The Fundamental Problem With Youth Talks
Almost everybody in youth ministry uses youth talks as their primary teaching strategy, but do they actually work? Even though the “sermon” is the quintessential cross-denominational ministry practice, and has been since Josh McDowell was in cloth diapers, I've never, ever published an article on youth talk ideas or strategies in my 23 years as editor of GROUP. Until now (see above).
Why would the world's most-read youth ministry resource almost completely ignore the world's most-used youth ministry teaching strategy?
Well there's a mountain of research that discounts lecturing as an effective way to help people learn, especially young people. But that's not all. Even if you’re a big believer in youth talks, you likely can’t point to a sermon or message that actually changed your life. Life-change is almost always the result of an experience followed by some kind of debriefing.
I could use my fingernail to drive a screw into a piece of wood (don’t laugh, I’ve tried), but I’d rather use something that’s more effective...like, say, a screwdriver. In theory, almost all youth workers agree. When we surveyed them about the most effective methods for teaching kids spiritual truths, “youth talks or messages” ranked dead last in a list of six strategies–only 5 percent made sermons their top choice. Even so, we know from our own ongoing research that the overwhelming majority (70 percent) of youth leaders include the fingernail-like youth talk as one element of a typical youth group meeting.
So the reason you’ve never seen a GROUP article on youth talks before now is simple: Though they’re popular, they’re not all that effective and I’m a very stubborn person (ask my wife). Well, I’ve recently discovered that stubbornness isn’t a spiritual gift or even a fruit of the Spirit. So I decided that Jeremy Steele’s advice was well worth sharing in the pages of GROUP. But here’s my caveat: I believe there’s a much better way to engage teenagers than by lecturing to them. So I thought I’d share with you the “marching orders” I give all our speakers and presenters at our Simply Youth Ministry Conference (youthministry.com/conference)—these are my expectations for how they will craft their training times at the event…
Getting R.E.A.L. at SYMC
(Or a Friendly, Neighborhood Cannon Shot from Rick Lawrence)
Over the years some of Group’s critics have labeled us “cheesy” and “gimmicky”—not really compliments, as far as I can tell. And maybe one reason why we’ve sometimes attracted that kind of criticism is that it’s, well, true. It’s true because we’ve been trying to push the “learning envelope” for so long, in so many risky ways, that it’s inevitable that some of our “experiments” have blown up the beakers, so to speak. We believe that the popular lecture-based method is an ineffective tool for transforming lives. Transformation most often happens in experiential, conversational settings. That’s why we still believe in, and shamelessly promote, our “cheesy” acronym R.E.A.L. It stands for Relational, Experiential, Applicable, and Learner-based.
In a learning setting, the leader talks most of the time—no surprise there. Sometimes, a couple of discussion questions get tossed out, but they’re often a sidelight to what the speaker believes is “the real meat” of the presentation. But at our Simply Youth Ministry Conference, our goal is to make sure that in addition to “leader talk,” the participants get to talk, too. A lot. When you lead in this way, you’ll feel more like a ringmaster than a lecturer—more like a jazz musician (no sheet music) than a classical musician (sheet music).
I mean, you get to enjoy having a strong voice, surrounded by strong voices. You’ll offer crucial leadership in a context where many people participate and add to the content of the presentation. We ask all our presenters to stretch themselves in this way because, first, research and experience and the Bible show us that people learn best by doing. In fact, the people who learn the most in any class are the teachers—because they first need to ingest what they’re teaching before they teach it. So what happens when people get immersed in experiences and talk to each other (and you) about what they’re learning while they’re learning it? Well, real transformation takes place.
At Group we value and appreciate entertaining presentations as much as the next person, but we’re passionate about unforgettable, life-changing presentations. People can leave a presentation entertained but unchanged. That’s such an important truth that I have to say it again: People can leave a presentation entertained but unchanged. Our mission is to partner with God to do what He loves best—bring freedom and growth through transforming learning experiences.
The purpose of this little primer is simply to help you to “lean toward” these teaching values as far as you can. We understand you’re already experienced presenters with your own value system. All we ask is that you look for ways to bend your values, and your presentations, toward those we hold dear. That’s it. I’ll give you a little overview of our values, coupled with some simple ways to “bend” toward them.
R—Stands for Relational.It simply means people learn better, and retain more, when they’re learning in the context of a conversation instead of the context of a lecture. The easy way to do this is to ask more questions of the people you’re teaching, and get them talking to each other throughout your presentation. When you get people into pairs or trios or tables or flocks or…whatever, and you give them a great question to talk about, followed by feedback and debriefing, you’ve just helped them own what they’re learning.
