Serving in a Korean American church creates a strange sense of both being intimately connected and profoundly disconnected from the first-generation (1G) congregation. At times, I experience almost a sense of extended family when I spend time with the 1G congregants. For example, over the past several Sundays I have been playing tennis with a group of 1G families. Usually, we will end the evening by sharing a nice meal together (pho, even!). At the same time, in my ministry to second-generation (2G) students there is a deep sense of disconnection. The only time anyone seems to notice the youth ministry is if there is a major problem (or a cluster of heavy boxes to move). Other than vague notions of raising “good Christians,” there is no sense of purpose or mission when it comes to the spiritual formation of these 2G students.
In this third installment of this series of thoughts, I would like to continue to engage some of the thoughts Marko shared here at his blog. His third observation about Asian American youth ministry centers around the idea of integrating youth into the overall life and ministry of the church. As Marko notes, this isn’t really a choice for most AA youth ministries — whether we like it or not, we exist as the lopsided little 2G ear, attached to the larger 1G “Mickey” head.
Misnomers
Most of the churches I have served have at least attempted to organize some kind of ministry to families. Unfortunately, though they have had good intentions, these attempts ultimately failed. Perhaps the most frustrating of these programs were the ones we called “family” ministries but did not integrate a holistic sense of cross-generational ministry. For example, unless we count being in relatively close physical proximity as being a meaningful inter-generational ministry, it is wrong for many of the churches I have served to call their programs “family” retreats or “family” worship services. In my experience, at these retreats there are usually completely separate worship & activity programs set up for each group and at these worship services the 1G parents often refuse to sit with their 2G children.
I applaud the attempts of a couple of forward-thinking 1G senior pastors I have known who have tried to break through this kind of thinking. Unfortunately, they have encountered seemingly insurmountable walls when it comes to the actual practice of cross-generational ministry. For example, attempts at integrating both 1G and 2G language and culture into one worship service usually makes it very long, and not particularly meaningful for either group. It’s a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and in the end, no one is happy with the result.
After a couple of frustrating attempts (and numerous complaints), the natural tendency for churches is to stop trying. It’s easier to walk away than to work through the awkwardness.
Understanding is a two-way street
One principle I often see, and with which I agree, is that youth ministry is really family ministry. The spiritual formation of students cannot happen in any long-lasting or meaningful way through church programs alone. Even the most dedicated and incarnational youth worker cannot single-handedly be responsible for the spiritual development of students. This kind of ministry must happen in partnership between youth workers and parents.
But what do we do when the organizational chart of our churches looks more like a loosely-affiliated coalition of independent nation-states than the deeply interconnected body of Christ? While this notion of independence can be attractive to many young AA youth workers (“I get to run my own church, but without most of the responsibilities? Sign me up!”), it will not work in the long run. It’s simply too draining, and frustrating, to keep banging our heads against the same wall.
It is vital for 2G students to understand how their parents’ background informs their worldview. The AA parenting ideal does not usually center around the images of “good” parents most of these 2G students see on television or in the movies. Without this understanding, many 2G students are in for years of heartbreak, frustration and disappointment.
However, although understanding must move in both directions, I believe the primary responsibility falls on the 1G parents, precisely because they are the parents. It is unreasonable to expect them to become completely Westernized; but it is not unreasonable to ask them to take time to attempt to understand their children. Perhaps this is due to my own 2G bias, but parents must be parents.
Without this perspective coming from the homes, it is unlikely that our churches will develop meaningful intergenerational ministries. The routine is simply: drive to church together, everyone breaks for their own department, then meet in the parking lot after a couple of hours to go back home.
Third generation and beyond
It will take a great deal of creativity, perseverance and vision to reverse this “one-eared Mickey” trend in AA churches. However, it is very troubling too see 2G adult congregations repeating the same mistakes as these 1G congregations.
Maybe it is the only paradigm many 2G adults know when it comes to church, but it worries me when 2G churches follow the same template of separation (worship together? in the same sanctuary?), compartmentalization (see you in a couple of hours), and professionalization (leave it up to the youth workers), especially when language and culture do not necessarily present the same kind of barriers.
