Long before the pandemic, the American church was grappling with crucial transitions described by Olsen (2008:37) as moving from Christian to post-Christian, modern to postmodern, and monoethnic to multi-ethnic. In truth, the decrease in engagement has been unravelling slowly since the mid-20th century, with efforts to revise methodologies falling short in halting the progressive attrition. Root (2021:5) insightfully terms the prevalent mood as ‘congregational depression’, highlighting a general loss of youthful vigour and an overwhelming feeling of despondency hampering the church’s mission and pace. The goal of this research is to address the question of why, after decades of research, training, and resource development, is the American church continuing this slow attrition? I believe this study provides ample argument that the factors are not external or pedagogical, and that practical theology offers a path forward through an inclusive missional ecclesiology that invites adolescent participation as equals while recognising their contextual uniqueness and integrating that uniqueness into a local congregational ecclesial life.

What is suggested in the research presented in this article is that churches that have practised an exclusivism as programmatic segregated youth ministry require a reconsideration of its foundational theology through a missional lens. As a point of departure, this research finds its rooting in the work of Nel (2015:8) and his work in developing an inclusive missional framework for ministry. With the inclusive missional framework as one influential text, I have identified three other ‘texts’ to draw upon for this study.

While I affirm that this research has implications far beyond a single age group, I have chosen adolescence as the predominant lens. As a focal point, the developmental period of adolescence is chosen for two primary reasons.

The first is the locus of adolescence as the hinge point of affiliation (or non-affiliation) within faith as a matter of self-identification. In other words, the developmental characteristic of identity formation in adolescence makes this a point of decision for how a person is going to relate to faith and a faith community. That locus is often relegated to preparation for ‘joining’ the church that keeps them disconnected from greater church life. However, Nel (2018:195) with reference to Little (1968:15), names this as the ‘future church heresy’. From the vast amount of resource allocation and professional training given to the reaching and discipleship of teenagers reflected in the research question, it would be false to suggest that the church does not consider the teenage years as valuable and worthy of attention. Yet, the pattern of attrition begins in the younger generations. A Hartford Seminary study on Faith Communities Today (2021) noted that while senior citizens (65 and over) make up only 17% of the United States of America (US) population, they make up 33% of the churches. Conversely, 18–24-year-olds make up 24% of the population but only 14% of the churches. Considering the locus of adolescence in identity-making, it is impossible to divorce the experience of attrition from the youth population.

The second reason to offer adolescence as a focal point is the nature of identity formation in the developmental stage of adolescence. The nature of identity formation in the liminal experience of human development has much to teach the church. Nel (2018:3) has rightly argued for the placement of youth ministry firmly as practical theology as well as for the church to consider the process of identity formation as foundational to a missional orientation. He refers to it as ‘being’ instead of ‘doing’ missions because we ‘do because we are’ (Nel 2015:11). Adolescents are in a process of identity formation that often requires communal bonds. The formation of identity within the isolated subculture of ‘teenage’ life does not allow identity formation within the embodied wisdom of a mature congregation (cf. Wimberly & Parker 2011).

The history of youth ministry in the US context is considered in this research as the second text. The interpretive work of practical theology (Osmer 2008:4) requires a consideration of the historical development of hegemonic youth ministry. Through a historical lens, not only do the theological building blocks become visible, but so does the cultural imagination and ethnographic influences that formed these blocks. For this reason, the focus is narrowed to the US context, and further to the US hegemony. The US has been the geographical and cultural forge that has given rise to a large percentage of these resources yet continues a pattern of attrition. The answer cannot be more or improved resources from this same source. The research suggests a theological misapplication of adolescent theory that resulted in the institutionalisation of the liminal period of human development. It is believed that a critique of youth ministry from the soil of US hegemonic imagination will provide a valuable tool for the global church to consider its own praxis.

The final text will be an empirical sampling of US churches who have experienced youth ministry for more than two generations. The sampling is not large enough to be considered an exhaustive study on its own, but combined with the theoretical work done, it provides a corroboration of the theoretical findings.

The argument will follow a path from the intrinsic conceptualisations of youth ministry considering 19th and 20th century understandings and compare the application of these conceptualisations to an inclusive missional ecclesiological framework. The empirical results are introduced to corroborate the theoretical findings. The intent of this study is to invite a realignment of adolescents into the corporate identity of congregational life.