The questions we’re aiming for, by the way, are those that actually serve as a catalyst for conversation—not questions that have a forgone answer, or those that merely serve to “set up” the speaker’s point, or those that require no thinking to answer. Our standard for great questions has three prongs: Surprising, Specific, and Personal. Surprising means the question requires engagement to answer. Specific means the question is clear and concise. Personal means that the question requires a personal response, not an esoteric exploration of an idea.
The Easy Fix:Take a look at your presentation and see if you can find at least two ways people can interact around your material. These interactions should be “legitimate”—I mean, you’re not giving them something to discuss, then immediately revealing the “right answer” after their discussion. Make it a conversation, where participants have genuine input.
E—Stands for Experiential.Every learning researcher agrees that experiences have way more power to teach than the merely written or spoken word (Thom and Joani Schultz have written two books on it—Why Nobody Learns Much of Anything at Church and The Dirt On Learning). When you involve people in “direct” experiences within the context of your presentation the chances of them never forgetting what you’re teaching go way, way up. A direct experience means involving people in something that engages all (or most) of their senses.
Full engagement is the goal. It could mean tasting something or building something or destroying something or risking something. It could mean taking away one sense to heighten the experience of the remaining senses. It could mean you ask them to “practice” what you just “preached.” In any case, the best direct experiences are simple, short, and memorable.
The Easy Fix:Is there a sensory experience, a project, a team challenge, or even a game that could serve as a “parable” to your teaching theme? Over the years I’ve learned something from Joani Schultz about leading people into learning experiences—“If you believe they’ll do it, they will.” So, when you think about your presentation, find one way to plunge people into some kind of an experience. And tell yourself you’re certain they’ll do whatever you tell them to do. Here’s a hint: storytelling is one mild way of plunging people into an experience—if the story is gripping, people enter into it as an experience. That’s why I almost always use film in the workshops and tracks that I lead.
A—Stands for Applicable.Learning loses its value the farther away it gets from practical life application. My least favorite (but often used) teaching strategy is when speakers pelt people with broad imperatives (“We all should be praying more”) that are divorced from the practical “hooks” that would help people take the first steps toward change and growth. You are the bridge between “what/why” and “how.” Applicable is determined by the people we’re leading, not by us. Lots of times we assume what we’re offering is applicable because it’s applicable to us. The question is: What’s applicable to the people I’m leading?
The Easy Fix:Here’s the filter I use—“If you tell people to do something, you’d better have a practical illustration, personal story, or accessible task to hook to it so they have light on the path you’re urging them to take.” One great way to combine the R and the A of R.E.A.L. is to use your conversation times to challenge people to apply what you’re teaching to their own environments, in partnership with others who can brainstorm with them.
L—Stands for Learner-Based.This simply means that the true judge of how much learning and transformation has been seeded by your presentation is the learner, not the speaker. That means the goal is not to deliver the stuff you’ve prepared and call it good—the goal is to make sure the learners “get it.” How will you know, for sure, that the people you’re presenting to have ingested what you’re teaching? Well, you already “own” your material—you’re inside of it so much that it’s part of your belief system. What would it take to lead the people you’re teaching into an “ownership” relationship with your material?
The Easy Fix:Look for ways you can release people to teach each other what you’re hoping they’ll learn. The idea is that as they learn something, they quickly transition into teaching someone else what they’ve learned. So, for example, if you form trios and send each person in each trio to one of three corners in your room to learn something together, then have them return to their trios to teach their partners what they just learned, you bring ownership into the learning process. Or you could simply ask participants to periodically summarize their “takeaway” as you move through your presentation. ◊
Rick Lawrence is the longtime editor of GROUP Magazine and the author of Jesus-Centered Youth Ministry.
Conversation
I really enjoyed the
I really enjoyed the conversation that was started. As I read the initial post I was encouraged that there was a student centered teaching approach to "R.E.A.L." I would like to just add that under the E for experiential, another facet to consider of being not only an experience that engages the whole student, but has the goal of that experience to move the student to do a self inventory of how the message is developing meaning within themselves and what action/application ("A") will need to be done to make the new learning affect who they are. (I have started asking students - so you hear that [insert topic] is what needs to be [done, applied, etc], on a scale of 1 - 10 where is that sitting as importance or doable in your life? Now - where ever you're at on that scale... what will it take to move you from that number to one higher? [if 10 is deemed highest].)
