Christian camping is about ministry. Previous posts in this series have emphasized that camp
is much more than fun and games.
Camps are centers of faith formation.
The ministry at camp focuses on meeting participants where they are in their
faith journey and accompanying them through unique experiences.
But the ministry at camp does not stand on its own. Camping
ministers have widely acknowledged this because of the nature of camping
ministry as temporary. The fact that the experience has a set beginning and end
heightens the awareness that participants have left something behind to which
they will eventually have to return. It is this temporary nature that allows
camping ministers to understand that they are partners in ministry,
particularly with families, colleges, and congregations.
Partnership is an important concept in ministry.
Congregations are sometimes seen as the centers of faith life, with other
ministries subservient. This relationship is not a partnership. A partnership
does not necessarily entail an equal relationship, but it does imply a mutual
dependence. Congregations are not stand-alone ministries, and ministry
professionals are increasingly acknowledging this. There is widespread
recognition that the home is the epicenter of faith formation and that
congregations are partners in ministry with the home. Camps should be seen as
another partnership ministry that shares a mutual dependence with the ministry
of the home, the ministry of the congregation, and other related ministries
(among them, campus ministries). Camps are not expendable. Congregations and
families depend on them as ministry partners.
The initial survey of the Outdoor Ministry Research Project
shows that there is widespread recognition in Mainline Protestant camping that
camp is a ministry partner. It is interesting to note that there is also
evidence that the partnership is strained in some cases.
Intergenerational camp worship, with ELCA bishop (right) |
78% of camp directors “moderately agree” or “strongly agree”
with the statement, “Camp worship/programs are designed to get campers more
excited about and engaged in their home congregation.” This item shows that
there is intentionality in the camp programming with regard to partnering with
congregations.
Directors were also asked to indicate the importance that
their camp places on the items “Strengthen/support congregations” and
“Strengthen/support families.” 74% indicated that “Strengthen/support families”
is “very” or “extremely important,” and 58% indicated the same for
“Strengthen/support congregations.” These numbers indicate that there is
widespread recognition that camp serves an important role with respect to
strengthening families. The comparatively lower number for congregations
deserves closer attention.
The importance placed on “strengthen/support congregations”
is sharply divided along denominational lines. On the high end, 78% of Lutheran
(ELCA) camps indicate that this item is “very” or “extremely important.”
However, less than half of both the Episcopal and Presbyterian (PC-USA) camps
say the same (43% and 48%, respectively). Methodist (UMC) camps come in at the
average (59%). These numbers raise serious concerns about how camping ministry
is seen in certain faith traditions.
Clergy involvement also varies among denominational
traditions. Significantly higher percentages of ELCA and UMC camps report “Many
congregational leaders/clergy are heavily involved in the ministries of the
camp” compared with the other traditions. Significantly fewer PCUSA camps
report high clergy involvement than non-PCUSA camps.
The difference is also reflected in the camps’ evaluation
techniques. Consistently across the denominations, about 50% of camps say that
they survey parents “asking them to evaluate the experience of their children.”
However, camps were also asked if they “survey clergy or other congregational
leaders asking them to evaluate the programs.” While 54% of ELCA camps
indicated that they survey clergy, only 25% of Episcopal, 22% of UMC, and 19%
of Presbyterian camps indicated the same.
Taken together, these numbers suggest that there is a
widespread recognition in the ELCA that camp is an important ministry partner
with both congregations and families. The recognition of the partnership with
congregations is in doubt in other traditions, most notably in the PC-USA.
These mixed results reflect a developing crisis in Christian
camping ministry (see previous post). A deterioration of partnerships reflects
problems in the ministry ecology of a faith tradition. If camping ministry is
devalued, clergy and congregational leaders pull away from the ministry, and
camping leaders may respond by also pulling away.
The issue is not
survival. This is not a "Join or Die" scenario. Congregations were around long before camping ministry became
widespread in Mainline traditions in the 1940s and 50s. Congregations are not
going away if camps die. Likewise, camps find ways to survive without
congregational support. Comparing the camps in the survey that showed evidence
of strong ties to their denominational traditions/teachings with those that
showed weak ties, there is no significant difference in their 2014 camper
enrollment capacity or enrollment trends. There is no evidence that strong
congregational ties save camps from financial ruin. On the contrary, some camps
may shy away from tying themselves to the sinking ship of their denomination. If both camps and congregations die, the Holy Spirit will enliven another expression of church. It is not a survival issue.
It is a ministry
issue. We are stronger together, and we can minister more effectively with
young people and families if we recognize the importance of partnership.
Congregations do not need camps, and camps do not need congregations. But the
Church needs both. God is at work in both. Isn’t that reason enough to
strengthen our partnerships?