.

Within the body of Christianity, this institution is divided into right wing Conservative or left wing Liberal.

The desire to remain true to the Truth may in fact result in informal educative approaches being abandoned as the self interests of the youth worker to feel like they have ‘done their job in preaching the Gospel’ have been achieved.

In working like this the worker exploits the young persons’ search for identity, belonging and meaning by informing them of the Truth, yet disempowering them from developing and growing through the experience informal education would provide.

The Truth the worker is trying to convey is lost to the young person as they hear words but experience no learning. They see Scripture but recognise no Truth. They see instant reward in mimicking behaviour – they see acceptance and celebration of those who believe what the youth worker believes and base a decision on the human desire to belong and be wanted.

This is not youth work, this is not informal education. This damages the body of Christ.

Of course the allegation is that youth workers who work to models of informal education must be liberal in their theology, but I argue the opposite. They can be equally as vociferous, if not more so in their theology by allowing the process of informal education do its job. Those who don’t, deny young people the respect and freedom to make their own informed choices.

It is vital not only to informal youth work principles, but also to the concept of free-will that youth work not just permits, but enables and provides the space for young people to reject the values or beliefs that the youth worker promotes.

What we pass on to our children is not the painting but the paint box (ibid.: 24)

When young people are given respect and freedom true relationship based on integrity and sincerity develops between the youth worker and young person, and in this realm permission is given by the young person to the youth worker to truly share their beliefs about God.

There is no hidden agenda here, there is no behavioural model pushed, there is no formal education system worked to. The principles of voluntary relationship, informal education and participation truly begin to develop...

The difficulty for the Church however is that within it, it has two groups in opposition, both who are calling for behavioural models of inclusion to be adopted. The middle ground of tolerance is lost as both sides feel they need to work in the method of formal education - both feel the other needs educated in the Truth.

Perhaps the principles of youth work can save the day? Because in the school of informal education anything can happen – God moves, the Holy Spirit has room to work, it is possible to reject the belief of a person, in tandem with accepting the individual. A middle ground of tolerance opens up. Of course this doesn't bring the answer - but it can provide the space for the conversations which need to happen - to happen.

Perhaps the Church needs to work to a new model, with new boundaries to shape the dialogue between both parties - that is informal education; participation.

Questions?