I think back to all the years listening to students say "I want to read the Bible more", and "I want to pray more", "[insert topic] more", and though those are great aspirations, as I've grown older and wiser, it now seems that for this generation it begs follow-up questions like: "What single step will you take to [insert topic] more tomorrow", "What do you see getting in your way", "how can we (youth ministry pastors and leaders) support you", and "why do you feel this is the step you need to take", are all questions that need to be part of the conversation. Additionally it encourages students to own their walk with Jesus and their relationship with their Creator, the Heavenly Father.
Just my thoughts.
Ty
I feel that we are at an
I feel that we are at an impasse. You feel I am wrong because you feel I'm leaving out part of the passage for my explanation and I feel your are wrong because I feel you are leaving out part of the passage for your explanation. I think here we may just have to agree to disagree.
Though, the good thing is that it is not some vital point of doctrine and merely one of method. Hopefully those who may read this discussion down the road don't see it as an attack, but simply a discussion of two sides of the same coin. I don't think that either of us are opposed completely to any of the methods discussed. The fact is that God will use His Word and His Spirit will work. Our best efforts cannot force Him and our worst ones cannot stop Him.
I do hope that speakers do take in multiple methods when teaching and preaching and none think they have reached the pinnacle where they can learn nothing more.
May God bless the ministry, preaching of the Word and discipleship you are able to do and those I do as well....and those of the ones who read through this discussion. Enjoy serving the Savior and may we meet in the kingdom of our Heavenly Father one day.
Layton A couple of points
Layton
A couple of points about how I reached my conclusion, you seem to be invoking conjecture or reading into the text based on your experience because I do not understand how you might conclude that it was a like a college lecture? That an opinion no? And that's fine. You want to compare it to a college lecture with many people listening to one professor and only asking a couple of questions here and there i am ok with that, but that does not provide a reasonable basis for you to say that my research is flawed. You can disagree with my conclusion, but not the research. Here is why:
1. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead Acts 20:9
The word used for preach means:
dialegomai
1) to think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought
a) to ponder, revolve in mind
2) to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss
3) To discuss or negotiate so that all parties can reach an understanding
Seems clear enough to me.
Can we say that Paul did most of the talking? Of course we can, that's what facilitators do. Whether its a college size lecture or a small group discussion, that's what facilitators do. But why do I believe that the meeting was more involved and participatory than a "college lecture"?
2. Early NT meetings were settings in which others can participate ask questions, give their opinions, etc. At a much higher level than a "college lecture". This is suported when you consider how NT meetings were conducted (i.e. 1 Corinthians 14:26.."each of you") where believers were free to use their gifts to edify other believers within a meeting.
As a matter of fact Acts 20:7 specifically states that they came together to break bread. They met and ate a meal together. What college lectures do you know where they "break bread" together? Either this was a regular meal or this was communion. Do you know that the way we practice communion in churches today is completely different than how it was conducted back then? Communion was a full fledged meal? Therefore why wouldn't you conclude that the meetings were more intimate in nature with yes one person as the main facilitator but others given leeway to participate in a discussion type setting with a lot more back and forth than a "college lecture".
3. Here was my point to begin with...it was not the monologue sermon that we see every Sunday morning in church. Simple as that. Whether it was like a college lecture or not, it was not a one way monologue.
4. Maybe you can stand to do some research of your own. Start with how pulpits, monologue sermons, spectator ship, clergy/laity made their way into the Christian church. One thing is for sure, the early NT meetings looked completely different.
Its not that my research is flawed its that I did far more research than look up the definition of a word within the text which by the way also supports what I am saying.
I understand that monologue sermons may be a sacred cow to some. But we need to look at this with an open mind. Not only is it supported in scripture, it has been proven that discussion type settings are far more effective for learning than one directional monologues.
Actually, I'm telling you
Actually, I'm telling you that your research is flawed. The word there is a word used for "reasoning or persuading". He was persuading people in the lessons of the faith. I'm not saying no one else talked or asked questions, but Paul was the main speaker and "HE prolonged his message until midnight." It doesn't say someone else was talking, but that Paul was the one constantly talking the entire time. As I said, others may have asked a question or inserted a comment, but the gist of verses 7-9 is that Paul was the one doing the majority of the talking. It would be more like a lecture where the students can ask a question of the professor. Paul was the one with much knowledge and the people were wanting to learn from him. It isn't just that the "kid fell asleep", but an actual interpretation of verses 7 and 9 is that "Paul talked to them", "he (Paul) continued the talk until midnight", "as Paul talked on more". Paul was the main speaker, while the others were more like students in a classroom setting.
