a thoughtful summary and critique of ym3.0, part 2

via blog recently posted a thoughtful and extended summary and critique of youth ministry 3.0, including a really cool version of the chart i developed for the book with and additional row (see the post from yesterday for the chart). yesterday, i posted the half that was a summary. today, the critique.

The strength of this book is its accessibility and inspirationality (hey, if Marko can make up words, so can I! :-) ). I do commend this to anyone working in youth work, or as even some have suggested, to anyone working in the church as it will quickly help to bring understanding, language & articulation, and community to the feelings and “sensings” that happen to all who are passionate yet frustrated, visionary yet stuck in a rut, and truly desirous of influence and revolution yet feel trapped and ineffective.

[In an information age, it is easy to get overwhelmed on research and data, and ultimately how much we can truly understand. So, for that, I’m thankful for the “Mavens” (as Malcolm Gladwell puts it, those who are information collectors) who are willing to assimilate the information into reachable and usable forms].

I would suggest, however, that some caution must also be taken when reading a book like this. As it is brief and to the point, and powerfully motivating and inspiring, it can (ironically) compromise some bigger contextual realities that are critical to the driving points. I offer the following as a loving critique (perhaps “supplemental” to the others that already exist), not necessarily a direct “criticism” of his ideas.


Whenever there are shifts and changes, there is always a human tendency to think “replacement” rather than “redemption.” We’ve done this theologically with Judaism (which is a whole other discussion), and we do this on pragmatic and philosophical levels in ministry as well. When it comes to YM3.0, many may tout this paradigm to be “better” than YM1.0/2.0 (many already have). Marko actually does a good job tempering this from becoming, what I call, an overt “generational chauvinism.” Yet there are still hints of it in the book, especially when talking about programming.

Subtly, while “proclamation-” and “program-driven” ideologies are categories of older eras, I don’t believe it’s fair/honest to say we ought to abandon these “ways” (i.e. “models”), as is inferenced in this book. I think what Marko is critiquing (and rightfully so) is not the “vehicles” of the ministry, but the “values” of it. In other words, we can still “proclaim” and “program” today and for the future of YM3.0 (and we do, as exemplified by the examples he gives in the book; if we’re honest, they really are “programs.”) But, what we must do is ask the ever so potent questions of “why” and “how” we are proclaiming and producing our programs. They may take new forms, and they may be imbued with new meanings, but the essence of what proclaiming and programming is remains essentially the same, a fundamental thread in the fabric of our existence.

Quickly, books and blogs are essentially a “proclamation” vehicle. Multiple-youth-groups is a new way of programming. And, it’s ironic to write in a book that “contextualized youth ministry doesn’t come from a book or a conference.” (86) Perhaps. But the idea, the ethic, the concept is coming through the vehicle of books and conferences, blogs, etc.

To sum, I believe many have come to want to abandon “programs,” not because “programming” is bad, but because “program” had unconsciously become the value, rather than simply understanding it as the vehicle. We still need to get from point A to point B in life and in ministry. We just also ought to think carefully that we are not abandoning certain forms (e.g. “proclamation” and “programming”) mistakenly for new values (e.g. “presence”). That is, in my opinion, a false dichotomization that could be more damaging than helpful. [2] And as I mentioned “redemption” above, perhaps a better way to view what we do is to think that we are in the business of redeeming old vehicles (e.g., the “program”) for their original purpose, infusing them with fresh values (e.g. “presence”).

Why is this point so important? Because the YM1.0/2.0/3.0 shift is a cultural “context” that is deeply informative and foundational to what we do (again, Marko does a good job recognizing the values of the past). And our acceptance of this “redemption” reality is critical to the principles of humility and harmony that are essential to YM3.0, and 4.0, and … etc., as we move into the future. (Some of this idea comes from The Leadership Challenge, specifically Part 4 “Challenging The Process”).


I’ve added the bottom row (audaciously and humbly) to Marko’s graph for the simple reason that if a shift in “thinking” is what is needed, then we must also understand the epistemological shifts as well. Now, this opens up a whole new area for discussion that is too lengthy for a blog post like this. However, I believe it’s helpful to have at least some epistemological introspection. As I have critiqued Marko’s summation of adolescence as being very brief, so shall I follow suit with epistemology.

