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?
0 comments:
Post a Comment