So let me get this straight
So let me get this straight Layton
I gave you the definition for the word "preaches", outlined the history of the monologue sermon and you say that I need to do more research?
So you conclude that it was a monologue because the kid fell asleep? Not that he could have been tired because it was late or maybe he was not an active participant in the discussion or any other reason. No you ignore the word study on the account that the kid fell asleep? Really?
Who is the one that needs to do more research?
Layton, Let me get this
Layton,
Let me get this straight. You are going to question my research on the assumption that it had to be a monologue because the kid fell asleep?
So people don't fall asleep during discussions? Maybe it was late at night? Maybe the boy was just tired? Maybe he was not an active participant in the discussion?
You are going to put that up against the actually definition of the word which I clearly explained to you. Not only that, but I gave you other supporting evidence such as how early NT meetings were conducted and a history of the monologue sermon.
With all of that you conclude that it was a monologue because he fell asleep? Really? Are you that much under the influence of man made traditions?
I think Anonymous needs to do
I think Anonymous needs to do a little more research on Acts 20. The passage itself states that "Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on." There isn't a discussion format going on here. Paul was talking and talking and talking. In fact, he talked this poor boy to death - literally (I say that sarcastically).
When you say that discussion was used, we tend to think of the short debates like those on television with a timer and a buzzer. There may well have been discussion, but the one talking could apparently go on for as long a single preacher in a sermon may go on today. Apparently Paul could take even longer. I don't discount that creativity in a sermon is great. I love object lessons that use a "parable" sort of format. I don't think discussion is wrong either. Both are fine. However, all need to go to the Bible as the foundation and base rather than any person's opinion, thus the admonition of the Bereans in Acts 17 who "were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
No matter the method your preacher or youth leader uses, always look into the Word to see if what they said was true.
Really, really love the
Really, really love the attention to detail and the patient exploration of truth delivered by Anonymous on 11/28... Way to go, whoever you are!
There is ample biblical
There is ample biblical evidence that preaching/teaching for the purpose of edifying believers was more discussionary in nature. We are not talking about "preaching" or declaring the gospel to unblievers, but preaching for the purpose of building up the believer.
For example in Acts 20:7 And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
The word "preached" in this verse is translated dialegomai or dialogue which means to "converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss." It was a two way form of communication.
Its not hard to conclude that preaching/teaching in the NT was in the form of discussion. Furthermore, NT church meetings were more particpatory in nature where each believer was free to use his or her spiritual gifting to edify other believers. This participatory format of NT meetings leads me to believe that there could not possibly have been 1-2 hour monlogues week after week. It just would not be possible in those kinds of meetings.
Furthermore, it would do one good to study the history of the monologue sermon. I have already shown that it did not derive from the early NT church. Then where did it originate? Historical evidence shows that the monologue sermon was adopted by the church from the surrounding pagan culture around them sometime in the second century. It shows that the "sermon" as we have come to know it was borrowed from a group of individuals within greek culture called the sophists. The sophists are credited with inventing the practice of rhetoric which exists to this day in universities, politics, and go figure in church on Sunday mornings. The sophists were expert debators and orators were more concerned with style than substance. They preached abstract truths rather than truths that were practiced in their own lives. They were experts at imitating form rather than substance. About a century later, the greek philosopher Aristotle gave to rhetoric the three point speech..he said that any good speech must have a beginning, a middle, and an end (sound familiar?). In time Greek orators implemented Aristotles three point principle.
Greek Rhetoric and Sermons found its way into Christian church at the same time that mutual ministry and participation by gifted believers faded. Mutual participation, edification, and diologue teaching was replaced by the monologue sermon. Around this time many pagan orators and philosophers were becoming Christians. As a result, pagan philosophical ideas made their way into the Christian community.
We can see from my lengthy post why sermons do not work. They are derived from man made ideas that focus more on the skill and knowledge of the speaker than making an impact on the listener. This article is very telling not just for youth ministry but also speaks to the ineffectiveness of the church in modern culture all together. The focal point of our Sunday morning gatherings are on an art form that does little to impact the heart of the hearer. For spiritual growth to happen within the Christian community I see no other way than to revisit the church meetings of early NT..whcih includes a discussion style of teaching instead of the monologue sermon. Its time to stop sticking to man made traditions and practice what really works.