These four texts, namely the theoretical framework of inclusive missional ecclesiology, the historical framework of US hegemonic youth ministry, the locus of adolescents, and the discoveries of the empirical research, present evidence for a reformation in the church’s adolescent ministry that attends to the question at hand.

Before beginning the argument, what is meant by crisis of attrition in the research question should be clarified. I use it to amend the stated crisis, namely a loss in membership, with what would constitute an appropriate crisis, a loss of ecclesial identity. I align with Guder (2015:20–21) who suggests that ‘For the long established churches of Western Christendom, this movement from normativity to theological and cultural pluralism has been a difficult readjustment’. Consideration of this viewpoint suggests that the felt ‘crisis’ that the American church is facing is one of influence and placement within American society. Guder (2015:30) further points out that the ‘cultural and legal privileging of churches is rapidly disappearing (e.g., repeal of blue laws, increasingly restrictive zoning regulation of churches, loss of the “protected Sunday morning”)’. Guder (2015:30) also points out that the growing significance of the ‘so-called evangelical’ Christianity in the United States, and especially of its political influence, complicates the discussion of the ‘end of Christendom’; however, the very fact that the argument of crisis stems from cultural or political influence suggests a misalignment with mission. There is clearly a reduction of presence in the pews and increased competition for American attention and dollars. In other words, it is Christendom that is in a season of crisis, but that should have little effect on ecclesial identity. Nel (2015:14) highlights the ‘building up’ orientation of the people of God vs. the numerical growth or influence of the local parish. If the hierarchal power structures and cultural influence of Christendom are not considered to be synonymous with ecclesia, then the call to the church is not the restoration of influence or place within American society, but a re-engagement and reformation within the prime motivator of divine mission. This clarification lays the foundation for inclusion of adolescents as participants in that mission.

By way of foundation, it is important to note how the concept of adolescence is used in this article. Adolescence as a liminal stage existing between childhood and adulthood is not a new concept. For a well-considered argument towards this, I offer Kirgiss (2015). The framework of adolescence here is reflected by Chinn (2009:13) who suggests that industrialisation and subsequent immigration were the seeds of the creation and identification of teenagers as a separate cultural cohort. She argues that adolescence is not a universal, biologically determined phenomenon but rather a socially constructed concept that has evolved over time. When we speak of the development of adolescence, it is not a stage of human development that we are critiquing but the systematic shaping of the adolescent cohort within and after the industrial revolution. If the growing concept of adolescence itself is connected to industrialisation, Nel’s (2018:20) observation that ‘youth ministry did not really exist before the industrial revolution’ draws us into a consideration of youth ministry within the context of economic and cultural factors rather than the theological factors that should drive the formation of praxis.

The inclusion of adolescent development within this research is vital. The sense of belonging, experienced within communal structures, coupled with a clear sense of purpose (mission) is critical to pass through liminality with a mature identity. This movement towards maturity is mirrored in the communal life of the church. Nel (2015:19) provides a reminder ‘that spiritual maturity is not a state, but a way of growing in faith, hope, and love’ noting that being in this state of fluidity is essential to revealing ‘the real nature of the only true God’. There is a humility that is required in this process that ‘breaks down the self-sufficiency of groups of believers’ which Nel (2015:20) identifies as a common characteristic of middle-class communities that often play host to youth ministries. This study will argue in the following sections that it was an ingrained cultural self-sufficiency that served as the laboratory that gave birth to much of what became understood as youth ministry in the US.

This cultural orientation towards protecting adolescents roots back to Hall (1904) and the emotional tension (strum and drang) that puts the adolescent in conflict with themselves. This pendulum of emotions will eventually result in adulthood, but an unaddressed (or unprotected) adolescence can lead to crime or other negative social conditions. Danger to the adolescent arises when ‘home, school, church, fail to recognize its nature and needs and, perhaps most of all, its perils’ (Hall 1904:xiv). Recognising that in 1904, high school attendance was still rare (Senter 2010:13) and that ‘home’ among the immigrant poor flooding to industrialised cities did not reflect the homelife of Hall’s imagination, it becomes clear that Hall’s call was for the protection of a particular privileged class of youth. As Chinn (2009:18) points out, ‘Like his eugenicist peers, Hall was deeply alarmed by the promiscuous mixing of ethnic groups …’ which would create ‘instability’ within the race of Hall (1904:322). This ‘urban hothouse life’ (Hall 1904:322) that Hall described came across the middle-class and upper-class imagination like a clarion. This fuelled the emerging belief that there was what Senter (2010:96) refers to as a ‘youth problem’ or what Foster (2001:93) calls the ‘moral panic’ that needed to be addressed. This panic or problem is far more than an identification of the unique characteristics of adolescence. A liminal stage of human development was understood before the field of psychology (Kirgiss 2015), but the xenophobia brought on by urbanisation and immigration resulted in a very different application of adolescent theory among the middle and upper class. Hall (1904:89) suggested that youth ‘should have its fling’ but with ‘careful supervision and wise direction’. Kett (1977:211) sees this influence as thread emerging through developing youth organisations, particularly churches, in the late 19th century. This is prior to Hall demonstrating how these ideas were already part of the cultural imagination. This article argues that this moral panic is the soil that influenced the ecclesial posture towards youth in the 20th century.