There is certainly an important place for age- and developmentally-appropriate ministry for different groups of students, but we must find creative ways to integrate youth and children in the life of the overall church. I do not know if this will have any practical effect on reversing the silent exodus of 2G believers but, hopefully, we will develop a healthier ecclesiology within our churches.
One size does not fit all
Churches always face the danger of “me-too” thinking. One church might want to have an Awana program because all the other AA churches in the area have one. In this case, the thinking might be: “Hey, did you hear about that church – the one where intergenerational ministry is upheld as a central value? Let’s do that too!” This goes much deeper than issues of programming and events, and into the territory of values and convictions.
For many 1G congregants, their Sunday worship hour is the only time where they feel at home. Not only does everyone speak the native language in conversation, but they receive grace in their heart language. After a week of disenfranchisement and frustration, they can relax and be at home. This is an important, and valid, function of the 1G immigrant church. But is it the only one? Realizing that most of their life has been about sacrifice, can 1G congregations sacrifice even their comfort at church in order to move in this direction?
headsparks* 
talking about church salary
Daniel So met up with YS President Mark Oestreicher to further dialogue about race, reconciliation, and church. Daniel is blogging on his initial reflections on Mark’s review of the L2’s Asian American Youth Ministry book. He breaches the t…
Daniel, thanks for your posts with regards to asian youth ministry. I have been working in the chinese church for a number of years and feel the burden for these same issues.
I was wondering what you meant by “integrate a holistic sense of cross-generational ministry.”
Also, with regards to intergenerational efforts i think we need to think in terms of “universal languages.” I grew up playing soccer and realized its power when i go to play with kids in the city who didn’t speak english. Soccer is a universal language for the world.
It is possible that one language that the immigrant church has as its universal is service. I’ve seen service in the community done by a church which included parents, youth, english speaking, chinese speaking.
basically, we need to reflect on what other areas of church are universal. Service in many waysis one way of doing that.
we also need to do a lot of defining with regards to “unity.” Everyone seems to agree with it theologically. It’s a part of our implicit theology, but what we do (explicitly) shows nothing of the sort.
Joey – I appreciate your thinking on these issues. I think the idea of service being a universal language of the church would not only bridge cultural/generational gaps, but it reminds us to look outward. It is so easy to become an insular community centered around our own (very pressing) needs.
I have seen first-hand how cross-generational mission trips and service events have been incredibly effective in bridging these gaps. Our theology must become praxis — deep reflection on our faith in Christ should naturally lead to the active practice of Christ-like living.
I have read all three of your reflections on Asian American churches and youth ministries, very interesting. Perhaps the thing that continues to surprise me about this whole discussion (and I have it often with my students) is that the issues are not so different from European youth ministries. Disconnection between generations, inability to integrate, un-matched expectations between various sectors of the church with regard to youth ministry, different rules for acceptable conduct (dress, language) etc etc the list goes on. It seems to me that some of the outworking may be different but there are similarities in this area with many youth ministry contexts that aren’t AA, not at all minimalising the issues that AA congregations and youth ministries face.
I don’t really have any soltions but I have often wondered if any Europeans have attempted to minister to youth in an AA congregation, do you kinow any working examples? (I am from N.Z. so the term AA is not used here).
This discussion in N.Z. is much wider than youth ministry and much wider than Asian churches also. The missions department here at work are engaging in this conversation around 2nd gen imigrants and the issues of identity formation etc with regard to Pacific Island congregations and some African congregations in Auckland and other N.Z. cities. And this is clearly a missions issue, I think there is a lot more cross-fertalisation to be done between youth ministry and missiologists, we have a lot to learn from each other.
I particularly liked your description of teenagers who change interpretive lenses for reading their world. The perspective/lens change between their European school setting and their Asian home setting needs much more exploration. However we must not make the mistake of thinking this is only a 2nd gen issue. I remember a similar shift in my own teenage years where at home and church my lens was one of Christendom and modernity and influence (I was raised in a Christian family with lots of local church influence) where I was respected and listened to, however at school I was a marginalised teen who struggled to interact with his peers in any meanigful way, ths created a very different lens, the result was two diferent views of self. I suspect we have many young Christians of all cultures and in many different church settings who struggle with similar issues.