Wow, I had know idea you were
Wow, I had know idea you were opening such a squirmy can of worms. I have always taught with the discussion method so it came as no surprise to me that the lecture method was ineffective. The big surprise is how you are being rudely attacked by those supposedly on the same team.
I have also recently experienced, quite unexpectedly, the anger that can be leveled when anyone attempts to change the status quo at our church. While I fly under the radar (it's just the kids program anyway) my wife, as a deacon, attempted to improve how things were done. We were quickly handed our hats and ushered to the door. It seems that the real point is to keep things looking good and the sheep fat dumb and happy. Oops. Pardon me for trying to get kids into real relationship with Christ.
I have attended some of your classes, Rick, and I can assure others that your doctrines and theology are spot on, your methods are effective, your faith is genuine, and your heart is in the right place.
For more information on using the discussion method in your Sunday school class or youth group visit my website at this link: http://sundayschoollessonconnection.com/growing_your_youth_ministry.html
For my most recent blog post which discusses the topic "What Really Matters" further follow this link:http://freesundayschoollessonplans.blogspot.com/2011/10/unforgettable-christlike-character-key.html
Thanks for letting me post.
Rick I agree 100% with
Rick
I agree 100% with everything you said. The way I see it, God gave us brains for a reason. It makes alot of sense to study what works and what doesn,t and make the necessary adjustments. God is the one that has created us with the ability to learn. Why then would he not want teachers to employ the best methods possible to aid that learning?
I simply do not understand the "if its broke, don't fix it" approach that your detractors are taking. So we want to stick to an ineffective method why? We want to stick to a method becaue we "assume' thats how they tought in the Bible?
Here is my philosophy...in all thy getting get understanding. Youth sermons/talks may sound nice, artsy, filled with colorful words..but they do not mean a hill of beans if the hearers do not understand what is being said.
Steve75, First, thanks for
Steve75,
First, thanks for taking the time to read both articles and think through your response. You've experienced me as defensive and arrogant, and I want you to know I hear that. Of course, that wasn't the spirit I was going for, but it doesn't matter what I intended in this case—it matters how you experienced me. Sorry for that. Second, the point of what I wrote was to encourage youth pastors to let go, at least a little, of their dependence on lecture and experiment with some simple teaching methods that are not only proven in life but biblical in their roots. There is enough evidence that lecture is suspect as a teaching method to consider “salting” your teaching with something new, isn't there? I understand I seem like an “armchair youth pastor,” but I practice what I preach—I've used these methods with people of all ages, from children up to adults. I've lectured for years and now have used interactive and experiential methods for years, and the “takeaway” difference between the two is huge. Last, I just flat disagree that lecture was Jesus' primary teaching strategy—you mention the Sermon on the Mount, but most of His “teaching” involved experiences and interactions that He then helped people debrief. You're paying attention to what He said only in the context of delivering information, but He did a lot more than that. I'm not suggesting that there's no place for lecture—I do it myself all the time (just ask people who've been through any training time that I lead). My point is that lecture alone, not tied to experiences and interactions, is not the way Jesus rolled, and not the way researchers have proven leads to long-term takeaway. In the end, earnest and honest people can, of course, disagree... And that's where we are.
Grace,
Rick
Rick, I appreciate what Group
Rick,
I appreciate what Group does, and your willingness to write what you had to have known would be a controversial article. While I appreciate the motivation (at least what I perceive it to be) for the article, I can see why the article itself has come under fire. In an effort to challenge youth leaders to do more with what we have been given by God...i.e., the Bible...this article basically thumbs it's nose at a teaching form that has been around since before Jesus walked the earth. To imply that lecture is a worthless pursuit is flying in the face of history. Jesus did not just "convey[ed] information in short bursts of lecture at times." Seriously, have you read the Gospels? The Sermon on the Mount was not a quick session before small group time. Jesus, as well as his disciples, used lecture as their primary form of teaching the people the Word of God. Using illustrations and stories (parables, etc.) cannot be separated from the basic lecture...they are a part of the lecture. To split them apart only serves to try and bolster your opinion that lecture needs to go the way of the dinosaur. In lecture's most simple state, just a monotone oration of some facts...it could be viewed as ineffective. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find many youth ministers who teach this way. Relevant videos, stories, insights from other authors, testimonies, are part of the way most of us teach/lecture/preach/talk. We understand that people learn in different ways. Your article points this out correctly, but it seems that you may have ruffled some feathers that you did not need to.