The roots of modern youth ministry grew very distinctly from an ecclesial body. By the early 20th century, suburban adolescents had made the transition from factory or farm life to public high school where the cultural cohort became so strong that they could be identifiable by the term ‘teenager’ and all could form a picture in their mind. Efforts to reach the members of this sub-culture were not based within churches, but by entrepreneurs that utilised the culture of teenagers to draw them to an evangelistic message of a relational Christ. Young Life and its founder Jim Rayburn are arguably the innovators of this new approach to ministry and require focussed consideration; but as Root (2007:49) points out, they did not arrive on the scene alone. Mediums such as radio and the pep rally were adopted by the Youth for Christ (YFC) movement (Senter 2010:261) with massive success. The movement’s founder Jack Wyrtzen’s conversion provides a foundation for the praxis that drove the movement. Wyrtzen’s conversion was not in a church, but among a group of friends that did not seek out a church post-conversion, but formed their own group which they named Chi Beta Alpha (Senter 2010:261). Without the need for a church, Wyrtzen was free to capitalise on the new medium of radio patterned after Percy Crawford’s ‘Young People of the Air’ (Senter 2010:260). The success of Wyrtzen’s YFC movement cannot be argued from a quantitative standpoint as thousands would attend the live broadcasts known as Youth for Christ rallies that could fill large stadiums such as Madison Square Garden and Chicago’s Soldier Field. Youth for Christ rallies sprang up independently across the country, eventually nationalising the movement under the leadership of Torrey Johnson and with Billy Graham as the first staff evangelist. Graham’s message was simple and, as Root (2007:46–47) points out, struck a distinct nationalistic message of triumph over atheistic communism and the need for a personal (individual) relationship with Jesus Christ. This message laid the foundation for a distinctly American theological construct that would shape ecclesial life into the 21st century. Local YFC chapters across the country had begun to form a new model of ministry work that bypassed the church and provided support for staff from independent contributors who had a vested interest in the youth problem. These entrepreneurial youth staff will eventually form the foundation youth group and/or youth pastor movement in the latter half of the 20th century (Senter 2010:250). But it was Rayburn’s Young Life Campaign, formed before the YFC movement, that would shape an orthopraxy of ministry that would define not only the exercise of age-specific youth ministry, but a theological foundation of imbedded incarnational relational theology (Root 2007:48–49; Tanis & Ward 2016:23).

Emerging from a strict fundamentalism that may have found more comfort with the pledge movement of the earlier generation, Rayburn became captured with the soteriological construct of Lewis Sperry Chafer (Rayburn III 1999:27) who taught a finality to the work of Christ that offered liberative freedom to Rayburn. Pahl (2000:68) offers that this is in contrast to the Youth for Christ movement that while using modern methods, it still promoted strict doctrines and moral standards in a person’s standing before God. Rayburn chose a relational approach that involved striking up conversations with teenagers about what interested them and then inviting them to participate in clubs (Cailliet 1963:13; Root 2007:52). Root (2007:53) suggests that Rayburn himself had to ‘accrue a currency of cool’ to do this incarnate work. These popular students lent their social capital to Rayburn. It was the capitalisation on the ‘self-chosen relationship’ that met the adolescent at their most vulnerable (Root 2007:53). Adolescents were in historically uncharted waters with the creation of public high schools and the subsequent development of a youth culture. Rather than forming an identity within a broader intergenerational culture, adolescents were now in cohorts with specific cultural demands and structures. The relational (or friendship) approach not only met adolescents at a unique pain point, but the promise of ‘club’ gave them a place to belong. Root (2007:54) again highlights that prior to 1940, this type of ministry strategy would not be needed, but with the ‘modernizing of family, local community, and society’, self-chosen relationships ‘become the only location for intimacy’. This created a dramatic shift theologically. With the 1960s emergence of the youth group, fuelled by resources from former YFC staff, relational ministry not only became the dominant youth ministry style, but with generations raised within this message, the gospel became a relational gospel and the mission of the church simply relational.

