Life Together and Camp

I was rereading Bonhoeffer’s Life Together the other day, and I got the chance to discuss the book with some students at Luther Seminary. I was struck again by the grace and passion of Bonhoeffer’s writing. In many ways, the seminary community at Finkenwalde was the culmination of Bonhoeffer’s life’s work, drawing together his theological convictions (set forth in Sanctorum Communio), teaching experience, and experiences of the power and presence of Christ first-hand in Christian communities around the world, from his parish in Spain to the black churches of Harlem to the monasteries of England. The tragedy is that his life’s work and greatest passion was destined to be short-lived. The seminary at Finkenwalde was closed in 1937 by the Gestapo, the state police of the Nazi regime, after only 16 months of operation. Bonhoeffer then directed his considerable talents to a much different enterprise of active resistance and conspiracy against the Nazi regime that would lead to his imprisonment and eventual execution in 1945. Life Together comprises his reflections on the community that he spent his life preparing for and creating, lest the beauty and vitality of the experience be lost to memory. We should read it not so much as nostalgia but rather as instruction.

Christian community was Bonhoeffer’s way of resisting the powers of the world. He viewed the gathering together of Christians for prayer, worship, confession, and Bible study as a fundamental part of Christianity. Christians gather together because they are Christians. Not only is community a mandate of Christ, it is also the location of Christ’s encounter with humanity in the world. Bonhoeffer and his seminarians were not sequestered in Finkenwalde to escape the Nazi regime or withdraw from public life. They were gathered to be strengthened and then sent out into the world. They were gathered to learn what it means to be followers of Jesus Christ. It was in Finkenwalde that Bonhoeffer gave his lectures on cheap grace and costly grace that he then published in the powerfully written work Discipleship. The seminarians were resisting the powers of the world, represented so tangibly in one of the most notoriously evil regimes in human history, by gathering together in Christian community. Their very existence as members of the Confessing Church was a statement of resistance against the state-run church of Nazism.

Christians today do not often see their gatherings as conspiracies or resistance to the powers of this world. More often, Christians are trying to align themselves with the powers (how many of our churches continue to display the flag at the front of the sanctuary?) and emphasize their role in making good citizens. Bonhoeffer’s message is that life together as Christians is transformative because it is in Christian community that we encounter the living Christ. A people that follows Christ and actually heeds the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount (again, see Discipleship) looks radical in the eyes of the world. This is a people that confesses sins to one another, prays for each other, and loves its enemies. How many of our churches actually practice personal confession in the way that Bonhoeffer describes?

It is easy to idealize Christian community and talk about how wonderful it is when true Christians get together (insert obligatory reference to Acts 4:32-37). We love the idea of Christian community, and there is a false notion that true Christian community should be free from hypocrisy, deceit, and anything else that might indicate the presence of real humans. Those fond of quoting Acts 4:32-37 do not seem to know about the very next verse, which tellingly starts with “But…” In Life Together, Bonhoeffer is not interested in the idea of Christian community. He is interested in genuine, on-the-ground, real community, and he recognizes that these communities are messy. There is dissension, discord, and grumbling. Sound like your congregation? Good! That means there are real human beings there. If there are real human beings in community, there can be genuine encounter with the other, and this is always messy. Bonhoeffer writes, "Christians must bear the burden of one another. They must suffer and endure one another. Only as a burden is the other really a brother or sister and not just an object to be controlled" (p. 100). This is also, Bonhoeffer insists, precisely where we encounter the living Christ. People with an idealized vision of church are destined to leave the church or at least jump from congregation to congregation at the first sign of discord. Their idealism is the enemy of life together because it eschews encounter in favor of niceness. We need messiness, and we need encounter. We need more than an hour on each Sunday morning when people do not happen to have another commitment. We need places of sufficient trust where people can express their doubts and dissent without fear of punishment or estrangement.

There are few places where Christian community, as Bonhoeffer describes it, exists in the church today. I believe that camp is one of those few places. I do not want to idealize camp communities. That would be disingenuous. There are problems in every camp community. Bonhoeffer insists, however, that these problems are okay and probably inevitable where true community exists. Directors and participants often idealize camp because they want more people to go. The truth is that camp is far from picture-perfect all the time. It is messy. People get grouchy when they live together in a small cabin or tent for a whole week. It is human encounter in a rawness very uncommon in today’s world. Like Bonhoeffer’s seminary communities, the camp communities are temporary communities that live together for a short period of time. The difference in duration is real and important. One week is far too short a time. However, in that short week, genuine encounter happens and Christian communities are formed. Maybe these are the communities that can offer new vision and guidance for the church of the 21st century. Maybe these communities have the power to be subversive and transformative in ways that will enliven and revive the church. Maybe they can be forms of resistance to the powers of this world and communities of empowerment from which Christian disciples are sent forth.