I read this article after reading "In Defense of Gravity" in the latest Group magazine. I wanted to take in the whole picture before commenting here. Please understand that we value what Group does, as well as Simply Youth Ministry. However, the goal of any para-church ministry should be to build up and edify the church...not your organization or magazine. In the opening lines of this article, you state, "I've never, ever published an article on youth talk ideas or strategies in my 23 years as editor of GROUP. Until now." Later, you state, "The purpose of this little primer is simply to help you to “lean toward” these teaching values as far as you can." To be honest, these statements come across as arrogant, whether you intended them to, or not. We youth pastors value insights, new ideas, and a challenge. However, when someone makes a statement like this from a primarily academic standpoint, it does not resonate well with youth ministers. Why? Because you have now stepped past the line of a helpful resource, and moved into the realm of the armchair youth minister.
Your latest article in Group should not ever have been written, in my opinion. It is defensive, and argumentative. You made your point with this original article. I understand your opinion. However, I think that you are missing something here. When you share a strong opinion that is based on your own understanding, do not be surprised when people do not agree with you. I respect your experience and will listen to any opinion or idea. Speaking to ministers, (who all have more opinions than we probably should) you should know that the Bible should be the basis for any change that needs to be made. Yet, in this original article, there is no scripture cited...merely opinion and stats from researchers. There are some scripture references in your latest article, but they seem to be there as a footnote to the point you are trying to make. Controversy is a part of life. Discussion and learning are vital to our growth as Christians, and as ministers. So, when we disagree, how do we move on?
The words of Isaiah 55 are great reminders that when our common goal is Jesus, and our common source of communication with God is the Bible...that we should base our actions on what He says. "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." -- Isaiah 55:10-11 (NIV) Yes, we can disagree on items like teaching style, but the basis has to be studying and teaching the Word of God. We should strive to teach in appropriate ways, and do the best we can do. We should never stop learning, never stop improving. Your role, as I see it, should be to put these ideas and methods out there for our education, and then let God do the rest through the Holy Spirit. He will bring the harmony to our thinking, and in that peace...the Word of God is proclaimed.
Rick, I just wanted to
Rick, I just wanted to comment on that last post and your definition of what "works" in preaching. I don't think 'remembering' every sermon or lesson is a legitimate definition of what is good. It was once said that it's more like eating. I don't remember what I had for dinner the last Wednesday of the month 3 months ago, but I know it helped me and nourished me. Yes, there are meals that are quite memorable; but most help strengthen me through that day (or those few hours) until the next meal. Sermons and youth group talks may be more like a healthy Sunday dinner that fill us up, but, of course, if that is all we have then we'll be malnourished by next week.
I do appreciate the article - but I commented on that earlier. Just some 'food for thought'. :-)
Cesar, I tried to answer your
Cesar,
I tried to answer your question in my earlier post in response to another critique here. You can read below the portion that addresses it. Also, I think you have to define what “works” means when you're talking about sermons that are straight lecture. Do you remember your pastor's sermon from last week? Do your kids remember your last youth talk? If remembering isn't the standard for “works,” what is? Do lectures change us even though we don't remember them? If you can define what you mean by “works,” then you can assess whether your method seems to be working... And by the way, my bias is that many straight-lecture speakers can be entertaining in the moment but have little lasting impact...
This is the earlier portion of a post that addresses your question:
Lecture, in this sense, is “putting God to the test” by using a technique that violates His natural laws of learning. Can the Holy Spirit still use a proven-poor method of teaching to reach people? Of course He can, because all we ever offer Him as raw material to work with is akin to the widow’s mite—a tiny thing that He turns into a big thing. If God required that we give Him the best raw materials to work with in our life, we’d all have no hope. And, of course, the Holy Spirit’s job description is to teach and “help us understand everything Jesus said and did.” But if we think a straight lecture based on God’s Word is a more effective teaching method than an interactive, experiential lesson based on God’s Word, we’re simply defying the natural laws of gravity when it comes to learning. God’s Word is powerful in and of itself, but we either thwart that power or fuel that power by the techniques we use. What we do matters—that is true in every aspect of ministry. And if we knowingly use a method of teaching that defies the natural laws of learning that God Himself has set up, I believe we are “putting Him to the test.”
Just an "academic
Just an "academic exercise"(elegant way of not taking accountability of what I'm about to say): last week I was watching some really old sermons(back to the 50-60's), out of curiosity about that pastor and to check how the word was preached in those years. My question is: why did sermons worked before? I believe in all the R.E.A.L. points and we've been trying to implement some of them, without knewing it, in our youth ministry middle school gatherings. But my mind keeps thinking: 'but it worked in the past. What happened?'