Within the relational framework, adolescents are often given a great deal of activities, and receive enthusiastic support from a congregation, but they have limited agency in the contributive life of a congregation. The practice of this form of youth ministry remains largely uncritiqued and is still the normative practice of many hegemonic churches, even in the face of statistical loss. However, allowing youth ministry to exist as a vital branch of practical theology allows a critical critique of ministry with youth through an inclusive missional lens.

Nel (2015:20) also restates the missional aspect as he reminds us that a departure from this middle-class self-sufficiency ‘entails a willingness to serve’ that is ‘driven by love’ and challenges a ‘sick self-righteousness’ and transforms the disciple from consumer to a disciple committed to ‘the building of the body as a whole’ of which everyone is a vital and living part.

This research intends to make vital connections between the identity formation that is vital to the maturity of the body of Christ and the characteristics of maturity that are vital to the formation of people in the liminal stage of adolescence. In both the cases, we should not understand maturity as a terminus, but as a locus of maturity that continues to build with achieved characteristics of vital belonging (inclusion) and mission (purpose). This transforms the idea of building from the strategies of ‘church growth’ to an ever-deepening sense of identity. Church growth strategies have marketplace or power implications within them, whereas maturity focusses on the aspect of becoming as the predominant driving force. Rather than strategies of success, we begin to consider the uniqueness of adolescence and our ministry with them in terms of belonging and mission. In other words, how do we include their uniqueness (gifts, context, person) into the constantly developing ecclesial mission? Referring to the future church heresy, Nel (2015:28) sees the misalignment of these ideas in many churches’ approach to youth ministry as ‘an investment for the sake of the future of the given institution.’ Resources are seen to be ‘banked’ in the adolescent cohort so that members have confidence that the institution will continue much in its present form. Framed in this manner, it is obvious that both the institution and the adolescent are being set up for inevitable failure. It is no longer building that is the goal, but preservation. Within a preservationist framework, it is entirely possible that the church can lose its sense of purpose (Nel 2015:28).

This framing does require us to consider if there is a distinction between the congregation (ecclesia) and the institution (church/kirche). Nel (2015:41) argues, and rightly so, that the nature of the church as an expression of God does require us to consider this distinction and rethink our ecclesiology, though it does not flow that we must abandon the institution. I would affirm this perspective for fear that this research is used to argue the abandonment of adolescent education or socialisation. It is more of a matter of what we consider ourselves partners in building.

The distinction does not require an ecclesial binary (ecclesia OR kirche) any more than it requires us to choose between including adolescents in congregational life or a distinctive youth ministry that exists in parallel. I affirm the ‘included but differentiated’ posture of youth ministry suggested by Nel (2018:13). This research demonstrates the vital nature of developing a distinctive engagement with the adolescent cohort that recognises their uniqueness and seeks to recognise that uniqueness as one of the informative ‘texts’ that forms and reforms the mission of a local congregation.

Following the preliminary interviews with the seven churches, an impartial research assistant was engaged, and ATLAS.ti (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany)software was employed to facilitate unbiased analytical processing. Variables such as adolescent involvement in the congregation, the congregation’s responsiveness to adolescents’ needs, and the pervading sense of the church’s mission were analysed in correlation with perceived growth or decline of the church.

The research investigated a correlation between an inclusive missional stance and a robust engagement of the youth in church life.

An application for full ethical approval was made to the University of Pretoria review board and ethics consent was received on 12 November 2018. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. Presented here is a brief articulation of the findings with examples from interviewed churches.

In analysing churches with a pronounced culture of youth engagement, a recurring attribute is the fostering of an environment characterised by youth inclusion and belonging. An exemplary instance is observed in an African American congregation situated north of New York City. Distinctively, this congregation stood out not merely for the inclusion of youth representatives during the interview, but for the evident desire to have their viewpoints. Family engagement within this church correlated with superior youth retention, embodying mutual familial reinforcement. A poignant illustration of this reciprocal ethos emerged from a nonagenarian member who recently acquired an iPad, aiming to connect with younger congregants.

