A Final Word

Dear Readers,

I hope you have enjoyed the Fishers of Youth blog and that it has helped you in your quest to bring the truth of the gospel to the younger generation. It has been my pleasure to write it, as I hope it has been your pleasure to read it.

However, after much prayer and consideration, I feel strongly that the season in my life of which this blog was a part has come to an end. God is calling me to a different path now. While I do not regret anything I have written on Fishers of Youth, I simply feel that I am supposed to move to something different at this time. What that thing is, I am not yet certain. But this, I am sorry to say, will be my last post on the Fishers of Youth Blog.

My prayer is that the things I have written here will continue to encourage and help you and all those who may happen upon them in the future. And although Fishers of Youth is now ended, I look forward to doing God's work in another way and another place in the near future. Perhaps that work will be a blessing to you, as I hope this blog has been.

Thank you so much for taking the time to visit and read the Fishers of Youth blog. May God bless you and bless others through you.

Sincerely,

Kyle Robert Shultz

We are updating our web site

Our main Fishers of Youth web site is in serious need of updating because of various changes we have made in our ministry program. Because of this, we have removed all links to the web site from the blog. When we have made the necessary changes, we will notify you in the blog and restore the links.

Thank you for your patience!

Note: One of the major changes we are making is the discontinuation of the Fishers of Youth e-zine. All articles released from Fishers of Youth will now be published in the blog. If you are a subscriber, please notify us at info@fishersofyouth.com and we will move your subscription to the blog, or you can do it manually by clicking the buttons in the sidebar on the left to subscribe (by email, Google Reader, or Yahoo).

The Real Enemy

By this time, after reading my articles and seeing the blogs and sites that link to them, people may be thinking that I am a member of the movement that has formed to protest what is called "The Emergent Church". Many of my articles are of an anti-Emergent genre. I disagree with many, if not all, of the tenets of the belief system promoted by the Emergent Church, and I feel that it presents a real danger to youth. That is why I have spent so much time discussing people that are a part of it (Rob Bell, for example).

In spite of this, however, I am not a "member" of those who have banded together to fight the Emergent Church. I appreciate their interest in and support of my blog, but I cannot really "join" their ranks because I disagree with them on two main points. First of all, their approach to the Emergent Church is often wholly unbiblical, in violation of 1 Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully." (Amplified Version, emphasis mine.) Making snide or insulting comments about the leaders of the Emergent Church will make their efforts to stop it ineffectual, even if their central message is correct. They give those Christians who disagree with Emergent philosophy a bad name.

But there is one other important point on which I disagree with these people. It is a mistake to limit the work of Satan against the body of Christ to the Emergent Church. It is a mistake to limit the work of Satan to anything. He does not remain within the confines of a specific group, religion, or nation. His influence is everywhere. While we are fighting him in the false ideas in a new Bible study at church, he may be attacking us in the form of a new "Christian" novel with an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. While we are struggling to keep Islam from pervading our schools, we may ignore the new witchcraft-related material added to the shelves of the school library. While we are trying to war with a threat from outside Christianity, he may be launching a campaign within the church itself. While we are dealing with the named, black-and-white dangers that come at us, Satan may be taking control of our own hearts.

Be vigilant! There is more to this world than what we can label and file away. We must be ever on our guard against any attack of the enemy on any front. If we fail to do this, it may prove fatal to our cause, and to our faith.

True or False?: Connie Neal

Connie Neal's popular title is "The MySpace Mom". She is a pop culture analyst, author, and speaker who has devoted two books and part of a third to analyzing the craze over the "Harry Potter" books (by J.K. Rowling) among young people today. Her books have become very popular among parents who are not sure how to respond to this controversial issue. However, while the solution prescribed in her books is easy and appears wise, it may very well not be Scriptural.

One thing I would like to make clear right now is that I am not writing this post to protest the Harry Potter books. I personally feel that the books directly contradict the Bible, but in this article I wish to focus primarily on Connie Neal's response to the Harry Potter books and her ideas about how parents should deal with them. This post will be longer than my articles usually are, as I want to take the time to thoroughly analyze Neal's interpretation of Scripture, step by step.

In the first chapter of her book "What's A Christian To Do With Harry Potter?", Neal discusses the conflicting responses of two people, a college English professor and a former Wiccan (both now Christians), when asked to compare the Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. Here is a quote that reveals the heart of Neal's ideology on popular culture:

Both [the English professor and the former Wiccan] referred to and compared the Harry Potter books to the Chronicles of Narnia ... however, their interpretations of Narnia and [Harry Potter] are contrary. These two Christian scholars came to entirely different conclusions about Harry Potter. What’s more, both wrote convincing arguments to support their cases for and against Harry Potter. Furthermore, I believe both of their conclusions are right -- for them!

