by Mark Oestreicher
I recently finished Youth Ministry 3.0. For a little while it was a hard book to get hold of in our area. I was highly interested in it. While writing the book Mark posted various chapters on his blog. I enjoyed those posts and looked forward to the release of the full blown manifesto.
Book Summary: The basic argument of Mark's book is that youth culture has gone through three cycles of emphasis: identity (who am I?), autonomy (what makes me different?), affinity (how do I fit in?). However, he believes youth ministry has yet to transition into the culture of affinity. We're stuck in the past of being unique, different, and flashy. He finishes the book by calling youth ministries to be more relationally present to teens in their settings, sub-contexts and culture.
Pros: I honestly believe that youth ministry is heading to a more relationally and missionally minded future. Its been happening for awhile (I think most of the argument of current youth ministry is an argument about churches from the 80's/90's. As a younger youth minister I haven't seen as much about what these older guys are talking about!). Teens are looking for a place to belong and discover how they can be both unique and still fit into a group. That's exactly what the body of Christ is! Many parts, one body. The other good news is that I believe this is where the entire church is heading. I don't believe that Identity/Autonomy/Affinity are designations for teens alone. It's a culture that adults are trekking through as well (World War 2 wasn't just an identity discover for teens. Adults were discovering their role in our country/world!). Youth ministries have a great opportunity to pave the way through our successes and failures!
Cons: What inevitably will happen, and already has started in some aspects, is that many well meaning people will completely jump on this "new" idea, labeling everything else ineffective and unbiblical. Transition won't happen. It's either, you're with us or against us. I've already heard a lot of people attacking the "attractional model" of mega-churches. What most of them are talking about is one aspect (typically the worship service) of an wider ministry. They judge it by a Sunday morning (like "Jim and Caper"), yet don't consider what's going on throughout the week in the communities, neighborhoods, and schools.
All in all, I believe Mark is pointing in the direction we are heading. This is a book that should be read, and will likely be built upon in months and years to come by various other authors and church leaders.
3 comments:
thanks, bro!
Re: your "Cons" section...
I think you're right. However, it does bear mention that most people in America only experience church as a Sunday morning thing. Most non-Christians, in fact, aren't aware at all that anything much happens in a church outside of Sundays, unless there's a wedding or a funeral. For most people, church is an hour a week...and if they don't like that hour, there's little we can do to say, "Yeah, but look at all the weekly programs!" The response to that is, "I work 40-60 hours a week, and you want me to give a crap about the church's Wednesday night program? I'm off on Sundays. MAKE SUNDAY BETTER!"
...but like I said, I do think you're right about what you're saying. And fortunately, there's more than one kind of church, so the folks who don't like the mega-church on Sunday mornings might like a 300-person church. There are many options available. If you don't like McDonalds, you might like Arby's...
I'm referring more to church leaders than paritioners. Church leaders judge other churches by their sunday morning service, and fail to look at the totality of the ministry. I think if you were to ask the paritioners of the church, a majority (not all obviously) would tell you that the church is more than just about Sunday "attractional" ministry. That it's about benevolence, small group settings, etc whether they're involved in it or not.
Unfortunately, we tend to justify our own ministry by either comparing it to another ministry (whether it be numerically or philosophically).
Post a Comment