Congregations maintaining an active youth ministry invariably highlighted a sense of belonging – either intrinsic or purposefully nurtured. A prevalent culture of kinship, especially within African American communities, appeared to facilitate this inclusion instinctively. Notwithstanding, churches instilling a sense of belonging through deliberate strategies similarly reported youth engagement. For instance, a Maryland-based church indicated youth participation in worship, a trend consistent across congregations with notable youth populations.

In stark contrast, congregations registering minimal youth engagement typically endorsed an operational approach that compartmentalised the youth demographic. A church from the Midwest expressed their confusion over the decline in young people’s church engagement. For instance, it was shocking to hear that Sunday school was no longer offered to young people (at a well-known church), as it was once a fundamental component of the Baptist faith and church.

Their bewilderment seemed to revolve around why youth-centric programmes are no longer populated. Such congregations exhibited a tendency to ascribe this disparity to external factors, such as sports or social media.

Churches that reported significant youth engagement frequently demonstrated a discernible sense of mission and purpose. Such institutions not only recognised the needs of their youth but actively responded to the broader community. A case in point is a predominantly African American church in Washington D.C. located in an area with a considerable homeless population. Addressing this issue has become a unified church mission. Elderly women collaborate with younger counterparts to craft blankets, while children and youth team up with adults to prepare sandwiches. Subsequently, all capable members distribute these provisions among the unhoused individuals in the community.

It is worth noting that even churches lacking an ingrained intergenerational culture, but reporting expansive youth ministries, prioritise mission and service. For instance, a Connecticut-based church finds its annual mission trip and year-round service projects to be the predominant catalysts for youth participation within the community. However, because of the absence of holistic church involvement, such institutions face challenges retaining youth post-high school. Nonetheless, the distinct sense of purpose manifested by their youth ministry remains notable for this article.

Within this research, a particularly enlightening discovery emerged from churches demonstrating attributes of belonging and mission, yet these traits are not shared across the entire congregation. It should be clarified that this does not insinuate the absence of belonging or mission in the broader church context; such an examination lay outside the scope of this study. The central insight is the observed deficiency in a shared congregational experience of belonging and mission across the generational spectrum which influences youth retention.

A church culture that perceives both its members and the extended community as ‘kin’ ostensibly demonstrates enhanced generational retention in comparison to churches where the sense of mission and belonging is predominantly confined to youth groups. A case in point is a Korean church in New Jersey, characterised by bifurcated ministries: one predominantly adult-oriented where the Korean language is spoken and the other primarily youth-focussed in English. While Korean adults partake in the English ministry, notably by preparing meals and offering leadership, linguistic impediments considerably hinder intergenerational engagement. Despite their nurturing efforts, this congregation recorded a notably diminished continuation rate post-high school. While they grapple with a profound challenge, their situation underscores the paramount importance of adopting an intergenerational stance within an inclusive missional framework.

The empirical research substantiates the pivotal role of intergenerational involvement in fostering growth within a congregation’s participatory life. Congregations that nurture inclusivity across all age groups evidently maintain a more successful trajectory in cultivating an environment conducive to growth compared to those that do not. This is also a notable discovery in Seibel and Nel (2010:1) who found congregations with a clear sense of mission and generational inclusion were key to the ongoing traditioning of a congregation.

Moreover, it has been observed that the growing churches’ mission exhibits contextual variations, also noted by Seibel and Nel (2010:1). These were influenced substantially by location. Congregations that find defining an overarching mission to be a complex endeavour, particularly those that perceive missionary work predominantly as financial outreach to external endeavours, seem to struggle in membership cohesion. In contrast, congregations attuned to the pressing concerns of young individuals and the wider community, appear to have a profound engagement with their purpose, thereby nurturing a more enriched sense of mission.

Furthermore, ethnographic elements considerably influence the potential for fostering environments of belonging. In this regard, cultures with an established tradition of kinship are seemingly at an advantage, creating a sense of belonging more organically compared to hegemonic groups. This observation is not to undermine the capacity of hegemonic churches to foster belonging; rather, it underscores the necessity for such entities to conscientiously develop counter-cultural ecosystems that challenge the prevailing tendencies towards hyper-individualisation. This holistic approach calls for a reflective critique and possible reconfiguration of existing structures to foster inclusivity and connectedness, central to nurturing growth and a deepened sense of purpose within a congregational setting.