By Randy White
Program directors around the country have chosen a variety of methods for linking their students to the work that God is doing in the city. As I have traveled to visit dozens of programs I have had the unique opportunity to observe and appreciate the diversity of models being used, and some of the reasons for their evolution.
In some parts of the country, urban programs have chosen to relate with a constellation of ministry agencies and churches. It's not unusual for some of our larger programs to have 7-14 different options for connecting students to the work that God is doing in the city, ranging from agencies such as Habitat for Humanity to soup kitchens, from women's shelters to church-based after-school children's programs. The diversity exposes students to a wide array of ministry options, and has obvious merit.
However, another model is worth highlighting. Some staff, in assessing their core values, as well as the kinds of ministry they want to expose their students to, have chosen to work with a single church on their program. This decision has tremendous merit on its own.
In some cases, these are small, inner-city churches who ask us to run a significant portion of their summer program, or who call upon us to add a special component to their normal routine that will somehow enhance their ministry.
- These churches are often chosen because the program director has a strategic relationship with their pastor, one where trust has been built, and where the possibility of ongoing partnership is strong. Program directors have a more realistic chance at cultivating and nurturing one significant relationship with a pastor, over a collection of 10 agency directors that they must build a partnership with.
- In these cases, what is given up in the way of exposure to various ministry agencies, is more than compensated for by what is gained in exposing our students to the faithfulness and gifting of small, urban congregations, and by specific chances to focus on church-based models of urban ministry. This is crucial, because, as is recognized in the world of community development, church-based urban ministry and community development provides the most holistic and lasting model for bringing change, both in individual lives as well as in communities.
- In addition, students on a program which is partnering with only one church have a more unified experience because they are all on the same team working on one objective, as compared with teams that are divided up into groups going to various agencies.
In other cases, program directors have chosen to work with a single congregation that has a multidimensional, church-based urban ministry. Examples of this include churches that have community development corporations under their umbrella. The program is housed in the church and focused on the ministries of the church, but students can choose areas of interest, such as ministry with children, housing, homelessness, food pantry, community advocacy, etc.
- This model includes the benefits of the one described above, but also provides a wider array of ministry options.
- It also builds on the strengths of the church-based model by more powerfully conveying the idea that churches are to be engaging their communities at every level.
- This model provides an example that can be replicated in other churches by students.
- This model has the added benefit of overcoming the tendency of Christians to think of missional agencies as good (even Christian) social service options, but “not really in the purview of the church.”
Some may be concerned that limiting student exposure to the ministry of one church, whether it be a small church with a single focus, or a larger, multidimensional community ministry within the context of a well-developed urban church, might somehow diminish the experience of serving in the city. But as I have observed all of these models in action, I have specifically seen the merits of this model.
Specific Outcomes in our core commitments:
- Church: I have seen this model contribute to helping students and staff become lifelong, active members of local congregations.
- Reconciliation: I have seen this model contribute more powerfully than any other to achieving ethnic reconciliation and justice, since the majority of churches are programs are partnering with are ethnic minority in make-up. Many students have chosen to join the churches they partnered with on the program, often crossing ethnic lines in the process.
- Mission: I have seen local congregations help students define what it looks like to "extend the kingdom of God" in ways that missional or Christian social service agencies are incapable of.
- Whole life stewardship: church-based programs have helped to provide examples to students of average people doing non-vocational ministry as a regular aspect of their lives.
- Evangelism: and from many, even Christian agencies operate with restrictions regarding the message of the gospel, students in church based programs are completely unhindered in sharing their faith.
None of this is to say that working with an array of social service or national agencies is not desirable. That design model has its own set of benefits, which is why it remains a very popular format. But because there exists across the country unique, regional circumstances, networks, relationships, opportunities, and staffing realities, we need a full spectrum of models and formats from which to choose, and the freedom to choose one or more, including a sole, church-based option, that fits each particular situation.
