Where Does Age-Segmented Ministry and Consumerism Come From?

“Why do we do it like that!?”

I’m guessing I’m not the only one who has turned up at a youth ministry post and quickly compiled a list of questions about why things are done the way they are. Of course, we are to be a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks, so some form of tailoring mission and ministry to context is called for, inevitable, and biblically justifiable. But is that what has really happened here? Do we split along age lines simply because we sat down and decided based on biblical teaching?

What does the Bible say about youth as members of the body of Christ? What about being a diverse family where people of different ages and backgrounds come together meaningfully?

Why Churches Practice Age Segmentation

I sometimes hear that we segment along age lines as a necessary response to specific characteristics of contemporary culture that developed over the last 50-70 years: consumerism, new communication technologies, social fragmentation, cultural diversity, professionalization, and developmental psychology.

In brief, the argument goes something like:

Consumerism: Not only do we buy things, but what we ‘buy into’ shapes who we feel we are and want to be, including our religious choices and identities. ‘Youth culture’ has become an enduring force in the broader culture towards which churches often feel pressured to cater. th

New communication technology: This consumer culture is intertwined with new communication technologies that are inherent in youth culture but are poorly understood and viewed with suspicion by older generations. This has further driven the segmentation of the ‘market’ into specific sub-categories.

Social fragmentation and cultural diversity: These new communication technologies and consumerism fuel diversity and fragmentation within culture and society. The world is plural, increasing urgency and reinforcing the need to segment.

Professionalization: Churches have responded to the above by hiring professionals. Often relatively young themselves, these professionals understand the fragmented, consumerist, tech-based world of emerging generations and are tasked with doing ministry in those spheres. This might even have become a well-intentioned but self-fulfilling prophecy, with youth ministers driving this segmentation as it is a vital part of their ministry.

Developmental psychology: The understanding of stage-based cognitive development has given further cause to segmentation (‘this or that age cannot learn at that level and so we must treat them separately’).

This all makes sense in and of itself, but it doesn’t make sense of the date of the emergence of institutionalized youth ministry in the US and UK. Age-segmented ministry isn’t as new as many critics think. Young Life and Youth for Christ began in the 1940s, but Christian Endeavour, Scripture Union, and the Boys Brigade all started in the late 1800s, not to mention the Sunday School movement, which began in the late 1700s.

Modernity and Age Segmentation

I am, of course, cutting a very long story short, but the timeline above suggests that the five factors are more likely to be symptoms than the underlying cause. The more foundational reason for segmenting by age lies in modernity. This era followed the Enlightenment and rejected pre-modern ways of knowing (epistemology) and being (ontology). Two crucial cultural changes resulted, which are important regarding age segmentation.

Firstly, the emergence of what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls the reflexive self, and secondly, the emergence of industrialized modern societies.

This is how Giddens sets out the first point: In pre-modern times, who you were was heavily dictated by social-historical circumstances (e.g., people were even named in terms of their family’s work, e.g., Taylor). In modern times, the future is more open. Who you are is not so much fixed but is an open question related to your future decisions in the broader social context. So, the self (who I am) is ultimately reflexive because it is negotiated with wider society.

This is important because none of the other five factors above would matter very much if the self were not reflexive. Accordingly, the five factors above were like an injection of steroids into the modern self and society rather than the underlying cause.

Secondly, the rise of modern society meant that authorities of nation-states became very interested in the conditions and abilities of emerging generations. Suppose the future of your nation depends on having a fit, healthy, well-educated source of workers and soldiers (and you don’t think that parents and local communities will produce them for you organically). In that case, you pay attention to the state’s role in educating youth. This is the reason for the development of government-controlled compulsory education, which (funnily enough) matches the date of the emergence of the first wave of youth ministry (starting in the late 1800s).

Naturally, schools increasingly played a significant role in developing youths’ reflexive self-identities. Day in and day out, young people were placed together essentially (though not deliberately) in opposition to other ages, and they considered who they were in that context.

Evaluating Age-Segmented Ministry

If we unthinkingly enable consumerism, new communication technologies, social fragmentation, and cultural diversity to inform our ministries, then we risk overlooking the importance of reflexive, constructed self-identities. We will become blind to the modern self's symptoms and disease. A focus on consumerism might lead churches to superficial answers to questions of mission and ministry to youth based on short-term consumer-oriented solutions. This could explain the phenomenon of churches being able to attract youth to events but struggling to maintain ongoing relationships with them as they age and transition into the next age group. If the ministry is a product consumed to meet a felt need, then it should be unsurprising when youth restrict their involvement to that particular event and never meaningfully connect to the church.

Churches would do well to consider how moving away from age segmentation might help recapture a vision of the church as the people of God, a community whose leadership is not couched in professional and expert senses.

The tenor of Intergenerational approaches is more about bringing youth into the heart of a community where they are valued as mutual participants in the church's life. This focus on mutuality and inclusion works against the church as a professional management system. Approaching ministry to young people this way does not require eliminating age segmentation, but it means churches will prioritize generational unity and mutuality.

This age-inclusive community approach would mean that as youth reflect on who they are and form their identities, they will do so within a Christian community that is open to what they have to offer. This integrates them through an increased sense of belonging.

In short, this approach suggests a focus that is less on what is provided for youth and children and more committed to developing a place for all ages to worship Christ as Lord and serve one another (across generations) in love.