I would suggest that in YM1.0, our epistemological ethic was “We know what you don’t know.” And for the most part, a lot of that was true. Older generations had what younger generations didn’t. However, as information shifted, technology advanced, and the balance of power and authority began to erode with those developments, we began to understand that kids actually know more than we do (YM2.0). Hence we came understand that “You know what we don’t know.” (Leonard Sweet uses the story of his 10 year old telling him how to program the VCR). For the first time in history, younger generations had what older generations didn’t. And worse than that, what older generations needed. That is the dawning of the information and technological age. However, as information becomes ubiquitous, and anyone anywhere can access virtually any information for any reason from any device, and they can do it faster and more remotely than ever before, information becomes less valued. (Enter YM3.0 and Marko’s writings on “experience.”) I suggest the new epistemology is, “Who cares what anybody knows?” Because you can access “known” material anywhere, at any time, information is less of a valued/precious commodity. Information is no longer power, at least in the same way it was.

What I don’t know, is what I haven’t experienced. I do wish Marko had spent more time on this in his book, as this may be one of the most critical pieces for all the issues of identity, autonomy, and affinity; that these three come through what one experiences, rather than what one understands/knows.


In academic terms, epistemology is giving way to phenomenology. This needs to be understood in two ways. What can be known and understood is less important than what is experienced. AND, what is known and understood comes through what is experienced. That’s why the shifting in YM3.0 must take place, but also why proclamation and programming can’t be thrown away. We have to retool the program, and we have to re-translate our proclamations to become “cultural anthropologists” (as mentioned in the book, cf. Tim Keel’s Intuitive Leadership), because if a proclamation (through various kinds of rhetoric) and the environment (through various kinds of programing) can provide the appropriate experiences (the phenomenological result inside a person’s soul), then we will have appropriately and synergistically brought our ideas and pragmatism together, and we can charge into the new era and YM3.0 with confidence. To reiterate, these pieces are critical, and as I suggest, the very vehicles through which this experience comes.

I truly sense that if we don’t hold to this reality, to this tension appropriately, we will simply “react” to what “doesn’t work,” and fall back into “replacement” thinking. We need to think “redemptively,” which is in many ways, simply a realignment of what we do with what we believe.


The only last comment I’ll make is to suggest that while Marko’s book is fantastically adequate for the youth workers who need this kind of exhortation, I lament that often times church workers only get this kind of insight through ministry-minded and “Christian” books, (like Shaping of Things to Come). While there is nothing wrong with this, if we’re not intentional at reading and experiencing the world outside the context of the church, we’ll never fully appreciate and understand what it means to be The Church. The flip side to the “context” coin is “contrast,” seeing ideas and concepts through various lenses, not just our predisposed set. Much of the big cultural ideas can be found in business and marketing books (e.g., Jim Collins, Seth Godin, Patrick Lencioni), publications by journalists (Malcolm Gladwell, Paul Tough), scientists (biologists, cosmologists, etc.) (www.TED.com, Charles Darwin…yup), and a host of other “secular” sources. I hope that we’ll open our scope a bit bigger, and value discovery, no matter where it comes from.

[NOTE: This last point is not a critique of Marko’s book. Simply a general observation and exhortation.]

Thanks Marko, for giving us an opportunity to think, and to think well about what we do.

[2] This could also simply be a game of semantics.

2 thoughts on “a thoughtful summary and critique of ym3.0, part 2”

  1. cool section under the “ministry myopia” heading.
    being in a dominantly secular culture here, there is an enormous chasm between secular youthwork and faith-affliated youthwork. i’m not sure if it’s the same in other places – but we tend to experience a euphoric rush of “oh – people like us, with experiences like us” when we all get together.

  2. WOW!!!! These last two posts sum up (in much larger words…and more of them) what i have been feeling about 3.0. Thanks, Marko for being so open with your thoughts through the book and blog, AND for being so open to such diverse responses to 3.0

    There is discussion (dare I say book) fodder strewn through-out these posts that has gotten me to thinking…especially the myopic nature of ministry…YES!

Leave a Reply