When I was doing research for the series on the Future of Youth Ministry, I came across Youth Ministry 3.0
Marko states that it’s time for youth ministry 3.0, that the previous ‘versions’ of youth ministry have failed. His main argument for the failure is found in the extended adolescence phenomenon, which he describes briefly in his book. Youth ministry he states has not adapted its method to this cultural change.
Version 1.0 (roughly till the 1970’s) was fixated on identity and its main themes were evangelism and correction (the idea was that youth culture was bad, something that needed to be avoided). Version 2 was fixated on autonomy and its themes were discipleship and creating a positive peer group. This was mainly done through programs.
Marko proposes a Youth Ministry version 3.0 which is fixated on affinity and which has communion and mission as its key themes. Teenagers are looking for a place to belong and we need to help them find out where they belong. And this youth ministry should not be driven by anything, but should just be present. He basically renounces all programs and everything ‘big’ in youth ministry. Everything should be small, organic, contextualized.
I agree mostly with his ‘typing’ of youth ministry in the past, though I have a problem with stating youth ministry 2.0 was focused on discipleship. Discipleship in the sense of Christian living, living out rules, maybe, but not discipleship in the sense of becoming a true follower of Christ. If that had been the case, the number of teens leaving the church would have looked completely different.
Marko is right that what we are doing right now in youth ministry doesn’t work. Something needs to change. But his main argument, the extended adolescence phenomenon, seems like too limited a reason for me. I agree that extended adolescence is a major cultural shift that should have consequences for how we do youth ministry. But it’s not the only factor we should look at. There are more cultural elements we should take into account. Stating we need to change our youth ministry to adapt it to just this reality seems too limited to me.
Youth Ministry 3.0 should be missional and communial says Marko. I think he’s right, though I would rather define communial as discipleship. True discipleship is about being together, learning together, growing together. It’s in discipleship that we find our purpose in life, where we belong. Maybe I’ve missed it, but in the whole being communal approach I missed out on the importance of content, of theology so to speak.
It’s with the complete denouncement of programs and everything ‘big’ that I disagree most. Yes, we have done too many programs, too many big events in the past, I get that. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do any at all anymore. Worship for one is something that is more powerful in a big group than in a smaller setting. I believe youth services still have their place in youth ministry, besides other more small-scale activities.
And it’s the same with programs. Small groups are a program, as are youth services. They both have their merits, as do other programs. Besides, especially with a big youth ministry everything can’t be organic and spontaneous, you need programs to be able to manage the whole thing. I do think that there should be more contextualized activities, I’m with Marko there. But that doesn’t mean everything else has to go.
All in all, I do really recommend Youth Ministry 3.0
Have you read Youth Ministry 3.0? What did you think of it?
Related posts:
- The future of youth ministry: analyzing the present
- The future of youth ministry: 3 lessons from the past
- Book review: Improving your serve
- The future of youth ministry: why you should care
- The future of youth ministry: two major changes that need to be made
- Book review: Communicating for a change
It’s a good book, and contains some very good points and ideas. I find the separation of event, programme and relationship to be a little artificial, though. We like to think that our youth projects are based on relationship (and have been for years), but we deliver those projects via planned programmes – the programme is the framework that provides the setting and opportunity for relationships to be built and developed.
Similarly, there remains a place for the big event. Back in September, we had Will Graham (Billy’s grandson) speaking to a crowd of 400ish, and saw 70 responses (including over 30 first-time commitments). For me, the immediate future of youth work does lie in relational work, but there remains a valid place for programmes and events too.
I agree with you Dave that programs still are a valid method, a framework that enables relationships. I can’t see how a youth ministry could function practically without any programs at all. And yes, I feel big events are okay as long as they support relational youth ministry and aren’t a goal in itself.
Thank you for the candid and extremely well written book review. I find your review very fair and balanced compare to other book reviews. Discipleship ( raising up life time mature followers of Christ) is the core emphasis of any ministry. How we get there may look different. Programs, Relationship, Organic group, small groups, Big Events, and etc are all methods. God is so wise and omnipotent enough that He uses all these methods to build His Church for His Glory. God is big enough to use a 55 year old white surburban baptist lady who is a Sunday School teacher to reach a 10 year old inner city kid for the glory of His name. God is big enough to use every tool to accomplish His purpose.