I'll hope you can share thoughts about this; thanks and God bless you all.
In answer to Mark's question
In answer to Mark's question above, the resources we offer on youthministry.com are all infused with our R.E.A.L. philosophy—particularly when the resource is designed to be used in a youth group setting for a Bible study or lesson. If you haven't checked out what makes our resources different—question-based, conversational, interactive, and experiential—I encourage you to take a peek.
Grace,
Rick Lawrence
Real question here. If this
Real question here. If this is the style of teaching that is most effective then why all the merchandise offered on other portions of this site. They seem to be in direct opposition of each other.
I agree the "10 minute talk" is out and represents a good portion of why many teens are ignorant of solid scriptural truths.
Rick, I love the challenge to
Rick, I love the challenge to continue to push ourselves in our teaching and preaching. I think this challenge isn't only to the youth worker, but to the pastor in the pulpit (speaking as one who has been up there numerous times). We do need to continue to bring experience into the mix and involve our audience as much as possible so they can learn more. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to DO something every time, though that is definitely a plus; but may mean bringing an experience most have had to their minds and senses - like telling about your first experience learning to ride a bike rather than simply making the one-phrase statement.
I do think you used the talk-in-your-group thing a little much. I've been on the other end of that many times and, honestly, I don't care for it much. Usually it's used at conferences and they want you to talk to 3-5 people you've never met about things you may not feel comfortable talking about to people you do know. It's also used at times after driving 2 hours to get there and you're tired or in some morning session when you're not awake enough to think of an answer. I'm not saying it's bad, but it seems to be the new fall-back involvement method speakers use when they can't think of anything else. It's just my opinion, but we need to open up to more ideas.
Overall, the article is good. I like the REAL acronym and think this is great for men. I read "Why Men Hate Going to Church". Sitting there just listening to a lecture for 30+ minutes is one of those reasons. Men - and teenage boys - need variety. We need to reach them. Men love to do something while talking - I know I usually am doing something while talking with others. I think this is a great start and hope youth leaders continue to develop ideas and not be afraid to teach outside the walls.
thanks for the advice...
thanks for the advice... right now i'm trying to find help on how to communicate the vision effectively so that people will dear them as there own... if you could write something about this it'll be a great help!
I think you underestimate the
I think you underestimate the abilities of youth to produce their own "youth talks". The youth leader may only have to coach kids to give talks of their own, including worship, prayer and conversation.
Gang, I did respond to Erik's
Gang,
I did respond to Erik's clear and reasonable challenge to all of this—here's a portion of what I sent him:
The point of my piece about youth talks was to target the prominent teaching technique we use in youth ministry and to question its effectiveness. Teaching techniques are like every other choice we make in life—our choices lead to natural consequences, whether or not we’re Christians and have the Holy Spirit living in us. For example, even if you’re a Christian, if you eat a steady diet of fatty foods and get no exercise, you’re going to get fat and out of shape. If you do this enough, the chances are that you will die earlier than if you ate a healthy diet and exercised. The Holy Spirit does not habitually negate the natural consequences of your choice. If you drive a car over a cliff, your car is going to keep falling until it impacts with the ground. The Holy Spirit does not habitually negate the natural consequence of gravity.
Of course, there are many exceptions to this, because God often does defy “the natural rules”—these are called miracles. By definition, a miracle is an intrusion or an overruling of the natural and expected consequences of something. But to willfully and habitually deny the natural cause-and-effect that God himself has designed is to “put God to the test,” as Jesus reminded Satan in the wilderness. In fact, the reason Jesus responded to Satan this way is directly because Satan was tempting Him to defy the natural consequence of jumping off a cliff, on purpose, even though He knew gravity would dictate that He would hit the ground.
Straight lecture is a technique that defies the natural laws (the gravitational pull) of learning. The mountain of evidence that proves this is so overwhelming that it’s like setting out to prove gravity—we have examples of its truthfulness all around us, all the time, and in every research study on learning that has been done. Research that proves a natural law about how we learn best is no less “Christian” than Newton proving the laws of gravity. And if you ask anyone about something they’ve learned that has changed their life, they’re much more likely to point to an experience that led to that learning rather than to a lecture. That’s the natural law of learning on display. I’m attaching something I just wrote for GROUP’s Trends section about this, along with the original article I used as source material. This is just one example of millions that reveal what is naturally true—people who use experiential, interactive methods in their teaching are tapping into the “natural laws of gravity” that God has instituted from the beginning, rather than defying those laws by using a straight lecture method.