In saying that the extent of this scenario for 2nd gen youth is perhaps one of the more difficult things for non-second geners to understand, and perhaps one of the more important.
Am encouraged to see people thinking about this, love reading an insiders/outsiders perspective. Thanks very much for your engaging thoughts.
Dave — Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. I do believe that many of the core issues at work in Asian American youth and youth ministry are relevant in other settings as well. Certainly, the search for identity and learning to navigate different cultures are issues that all adolescents will face.
I am aware of a couple of examples of Caucasian people who have led Asian American student ministries, but I am not sure they have dealt with these issues.
I agree that there are powerful connections between ministry to youth and ministry across different cultures. Danny Kwon has a great article archived over at Youth Specialties on this topic. A quote from his article: “Youth ministry, by definition, is a ministry across culture.”
My wife and I have been ministering with students and their families from Mainland China for more than 15 years. Our ministry directors, also an American couple, started the ministry here at the University of Oklahoma in Norman about 22 years ago.
Our ministry is part of an American church; the American church has a full range of children and youth ministries from babies through college with paid and volunteer(lay) staff leading those children and youth ministries.
With regard to the Chinese children and youth all through the years we have provided separate ministries for them; that is, we don’t integrate the Chinese children and youth with the American kids. For example, with the Chinese junior and senior highers we have Americans(young couples or recent college graduates) who provide a separate Sunday school for them and on Friday nights(when we have Bible studies for the adult Chinese) those same American workers provide youth activities for the Chinese children and youth.
What I’m wondering is whether we should be integrating the Chinese kids, especially the junior and senior highers, into the American youth ministries rather than providing a separate track which essentially isolates them from the American kids.
There is no push from the Chinese youth to integrate with the Americans. They like to hang together even though at school most of them seem to have American as well as Chinese friends.
Years ago when our ministry began we had no children at all. Gradually the Chinese began having children and/or bringing children with them from China. Now we have 25-30 children from babies to high schoolers. Many of the kids came with their parents when they were pre-school age but now they are in junior or senior high.
My question is: Should we integrate the Chinese children into the American children and youth ministries right from the beginning rather than provide separate elementary/junior high/senior high ministries for them?
One concern I have about our separate programs for the youth is that they never are in a worship service. The American youth on Sunday morning have their Sunday school hour and then go to the American worship service with the adults. But we provide our Chinese youth Sunday School ministry during the American worship service hour.
Are we making a mistake by not having the Chinese youth experience worship? Should we integrate the Chinese youth into the American youth ministry rather than providing the separate ministry we have been providing?
Thanks for your input.
Pastor Bill Kennedy
Pastor Bill – Thanks for stopping by & for sharing a bit of your story. I’d love engage this conversation a bit here (and, perhaps, via email if that’s more conducive to discussion).
* * *
I definitely appreciate your heart to love & minister to these Chinese American youth. As with most church ministry, I don’t think there’s a simple answer to your question about joining together the Chinese American and Caucasian students in your church.
* * *
One of the most important things, in my opinion, is to change the mentality from “us vs. them” to one that celebrates uniqueness & diversity but also the unity that we have in Jesus. From my experience, this shift must come from the majority side (a little bit more on that below). It’s more than just asking “them” to come join “us” but a genuine willingness to partner together in Christ. I’ll say this up front as well: this is going to be *a lot* of work, but it’s well worth the effort, if you’re willing to pursue it.
* * *
I’m guessing that by your use of the descriptor “American,” you’re talking about white, Caucasian folks? I think it’s important to realize that referring only to Caucasian people as “American” can contribute to the isolation/alienation that many of your Chinese American youth might be feeling already (a bit more on this here: https://headsparks.com/2008/05/05/the-long-view/). Instead of contributing to a “neither/nor” mindset, it’s better to communicate that these students are “both/and” in Christ.