Through his long imprisonment, Bonhoeffer often reflected on his experiences of Christian community in Finkenwalde, and he drew strength from these experiences (see his Letters and Papers from Prison). His closest friend and personal confessor, Eberhard Bethge, was one of those community members. Christian community, with all its messiness, sustains us through our times of trial. As I write this, I find myself remembering the camp communities, particularly the summer staff communities, that I have been a part of through the years. I think of specific people. I am grateful for those experiences, and they continue to sustain me in my times of doubt.

Outdoor Ministry Research Project

Have you been to camp? Is it an important part of your faith story? How do outdoor ministries fit in with the ministries of your church? Millions of young people attend Christian summer camps every summer in the United States and tens of thousands of young adults serve on summer camp staffs. Some have amazing, “mountain-top experiences,” while others do not. Some camps are known for cranking out leaders for the church that become pastors, youth ministers, bishops, deacons, and devoted lay volunteers. Others are important sites for retreat ministries for adults, youth, and families. While some Christian leaders praise the benefits of camping ministry, others are skeptical of its role in faith formation and discipleship.

The truth is that Christian camping ministry is an incredibly understudied field. This is shocking when we consider that the 2003 National Study of Youth and Religion found that 39% of all American teenagers have attended a religious summer camp. When we look at the 5 denominations involved in the Confirmation Project, the number jumps to well over 50%. Christian summer camp is an important part of Christian education and faith formation for many young people, and the Confirmation Project is one of the first major studies to take this role seriously. The study promises to provide the most comprehensive picture to date of the nature and significance of Christian camping ministry to the work of the Church. This is one of the many innovative approaches and unique contributions the Confirmation Project is making to scholarship and the strengthening of discipleship in youth.

There are multiple questions directly addressing outdoor ministries on the nationwide confirmand and confirmation leader surveys. In addition to this, every camp and conference center affiliated with one of the five denominations is being surveyed. This camp survey went out via e-mail in coordination with the congregational surveys. It is designed to be filled out by a director-level staff person or camp manager. Pastors and youth ministers, contact your camp leadership personnel to make sure that they participate in this survey! Five camps (one per denomination) will also be visited in the summer of 2015 to examine their programs more closely. This means that camps will account for one in five of the total sites visited.

The study focuses on camp as a CEP (“Confirmation or Equivalent Practice”), but it is not limited to “confirmation camp” programs. The researchers recognize that camp may be directly involved in a congregation’s CEP programs and it may also serve in various support roles. All camps and conference centers in the five denominations should, therefore, participate in the survey. This study will answer: In what ways and to what extent does the Christian summer camp experience contribute to the faith formation and Christian education of adolescents in the Protestant tradition?

 The camp survey is being sent under the name “Outdoor Ministry Research Project” to distinguish it from the congregational survey. It is being sent to all camps affiliated with the outdoor ministry organizations of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Your help is requested in contacting these camps! Make sure your camp is included. The African Methodist Episcopal Church does not have an organization of outdoor ministries, so we need your help in identifying camp programs in the AME tradition. Contact Jacob Sorenson for more details on the camp study and for access to the camp survey.

This project will help us get more young people to camp, improve the quality of our outdoor ministries, and strengthen the partnership between outdoor ministry sites and congregations. You are invited to join us in these efforts!

Camp's Diversity Problem

Christian camping ministry has a problematic history with race-relations and diversity. While many camps across the country have gone to great lengths to address the problem, it remains a serious concern for camps and camping ministry as a whole. The problem is rooted in a conflict between two of camping ministry’s most important aspects. On the one hand, camps are set-apart, sacred communities where young people can be fully immersed in the particularity of their faith traditions. On the other hand, camps are places of intense and intentional encounter with otherness. These two essential aspects of camping work hand-in-hand to create the crucible of transformation found in many of our Christian summer camps. The Other, with whom I would normally not choose to be around or would not even encounter in everyday life, suddenly becomes part of my set-apart, sacred community at camp. The Other might simply be someone from a different social circle, but that person might also be from a different socio-economic class, family background, sexual orientation, race, or denomination. In the context of intentional Christian community at camp, we encounter the Other face-to-face and are forced to make sense of this otherness in the context of togetherness - or “unity in difference,” as some feminist and womanist thinkers have put it. The transformative power of the camp experience is diminished when racial diversity is absent.