Lecture, in this sense, is “putting God to the test” by using a technique that violates His natural laws of learning. Can the Holy Spirit still use a proven-poor method of teaching to reach people? Of course He can, because all we ever offer Him as raw material to work with is akin to the widow’s mite—a tiny thing that He turns into a big thing. If God required that we give Him the best raw materials to work with in our life, we’d all have no hope. And, of course, the Holy Spirit’s job description is to teach and “help us understand everything Jesus said and did.” But if we think a straight lecture based on God’s Word is a more effective teaching method than an interactive, experiential lesson based on God’s Word, we’re simply defying the natural laws of gravity when it comes to learning. God’s Word is powerful in and of itself, but we either thwart that power or fuel that power by the techniques we use. What we do matters—that is true in every aspect of ministry. And if we knowingly use a method of teaching that defies the natural laws of learning that God Himself has set up, I believe we are “putting Him to the test.”
Yes, we’re to teach and exhort—and I think we’d both agree that our “exemplar” teacher is Jesus, and no other. There was never a better teacher than Jesus, because there was never another man who was the Son of God. I challenge you to study the way Jesus taught. Yes, He conveyed information in short bursts of lecture at times, but much more often he told stories designed to be discussion-starters, engaged people in debate, asked conversation-starting questions, and plunged people into riveting experiences that He later debriefed with them to help them work through what they were learning. In the interactive/experiential method of teaching that I advocate in this piece about Youth Talks, I’m simply recommending that we teach the way Jesus taught—that we work with the natural laws of learning that God has set up rather than work against them.
One last thing: I think it’s wrong to assume that the Paul’s charge to Timothy to “teach and exhort” means the same thing as “lecture.” Paul was schooled under the rabbinic superstar Gamaliel in a teaching style that was “hyper-Socratic”—it’s a question-based and highly interactive style of learning that, clearly, Paul was expertly practicing in his ministry. When he told Timothy to teach, he was telling him to engage people in the Socratic style he himself practiced—fueling vigorous interactions—not simply lecturing at them.
Erik, I really think you
Erik, I really think you missed the boat on this discussion. Nowhere did Rick say toss out the Bible. He is saying that you need to engage teens. I totally agree! The more we engage, the more we reach. You must enter their world (scary), not be of their world, but understand what it is they are facing in order to reach them. Jesus showed us that time after time. He always started conversations with those He ministered to. We need to follow that example. Know what the teens are dealing with and you can help them. Stay on the sidelines, and they will run right by. Great article Rick, I will be implementing the REAL in our programs...
Rick, So you've found that
Rick,
So you've found that what the Scriptures, apostles and church fathers have taught, just doesn't "work" eh?
Dang...so much for the gospel.
1 Tim 4:13 "Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching & to teaching."
Praying you'd return to solid Biblical teaching and trust the Lord for it to "work".
Erik
Rick: You are a giant in the
Rick: You are a giant in the world of youth leaders leadership. What you say is the basis for my curriculum. The 10-minute talk is useless. At it's core youth leadership must come from the heart. If the leader loves the kids and loves his Lord he will excitedly get the two introduced and talking. I'm linking to your article from my website: http://sundayschoollessonconnection.com/
Thanks again.
Thanks Warren and Lauren! The
Thanks Warren and Lauren! The older I get, one quality I more and more admire in people is “committed learner.” So many say they're open to new things, but most really aren't. Thanks for the humility of your stance toward learning and growing...
Grace,
Rick Lawrence
Great article, Rick! Thanks
Great article, Rick! Thanks for the challenge. I've read the R.E.A.L. acronym in Group's books, but having it expanded and directed was helpful. We often have some of these ideas in mind, but we take the easy way out. I look forward to changes in my teaching style and my youth workers. Thanks!
Thank you Rick, As a youth
Thank you Rick,
As a youth leader wrapping up the 2010-2011 year of youth group and looking towards the 2011-2012 year this article was really helpful. Looking at all the knowledge I have gained in leading talks and discussions this past year (my first year in youth ministry,) and looking onto the next year I am now filled with happiness. I had a goal, a mission, vision and discussion topic planed out, and now I also have the great reminder that my life as well as my conversations help to tie all those parts together in all of our overall goal to raise youth that desire to evangelize.
thank you for your words of wisdom
Post new comment