Neal goes on to say:

It’s one thing to see how two people can look at the same work of literature and see two different things. But how can two Christians can use the same Bible and come to opposing positions about what is right, but still both be right with God? There is a biblical explanation for this, covered under the heading of disputable matters (found in Romans 14, 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10 which will be covered in more detail later). In such cases, where cultural, personal, and spiritual issues overlap, individual Christians have to finally agree to disagree. Sincere Bible-believing Christians, who seek the Lord with all their hearts, can be led by the same Holy Spirit to opposing conclusions. This is not relativism or situational ethics, not compromising our commitment to godly conduct under mere social or political pressure. This is a personal decision about the appropriateness of disputable conduct when there can be legitimate differences of opinion between Christians. Yes, the Bible does allow for cases. Frankly, this doctrine is in direct opposition to the Bible. God cannot contradict himself. The Holy Spirit is the same yesterday, today, and forever - he cannot lead one person to decide one thing about an issue and someone else to decide something completely different. As Christians, the more we follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the more we tend toward unity, not disunity. Neal's idea simply will not hold water.

Neal goes on to discuss Romans 14 and 15 in greater detail, going through them verse by verse. In order to make things completely clear, I will list the entire text of Neal's discussion here, along with my responses (quotes from Neal will be in plain text, my insertions will be in italics. I have also included the Biblical text from the Amplified Bible.) Neal prefaces by saying, "I have sometimes paraphrased the verse as applied to the Harry Potter issue. For sake of personal reference, I’ve listed the specific verse the point was drawn from at the start of each point. Those taken from Romans 14 only list the verse number; those taken from Romans 15 give chapter and verse:

· V:1 It is simply stated that some Christian’s faith allows them more freedom than others who have a conscientious objection on disputable matters. Paul describes those with stricter limitations as having “weaker faith” but he does not use this term in a derogatory way.

Romans 14:1 (AMP): "As for the man who is a weak believer, welcome him [into your fellowship], but not to criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with discussions." This verse is not saying, as Neal claims, that some Christians are more free than others in their faith. God's Word puts the same restrictions on everyone. This verse also makes no connection between people with "weaker faith" and people with "stricter limitations". "Limitations" are mentioned nowhere in the verse! As far as whether or not Paul's language was "derogatory", the word "weak" in and of itself is certainly not a compliment, or at least it should not appear so.

· V:3 The one with greater freedom (in this case, the one who feels comfortable reading Harry Potter) must not look down on those whose conscience restricts them.

Neal has skipped on to Verse 3 without considering Verse 2. Together, the next two verses of the chapter say this: (Verse 1) One [man's faith permits him to] believe he may eat anything, while a weaker one [limits his] eating to vegetables. (Verse 2) Let not him who eats look down on or despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains criticize and pass judgment on him who eats; for God has accepted and welcomed him. Though these verses can be applied to more things than just food, it is clear that this passage is addressing superficial conflicts akin to what kinds of food we should eat, not more fundamental things such as what we should allow our children to read.

· V:3 The one who does not (in our case, read Harry Potter) must not condemn the Christians who do.

But as I have already pointed out, the verse does not apply to "our case". The question of what our children should fill their minds with is a very pivotal one, a far greater question than whether one should eat meat or not. Philippians 4:8 is a better verse to use in "our case": For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence and is honorable and seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely and lovable, whatever is kind and winsome and gracious, if there is any virtue and excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on and weigh and take account of these things [fix your minds on them].

· V:1, 4 & 13 We are not to judge another Christian (implies judging them as deficient in Christ). We will all stand before the Lord to be judged and be held accountable before God for our conduct. Paul asks us a rhetorical question here and answers it, “Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”[6]

Verse 4: Who are you to pass judgment on and censure another's household servant? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he shall stand and be upheld, for the Master (the Lord) is mighty to support him and make him stand. Verse 13: Then let us no more criticize and blame and pass judgment on one another, but rather decide and endeavor never to put a stumbling block or an obstacle or a hindrance in the way of a brother. Judging a person and admonishing a Christian who has fallen into error are two very different things. In judging someone, we imply that we feel we know what they do and do not "deserve" according to what wrong they have done. However, the Bible tells us to correct, rebuke, and in some cases even shun Christians who "persist in sin" (see 1 Timothy 5:20). If the claims made about the Harry Potter books are true, then reading them would be a sin according to the Bible. In that case, we would have every right to confront people who allow those books into their homes.

· v:5 Each person should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Romans 14:5 (AMP): One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike [sacred]. Let everyone be fully convinced (satisfied) in his own mind. Once again, this verse is not talking about fundamental conflicts, but peripheral concepts such as what day of the week we should consecrate. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever if you're fully convinced in your own mind about Harry Potter if it's sinful to read Harry Potter.

