Nobody Will Share: Navigating a Pastoral Problem with Teens

by Dan Masterton

Author's Note: Ironically (or perhaps unironically), the crafting of the post was a bit rushed as I squeezed in writing around directing an overnight retreat. The content of this pastoral episode certainly warrants maximum context and nuance, and I hope other ministers will weigh in. That said, the shape and clarity of the post may leave a bit to be desired, but I hope the meat of it can evoke some dialogue. The process of these kinds of issues would be well suited to a podcast, or better yet a campus ministers' happy hour! Thanks to Restless Heart Tim for merciless editing in my aid while approaching deadline.

Two and a half years ago, when I started my current job, I was getting the lay of land, learning about norms and expectations for liturgies, service, and retreats. As someone with high expectations and the desire to make campus ministry a robust presence at a school, I have found things to be frequently lacking in schools’ retreat programs. I was also spoiled by my alma mater’s campus ministry, as our retreats were well-oiled machines with strong cultures of leadership and a tradition of student buy-in.

This is what I wanted for my students, so I dug into our retreats to try to sculpt them toward these ideals. Some of the things that are really important to me are peer leadership and student leadership formation, incorporating a creative mix of individual, small-group, and large-group discussion and activities, and making direct connections to our faith and what we believe. To help secure these goals and the strength and stability of the retreats for the school and students, I leaned on my adult colleagues by making them a part of the small-groups. I had seen this done when I was on high school retreats as a student, and I had participated in retreats as an adult in my first two high school ministry jobs. I believe so strongly in peer ministry, and I felt adult support in the small-groups gave student leaders a greater chance to succeed.

As our Kairos team approached our retreat, we started to dig into the major prep work -- sharing stories, choosing talk topics, writing and crafting talks, practicing discussion facilitation, and, of course, creating small-groups. I guide my student leaders through a process for forming groups, moving from randomization to the final product via group discussion based on students’ and adults’ insights into social dynamics and personalities; as usual, this process went nicely. But then the group then got tripped up by the row of the spreadsheet that denoted each group’s adult. They were not into this.

I had learned over the course of the school year how it was not the norm at this school to have adults in small-groups on Kairos (or in retreat small-groups in general). In fact, in the past, the Kairos schedule and leadership manual (if one could loosely call it that) were quite open-ended, and discussions unfolded quite sporadically with the adults spending that time totally separated from the small-groups. The students were used to their discussions happening with no adult presence, and they felt that including an adult in the room would ruin the conversations. “They’ll stay for our discussions!?... Nobody will share… It will make them feel uncomfortable…” The Student Leaders were nervous that retreatants wouldn’t share anything vulnerable with an adult present and worried that this would stonewall any chance to foster trust and openness in their small-groups.

The kids of Springfield unify against the adults in a fight against excessively strict curfews.
Our students were much more respectful and did not compose a song to antagonize us.

In the weeks leading up to this moment of reckoning, I knew that I wanted to change this norm but knew we had to proceed carefully. I had spoken at length with my two colleagues who were supporting me as director with the retreat team, and I picked their brains about past practices. Without blackballing anyone who had contributed in prior years, it seemed like adults’ not being in small-groups was largely about the laissez-faire style of direction in the past and less about any intentional decision to give the students freedom to share. Most importantly, it seemed like the reporting process in place for adults to refer students to counseling and school services for situations involving harm left much to be desired.

Rather than jumping the gun unilaterally, I reached out to a bunch of my friends who work in pastoral ministry with teenagers and neutrally asked for their opinion and rationales. Their replies were unanimous in support of adding adults to small-groups. Here are a few of their reasons, echoing much of my rationale and articulating more:

• "There is a tendency for groups to easily get off track and lose the essential integrating purpose of those sessions, and that has far-reaching effects. Likewise, an adult is much more prepared to handle and report disclosures of abuse, etc. I have also observed that an adult in the small groups reassures the student leader and allows them to meet and exceed their personal expectations as a facilitator."
• "I think it is nuts not having an adult in a small group. The student leaders are not equipped to handle mandated reporter type revelations that might come forth from students in the small group. I operate with the understanding that if a student reveals something, they are crying out for help. The adult leaders are all trained, mandated by the Archdiocese, to be mandated reporters. The adults are also not trained to counsel the students, but rather function more as first responders."
• "There are other sensitive issues that could come up that might have social implications on the kids. An example of this would be if a kid comes out as LGBTQ. Having an adult in the small group is a form of pastoral care for the students."
• "If you include faculty as participants, there is much more of a sense of being on the journey together, as opposed to them babysitting [the students]. They should [participate in] everything, while not monopolizing."
• "I think this all fosters a significant bond between students and faculty that can have long-lasting positive effects when everyone is back in the classroom or school building. Plus, I got great feedback from the adults that shaped how I prepared the schedule, trained leaders, etc. [for future retreats]."
• "I think that if adults are in the group, it should be an all or nothing sort of thing. If they're not present for all small group sessions, they don't fully immerse themselves in the retreat and group dynamic and may miss significant sharings that shape the group's character for the entire retreat."

Needless to say, I went forward with it. The leaders were quite upset initially, and after we had created the small-groups, they were definitely brooding. Sensing a divide emerging between the adults (who were on the same page with me now) and the leaders (who were clearly grumbling against us amongst themselves), we called an extra meeting to hash it out. It was one of the most combative teacher-student meetings I’ve ever been in. Everyone got to say their piece -- adults to explain much of the rationale outlined above and students to express their concern about openness -- and we parted to think on it.

Gradually, the leaders warmed up to it. Honestly, I think they still would have preferred to go on their own, but they understood our reasons and settled into the new norm. My big takeaway as a director was that, though they were worried about people remaining open and trusting with an adult, they also felt threatened in terms of their leadership of the group. While I needed to make the adults a part of their groups, I concluded that I needed to do it in a way that intentionally respected their autonomy. So we talked some more as an adult team, and we settled on parameters for our school’s new norm: adults would never be referred to as leaders in any of our binders, schedules, announcements, or directions; adults would be referred to as Adult Partners only, and when we referred to the Student Leaders and Adult Partners together, it’d be as the Leadership Team.

Our students go through applications, interviews, and prep work to become Student Leaders, and this new way of explaining and unfolding the adult role not only respected that intensive process but upheld the importance of student leadership in the way we hoped it would. Adults are asked to take a backseat to student leaders. Students are the primary discussion leaders and are in charge of facilitation. Adults are expected to honor that and, while sitting with the group and accompanying them through the elements of the retreat, only make periodic contributions that help the students lead effectively. We hope Adult Partners will offer conversations ahead of the retreat to establish a dynamic, contribute sporadic follow-up questions during discussions on retreat, offer debriefs after discussions to affirm and mentor leaders, and, overall, serve as an understated but affable presence to help ensure the direction of the group as they engage with the retreat.

This new definition both affirmed our students with more formal recognition of their primary role in the retreat and helped our adults, who wanted to be involved in retreats but sometimes bristled at having too much asked of them, another ask heaped onto the busy day-to-day life of teachers.

That first crew of adult-partnered Student Leaders did fabulously, and while they certainly retained some doubts about our change, they did appreciate the new dynamic for various reasons. I think they overall felt less pressure and more support, and as the retreat unfolded, the reality that students were developing comfort, sharing vulnerably, and participating fully allayed their initial concerns. While they may have missed the old dynamic, they rolled with the new way smoothly and utilized their adult partners effectively. Over two years later, this is now the norm on our retreats, and the different groups of participants, student leaders, and adults are working well together.

I’m grateful to friends and colleagues who expressed support when I reached out to them, grateful for their rationales that went beyond simply agreeing sycophantically. But I’m also grateful to those Student Leaders. They knew what they wanted and had the conviction to explain why. Their openness helped us make an informed decision and craft our new approach with their concerns in mind. While not a literal meet-in-the-middle compromise, it felt good to make a change that didn’t just impose an adult’s decision but considered the input of teenagers. We then implemented an approach that ultimately affirmed them in their peer leadership role.