So maybe one of the latest research movements that has impacted youth ministry is new discoveries in neurology and overall brain science. The latest big finding has been that teenagers actually have primitive brains—brains not fully developed—making certain forms of decision making and moral reasoning impossible—so says the research. And youth ministry people pick this up and go with assumptions that kids (especially the boys in their ministries) have animal-like brains. Lately this has led some youth ministry people to ask big questions, like, Can a young person live a life of discipleship before his or her brain fully develops? Is what we are calling them to be and do realistic? Can a teenager live a sanctified life, even?
I have to admit I’m not a big fan of this research. Not because I don’t think it might be right. Believe me, I’m no brain doctor. But I’m worried about the popularized perspective that many youth workers are drawing from because it holds the danger of perpetuating the ontological state of adolescence. If there is a teenage brain, if the young person’s brain is developmentally primitive, then we should keep young people caged behind the walls of adolescence. We should fortify teenage-hood. The problem is that this research so easily becomes reductionistic: Of course we can’t have young people fully involved in the congregation; of course we can’t listen to their theological voices; their brains are primitive! Which too often gets defined as “less than”.
Plus, this perspective is not only reductionistic in the sense of seeing adolescents as less than but also in the sense of ignoring the environmental impact on the brain. It may very well be true, and powerfully so, that when the hard sciences take pictures of the brain, exposing its dimensions and shape, the teenage brain looks different from the brain of a 45-year-old. But that static picture is all that can be seen in a laboratory. It does not take into consideration how the brain changes and what impact society and culture have on the biological organism.
We know for certain that culture does impact biology, not just the other way around. For instance, we know that girls’ menstrual cycles, not long ago, started much later (between the ages of 15-16), but in the last few decades, we have seen a significant drop in the age of a girl’s first period (around ages 11-12, sometimes even 9). All the answers for why this biological reality has changed point to culture. It may have to do with exposure to light, or hormones in the milk children drink and other dietary realities, or greater exposure to information. Whatever the reason, this illustrates that culture has the power to change biological realities.
The problem with the popular brain science that many youth workers are drawing from is that it sees the human brain as static, disconnected from social, relational, and cultural realities. We no doubt are beings with brains, but these brains are wired for social connection (as explored in object relations psychology) and culture (as studied in the sociology of knowledge, à la Peter Berger). And if you scratch beyond the surface of this popular brain science, what you find is that most theorists, especially those who have drawn brain science into interdisciplinary conversations (as does Daniel Siegel and Louis Cozolino), say that the human brain is plastic, changeable, because the human brain is social. These theorists, drawing from the best in neurology, have shown that our social relationships—our engagements with culture—have the power to reshape the brain. For instance, they’ve discovered that the brains of those who’ve experienced trauma or abuse look different than they did prior to the experiences.
So sure, culture and society may shape 12–24-year-olds’ primitive-looking brains, but doesn’t that only call the church deeper? It means we need to engage young people in social realities. Social realities, like life in a congregation, can quite literally reshape their brains. Youth ministry actually has the power (through the Holy Spirit) to change the shape of teenagers’ brains. That’s a pretty big deal, and that’s what the research implies. Rather than pulling back from what we give to or expect from teenagers, it pushes for us to open the doors of the youth room and get young people involved in the social/relational reality of the wider congregation. Because the brain is social (plastic), then getting their teenage brains engaged with adult brains will transform them.
|
True confession. I winced inwardly at this question, like an alcoholic might struggle when someone innocently asks which beer tastes best. Without totally dodging the question, I want to take advantage of this moment to tell my story and offer the caution of my experience.
First, I am wired by the Lord to be logical, analytical, and strategic. I love solving problems by applying skills of intellectual reasoning. Lots of my friends are inclined to use their minds; I tend to wear them out. Some of the most significant disciple-making influences in my young Christian life—I put my faith in Jesus when I was 16—were books. Before finishing high school I had read Francis Schaffer’s True Spirituality, Watchman Nee’s The Normal Christian Life, and Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Whatever else was true for me, following Jesus made sense.