· V:13 Stop passing judgment on one another. (Notice that this is not directed to one side or the other as some of the directives in this passage. He’s saying, Both sides, STOP IT!) Instead, make up your mind not to stumble a fellow Christian (by leading or provoking him to do something contrary to that which his conscience allows).

Romans 14:13: Then let us no more criticize and blame and pass judgment on one another, but rather decide and endeavor never to put a stumbling block or an obstacle or a hindrance in the way of a brother. All right, let's say Mrs. Neal's interpretation of this passage is correct, and it applies to the question of Harry Potter. Then according to this verse, could not a Christian's reading Harry Potter become a "stumbling block" to another person, possibly causing them to think Christians approve of witchcraft?

· V:14 The same behavior can be right for one Christian and wrong for another.

Romans 14:14: I know and am convinced (persuaded) as one in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is [forbidden as] essentially unclean (defiled and unholy in itself). But [none the less] it is unclean (defiled and unholy) to anyone who thinks it is unclean. Neal has completely misinterpreted this verse. This passage is not talking about "behavior" but about personal convictions involving "clean" and "unclean" foods. If one uses Neal's interpretation, then wouldn't that mean that "behaviors" such as adultery, homosexuality, abortion, gossip, etc. are permissible for some Christians? If we can't carry the interpretation this far, then it must not be valid at all.

V: 15-16 Those who have freedom in disputable matters should be sensitive not to distress those who are conscientious objectors.

Romans 14:15-16: But if your brother is being pained or his feelings hurt or if he is being injured by what you eat, [then] you are no longer walking in love. [You have ceased to be living and conducting yourself by the standard of love toward him.] Do not let what you eat hurt or cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died! Do not therefore let what seems good to you be considered an evil thing [by someone else]. [In other words, do not give occasion for others to criticize that which is justifiable for you.] What does Neal mean by "freedom"? Freedom is mentioned nowhere in these verses. Neither is the concept of a "conscientious objector" expressed. Again, this passage is talking about peripheral controversies, not central issues of right and wrong.

· V:17 The kingdom of God is not a matter of what we conclude -- either way -- on disputable matters. It is about righteousness (each of us being right with God, in Christ’s righteousness and in keeping our consciences clean as led by the Holy Spirit); it is about peace (with God and others in the body of Christ), and joy in the Holy Spirit. The context of this verse makes it clear that they were dealing with disputable matters that some Christians considered right and others considered it wrong. Therefore, the joy of the Holy Spirit is the joy of a clean conscience and also the joy of Christian fellowship -- which was lost when Christians were caught up in judging and condemning each other openly.

Romans 14:17: [After all] the kingdom of God is not a matter of [getting the] food and drink [one likes], but instead it is righteousness (that state which makes a person acceptable to God) and [heart] peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Neal is making a fatal flaw in assuming that the Harry Potter issue is a "disputable matter". There is one answer to the question of whether or not the books are all right for Christians to read. That answer can be found by comparing the doctrines of the books with Scripture. Dispute, judging, condemnation, etc. need not take place if we simply accept what the Bible tells us to do.

V:19 Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace and the spiritual building up of
individual Christians and of the church.

Romans 14:19: So let us then definitely aim for and eagerly pursue what makes
for harmony and for mutual upbuilding (edification and development) of one
another. By all means! We should do everything necessary, including putting aside petty
squabbles over secondary matters, in order to achieve unity in the body of Christ. However,
this verse in no way means that we should compromise our fundamental beliefs about right
and wrong according to God's Word in order to achieve unity. If we do, we will have unity,
but it will no longer be in the body of Christ.

· V:20-22 Keep your opinions on disputable matters between yourself and God. If you have freedom, don’t flaunt it before those you know are troubled by what you do.

Romans 14:20-22: You must not, for the sake of food, undo and break down and destroy the work of God! Everything is indeed [ceremonially] clean and pure, but it is wrong for anyone to hurt the conscience of others or to make them fall by what he eats. The right thing is to eat no meat or drink no wine [at all], or [do anything else] if it makes your brother stumble or hurts his conscience or offends or weakens him. Your personal convictions [on such matters]--exercise [them] as in God's presence, keeping them to yourself [striving only to know the truth and obey His will]. Blessed (happy, ^[a]to be envied) is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves [who does not convict himself by what he chooses to do].

All Christians have the same "freedom"! There is only one Bible. It applies to everyone. We are all under the same rules. And "freedom" is not discussed in this passage.