The lack of racial diversity can be traced to the origins of the camping movement. The first camps in America emerged in the 1880s in order to get white boys from wealthy families out of the squalor of urban living and teach them how to be real men through outdoor living and recreation. The camping movement quickly grew, especially through the spread of YMCA camps, to include middle class and even lower-class boys. The camping movement grew in the context of a Protestant work ethic and idealism that linked Christianity with manhood and good citizenship. The early 20th century saw the spread of camping to Jewish camps, Catholic camps, and girls camps, but they remained separate for much of camp’s early history. The emphasis was on camp’s role in socialization as special, set-apart communities. Upper-class boys went to camp together, and they learned how to be responsible upper-class boys. Jewish kids were socialized as Jews, something that continues to characterize Jewish camping (see Sales and Saxe, How Goodly Are Thy Tents). Early 20th century camps toyed with diversity more than they experienced it. Boys and girls at their single-gendered camps would commonly dress in drag to caricature the opposite sex. More problematic were the early camps’ use of stereotypes in their portrayal of Native Americans and black Americans. Campers wore feathered headdresses and enacted their versions of Native American rituals to emphasize connection with creation. While these camp rituals were often considered as showing respect to Native American customs, they also functioned to deepen stereotypes, lump Native Americans as a single entity, and bastardize tribal sacred traditions. Throughout the 1920s until well into the 1950s, one of the most common traditions for the last night of camp was a drama in blackface.

Many readers are now saying, “Yes, but we’ve come a long way in race relations since the 1920s!” This is certainly the case. However, camp’s problematic history of race relations has followed the movement to the present day. Camps across the country continue enacting stereotypes of Native Americans. Campers stay in teepees (because all Native Americans lived in teepees, right?) and adopt tribal names for the week. These programs at times attempt to show a deep respect for Native American traditions and, at their best, do a fair job teaching the history of certain tribes, along with a history of the exploitation of native peoples. However, camps need to think long and hard about how the inclusion of camp programs using Native American themes serve to perpetuate stereotypes, no matter how virtuous the intentions. Do we really think that kids running around with feathers on their heads is respectful or meaningful in any way? What about more subtle ways of perpetuating these stereotypes?

While I have no reason to believe that camps continue using blackface, camping ministry as a whole is far from integrated. It remains a largely white, middle-class phenomenon. There is very little research data on outdoor ministry, so it is difficult to assess how big the problem is. However, the 2003 National Study of Youth and Religion asked participants if they had been to a religious summer camp, so an analysis of that data yields some important information. The data reported in the original book (Smith and Denton, Soul Searching) gives a surface indication of the problem, showing that Mainline Protestant youth are twice as likely to attend camp as youth from Black Protestant traditions. The data set gives much clearer information than this, however.  According to the data, 3/4 of all religious camp attenders are white. White youth are 1.6 times more likely to attend camp than black youth, 2 times more likely than Asian youth, and an astonishing 2.6 times more likely than hispanic youth. The statistics are even more shocking when income is factored in. White youth from families making under $20k per year are less likely to attend camp than their middle-class counterparts but still more likely than middle-class youth from minority groups. 42% of white youth from families making under $20k per year attend camp, which presumably means that camps are effective in offering financial aid to white youth. However, minority groups do not receive the same benefits. When considering youth from families making under $20k per year, whites are 2.5 times more likely to attend camp than non-whites. African-American youth show the highest percentage (32%) of those attending camp after white youth (43%), indicating that, while still a problem, the gap is beginning to close. However, it should also be noted that almost 2/3 of these African-American youth are from “Black Protestant” religious traditions, indicating that many of them are attending camps that are predominantly African-American. Our camps are segregated. Those who have visited many camps do not need statistics to tell this story. They have seen that many camps are almost totally white or totally black, with a few diverse faces in the mix (these usually make the camp brochure or newsletter to show that the camp is “diverse”).

Camping ministry has a diversity problem. Certain camps are doing tremendous things to increase racial diversity, and they can serve as models for other camps to emulate. A large part of camp’s transformative power lies in its nature as a location of encounter. The nature of camp communities as set-apart and sacred should not include race. Camp racial segregation serves to socialize our young people into ways of being white Christians or black Christians. Since camps have such powerful socializing potential, these racially segregated ways of being Christian can stick long-term. In contrast, observe the exemplary camps that have racial diversity. They serve as places of encounter, and they can help young people envision a new way of being Christian in the world: united, even in our differences.