Without benefit of much self-reflection and being evangelistically zealous, I began leading a campus life outreach ministry as a college freshman. Over the next 13 years, my role in the organization expanded. And I led on the strength of my diligent activity driven by strategy. How can I reach that particular kid for Christ? Which school should our ministry expand into next, and why? Who are the young staff members I need to bring on the team so we can grow? What activities do we engage in that distract us from doing our best? How can we make our programs, our wrap-ups, each relationship more effective? In the midst of this experience I slipped away for a year and got a master’s degree, fortifying my conviction that thinking well would lead me to greater fruitfulness in ministry.
When I migrated into a college teaching role, it seemed like a natural and strategic use of my gifts. I could leverage this new job for continued influence in the kingdom. After getting a PhD from Purdue, I realized I had something strategic to offer our little Christian college. If I were turned loose to do research that concentrated on the practice of youth ministry, Huntington College (now Huntington University) could stake out a distinctive niche in a young academic discipline. We could emerge as contributing leaders by serving through research.
This focus seemed to fit me perfectly. While I distributed my energy equally between big-question research problems and life-on-life investment with my students, the strategic noisemaker for the college was clearly our published research. I still believe that research can make incredibly important contributions to the body of knowledge in youth ministry, especially because our common practices have lacked rigorous tests of effectiveness. Youth ministry has been largely shaped by a process of trial-and-error experiences that get interpreted and passed along through a conference/workshop delivery system. It’s not that such insights are not valuable; it’s just that we are vulnerable to biases of interpretation that will mislead us without proper scrutiny.
As I approach nearly 40 years of doing youth ministry, I find myself leading the national ministry strategies of Youth for Christ, an organization of evangelistic missionaries that has very little patience for research. Far from imposing my own values on our efforts, I am coming to reckon with the limitations of my own über-strategic inclinations. I have realized that being strategic has made it harder, not easier, to pray with childlike dependency; that transformational love is delivered to lost kids one at a time by people who know they are well loved; that the power of God’s Word to change lives is downright mysterious and resistant to research-based understanding; that observable, fruit-producing unity is unattainable without heart-hidden humility leading the way.
In a fascinating way I feel like I am standing at a moment in my life where I gain the benefit of a backward-looking fresh explanation of how my ministry has been fruitful. It’s like I’m living in the “reveal” moment of The Sixth Sense, discovering that the storyline I have used for years to explain how I have been effective might be masking the truth. What the Lord wants to do in and through me has met considerable resistance from the research-oriented, strategy-crafting side of my soul.
Had I chosen to answer this blog’s question in a straightforward way, I would have given a shout out to the fabulous sociological research done by Christian Smith and team that maps the adolescent landscape of spirituality and religiosity in America. I also would have tossed a bone to the world of distinct domains research, inaugurated by Elliot Turiel in the late ’70s. He and others have made timely contributions to understanding the common structures we employ as we construct meaning for making moral judgments, explaining how teens and parents, for instance, arrive at different conclusions around all kinds of issues. My friend Denny Howard has made a discovery during his clinical counseling practice with more than 3,000 ministry professionals that has allowed him to predict what the major crisis issues will be, based on ministry experience and age. His sample of 400 constitutes a strong pilot study that he hopes to expand into a wonderfully robust research project with immense benefit to the care of ministers.
I still value research very much. In the master’s program I lead, graduates make original, research-based contributions to youth ministry as part of their final projects.
But to guard the progress that seems to be taking place in my own heart, I refuse to personally camp out in the research forests any more. As a matter of conviction, searching through research for solutions is a slippery slope that requires me to be tethered to soul-guarding friends before I traverse its terrain.
