Back in the big beautiful city today to meet with the London YFC Directors to continue to look at the idea of young people and mission in London.
We used the Chandos again (which is becoming a great lunch and pint location) and had a great time chatting over the idea of encouraging young people to get involved in mission. As we said before, we wish to move away from the ‘gap year’ idea that is so prolific at the moment and look for a way that will really embed mission into the discipleship of young people.
I feel quite passionate about this and have a little concern with the gap year concept. Itself, the gap year concept is a good one and we have had fantastic young people over the years on gap schemes. Thankfuly, some of these have stayed in a mision type setting either in location or elsewhere when they ave moved on.
My fear is, however, that we may be breeding a group of young people that could feel that they have ‘done it’ as far as mission is involved. Wouldn’t it be terrible if off the back of something as good as a gap year, that people felt they had paid their commitment to God before going off and getting on with their lives, never to do anything again!
I’m probably being cynical and stuff – but I do not think the terminology helps. We take a gap to do some project for God, we then carry on with our lives. Do those people then ‘mind the gap’ for the rest of their lives after that? I don’t know … and anyway I am starting to ramble!
Today’s meeting was all about how we can encourage young people from diverse backgrounds to seriosuly get involved in mission within London. This will be a unique experience where young people will come to see mission as an integral part of their life as a Christian. Living as a Christian and mission go together – its obvious really when you think about it!
really good point – what we do so well in the church is hit and run mission.Great for two weeks; a year but thereafter!? The big question I am left with is for whose benefit – The Gap years can easily be percieved as as being for the “missionaries” benefit meaning recipient areas sometimes (not always) can feel a bit used and abused.These areas being seen as commodities – a bit of a smack in the teeth for ongoing incarnational living.I’m sure there are churches involved in mission in areas that are crying out for personnel resources in order to maintain a transforming presence. I find it encouraging listening to your thoughts – which are healthy in their reflection – certainly not cynical! thanks