You’re so right James, God can use each method. And I love that example you used! God can work through every faulty vessel as long as we’re available…I think it’s good to critically evaluate what we do, to see if it’s as effective as it could be. But ultimately it’s about obedience, doing what God tells us to do. And discipleship should be at the core of it all and I don’t think it has been. That’s something I feel really needs to change…
This is a really good book. I’m currently half way through it, having sort of skimmed it before and I like what I’m reading!
Good to hear Jack, I’d love to hear your thoughts when you’re done!
thanks for the thoughtful review!
one bit of clarification: i don’t think i wrote that the reason for the failure of the 2.0 approach is the phenomena of extended adolescence. instead, it’s the substantive shifts in the prioritization of the three adolescent tasks (at least in the states). 2.0 was an attempt (culturally appropriate in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, though tough to support biblically) that the primary need of teenagers (and youth culture in general) was autonomy. in that context, an isolated youth group seemed like a good idea. of course, we’re reaping all the problems of that approach today. but as youth culture became the dominant culture (again, at least in america), the real culture teenagers live in splintered into thousands of youth cultures. with that shift, affinity–or belonging–became the priority of the three tasks. my suggestion is that youth ministries focused on autonomy are outdated (and failing) in an epoch where belonging is the lens through which the average teenager views the world, and views the other two tasks (identity and autonomy).
Hey Marko, thanks for stopping by and for taking the time to clarify some things. I truly appreciate that! You’re right, you never stated that the extended adolescence phenomenon was the reason for the failure of youth ministry 2.0. But I do think you meant to say it’s the reason why trying to do youth ministry 2.0 in today’s world will fail, or did I get that wrong? I agree that today’s teens long to belong and I think that’s something youth ministries should focus on. It’s just the how that we differ a bit on…though I’m very much in agreement with you that things need to change dramatically in youth ministry!
hey rachel — actually, i really don’t think i knew much about extended adolescence when i wrote that book. i’ve learned a lot more about it since then, and have blogged a bunch about it (and even hosted a 1-day event on the subject last week). i probably also have more nuance in my thinking today about why 2.0 failed (remember, i wrote that book 4 years ago). the reason i suggest in the book (which i still think is true, but only part of the picture) was the shift in priorities in youth culture, and the cburch’s lack of responsiveness. 1.0 youth workers created 1.0 youth ministries that we culturally appropriate to their times. 2.0 youth workers (1970 – 2000, roughly) created 2.0 youth ministries, also in response to the values of the youth culture they were living in. but we haven’t changed since then, and youth culture has. that’s the rub: we’re using 2.0 approaches (perfected for the adolescent task of autonomy) in a time when youth culture has moved on to a dominant need for affinity/belonging. the nuance i would add to it these days, were i writing the book again, is two-fold:
1. programs aren’t evil. i think i made it sound as if it were an either/or proposition. “program,” in the words of kurt johnston at saddleback, “are merely the things we do.” of course, the problem with 2.0 is focus on programs, the worship of programs, which objectifies teenagers and results in manipulation (often).
2. the other nuance, though, is that i don’t think that 2.0 focus was ever all that easy to support biblically, at least not in the way we worked it out by creating isolated youth groups where teenagers lose all contact with the church at large. IF, instead, we had pursued a set of values and methodologies in response to the youth culture fixation on autonomy by helping teenagers understand their autonomy (which is really a question of ‘why and how much choices matter’) as an opportunity to actively participate in the ongoing restoration work of christ in the world, well then, maybe we’d be in a different place today.
It’s funny, I realized I may have been reading your book through what you know now about extended adolescence. I follow your blog and other blog posts and articles about extended adolescence and I was very interested in the symposium (you guys should do one in Europe sometime…I’d definitely be there!) So in my eyes you were kind of an ‘expert’ on this issue and I read your book through that filter, not fully realizing it was written four years ago. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for your two nuances, I couldn’t agree more. Isn’t it interesting to see how your own vision and insights evolve over time? We’re never done learning.
I think you’re very right when you say we need a youth ministry that’s adapted to the realities of the current postmodern youth culture, with its longing for affinity. If I may be so bold, I think we even see more of that in Europe than you guys do in the US. Take my home country The Netherlands for example, that is truly postmodern in every way. The church plays no significant role in society any more. Yet the church in general has a hard time adapting to this reality and is losing young people in heartbreaking numbers. Youth ministry needs to change if we want to turn that tide…