My apologies if I’ve disappointed any readers. I’m sure my blog was a “slant” that was not anticipated by those writing a worthwhile question. For what it’s worth, my heart is a bit lighter as I’ve offered this unsolicited testimony. God is good!
|
A paper titled “Brands: The Opiate of the Nonreligious Masses?” has been published in Marketing Science 1. The research team was made up of scholars from Tel Aviv University, Duke University, and New York University. According to their data, they claim that religiously minded people are less interested in consumer products that are branded by a major brand name. In the study, those who claim to be non-religious are much more reliant on well-known brand products, especially when they have the financial means to afford major brands.
The research team theorizes, “Brands and religiosity may serve as substitutes for one another because both allow individuals to express their feelings of self-worth.”
“‘Brands are a signal of self-worth,’ Fitzsimons 2 said. ‘We're signaling to others that we care about ourselves and that we feel good about ourselves and that we matter in this world. It's more than I'm hip or cool,’ he said: ‘I'm a worthwhile person, and I matter, and you should respect me and think that I'm a good person, because I've got the D&G on my glasses.’”
3
The Christian faith is to be lived within a community of practice. Being connected to a faith community says a lot about who people are and what they value. If we don’t know who we are in Jesus Christ, and if we struggle to make meaning out of life through faith, then certainly Apple, Juicy Couture, Gap, or Urban Outfitters are more than willing to help fill the void by providing some sense of meaning or self-worth, right? Some marketers are actually attempting to attach religious overtone to their brands in order to attract consumers looking for meaning, identity, and purpose in life—think True Religion.
Andy Root, at a recent youth worker training at Youthfront, pointed out that young adults are selecting and creating identities for themselves. One can create a profile and craft an identity based on what one buys, wears, and consumes. This increases the importance of a renewed and vigorous emphasis on Christian formation and an intentional theological exploration of what it means to help adolescents form identities rooted in Jesus Christ. A theology that focuses on what it means to live a cruciform life is essential in the midst of our consumerist cultural realities.
This study is very interesting for those of us involved in ministry to adolescents and young adults as we engage in dialogue about what brings meaning to our lives. The researchers’ claim that those who are identified as “religious-minded” people are less likely to be enslaved by major status brands is encouraging to me. Embracing an ethos that Jesus Christ is enough will help us counter the script that suggests we find meaning through the creed I consume, therefore I am.
1. "Brands: The Opiate of the Non-Religious Masses?" Ron Shachar, Tülin Erdem, Keisha M. Cutright, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, Marketing Science, articles in advance, Sept. 24, 2010. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1100.0591
2. Gavan J. Fitzsimons; R. David Thomas Professor of Marketing and Psychology; F.M. Kirby Research Fellow; Duke University
3. http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2010/09/brandreligion.html
|
Comments
Andrew said: "The problem with the popular brain science that many youth workers are drawing from is that it sees the human' brain as static, disconnected from social, relational, and cultural realities." Can you give examples of where that is happening? That seems to me to be a broad over generalization. Would it not? Again... I'm usually informed about developments/research having to do with adolescence. But have not heard this and feel, maybe I'm off base, that it has not been out long enough for youth pastors to start "changing" the way they impact teens spiritual formation.
I'm a sociologist at heart, it's what my degree is in, and I'm just wondering how much social media/technology has played in maybe impacting teens brains to being primitive? Please share your sources... again thanks guys!
Andrew said: "The problem with the popular brain science that many youth workers are drawing from is that it sees the human' brain as static, disconnected from social, relational, and cultural realities." Can you give examples of where that is happening? That seems to me to be a broad over generalization. Would it not? Again... I'm usually informed about developments/research having to do with adolescence. But have not heard this and feel, maybe I'm off base, that it has not been out long enough for youth pastors to start "changing" the way they impact teens spiritual formation.
I'm a sociologist at heart, it's what my degree is in, and I'm just wondering how much social media/technology has played in maybe impacting teens brains to being primitive? Please share your sources... again thanks guys!