· V:22 Blessed (happy) is the man who does not condemn himself for what he approves. This applies to everyone, once each one is fully convinced in his or her own mind, that individual can happily enjoy what others might not be able to enjoy. (This is in keeping with the “whatever you do” verses in 1 Cor. 10:31, Col. 3:17 & 23. If you can do “whatever you do” -- in this case, reading Harry Potter-- heartily, as unto the Lord, to the glory of God, with all your heart, and commit it to the Lord as in Pr. 16:3, then you can be happy about it.)

So, playing by Neal's rules, if a doctor performing an abortion is enjoying it and doing it "to the glory of God", then there's nothing wrong with it? The Bible sets far higher standards than this.

· V: 23 If you’ve taken responsibility for your own opinion as you stand accountable before God, fully convinced in your own mind (v.5) on the basis of true information, prayerful consideration, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, but you still have doubts about Harry Potter, don’t read it. The rule for personal conduct in disputable matters is this: when in doubt, don’t! If doubts remain, you would be in sin to do whatever you’re in doubt over, because everything that does not come from faith is sin. This is how something that is not a sin for one person could be a sin for another.

Romans 14:23: But the man who has doubts (misgivings, an uneasy conscience) about eating, and then eats [perhaps because of you], stands condemned [before God], because he is not true to his convictions and he does not act from faith. For whatever does not originate and proceed from faith is sin [whatever is done without a conviction of its approval by God is sinful]. Sin is sin. It's the same for one person as it is for another. This verse is not saying that sin differs from person to person.

· 15:2 Make it your aim to build each other up in the body of Christ.

Romans 15:2: Let each one of us make it a practice to please (make happy) his neighbor for his good and for his true welfare, to edify him [to strengthen him and build him up spiritually]. If we allow someone to continue in a practice that may be harming their family and their faith without warning them about it, are we "building them up in the body of Christ"?

· 15:2 Accept one another -- even if you come to different conclusions about the suitability of Harry Potter.

This verse says nothing about acceptance. I don't advocate that we should refuse to associate with people just because they read Harry Potter, but I also don't advocate ignoring the topic.

· 15:7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

But don't compromise!


It's clear that Connie Neal has based her entire approach to the subject of Harry Potter on a significantly flawed interpretation of Romans 14-15. Because of this, her whole argument falls apart. If you're trying to decide where to stand on the issue of Harry Potter, do your own research. Inquire of the Word of God and compare its teachings to those of J.K. Rowling. We may be in serious danger if we rely only on what Connie Neal tells us about Harry Potter.

True or False? - Stephen Baldwin

Stephen Baldwin is rapidly becoming a household name in the church today. As a famous actor who suddenly and surprisingly became a Christian after 9/11, he's gotten both good and bad press from the secular media - and mostly good press from the Christian media. His new books, films, and projects have mostly been geared toward youth, and the Christian market has responded overwhelmingly.

What concerns me is that, apparently, no one has really taken the time to carefully weigh Baldwin's teachings and ideas before thrusting them upon youth and youth ministry. The general consensus seems to be, "He's popular, he's 'hip', he's Christian, he'll work. He's a little over-the-top, but I think we can risk it." No, we can't risk anything where the souls of young people are concerned. In your youth ministry, never use any teachings without making one-hundred-percent sure that they line up with the Bible.

So, let's take a closer look at what Baldwin is saying. First of all, he has recently begun publishing a series of "Christian comic books" called "Spirit Warriors", aimed at preteen and teen age groups. I have personally read these books, and I can say with complete certainty that they do not promote the kind of Christianity we want to teach to youth. The books are rife with violence on the part of the characters who are supposed to be Christian, and they present God's power as something that Christians can harness and use against their enemies. If one takes the time to read what Baldwin says about faith and Christianity elsewhere, the content of these books is no longer surprising. Baldwin's entire approach is excessively bold, angry and "in-your-face". But there's more to it than that.

Baldwin is a major promoter of the "make the church look more like the world in order to attract youth" approach to youth ministry. "If you bring the kids dorkville they don't listen," he once said in an interview. "If you bring them really cool, they'll listen ... because all of this is really about sharing the news about a man named Jesus Christ."

First of all, how can normal, unaltered Christianity patterned on a Biblical paradigm be called "dorkville"? Is Baldwin calling Christians who don't use "contemporary" Bible paraphrases and don't dress in black, Gothic-style clothes with Christian symbols on them "dorks"? As I am one of these people, I find Baldwin's comment offensive and completely un-Christian. If he thinks Christianity has to be offered in the context he defines as "really cool" in order to appeal to youth, his theory is wrong both empirically and biblically. Also, why did he define the Son of God as "a man named Jesus Christ"? Aren't we supposed to tell youth that Jesus is something far more than that?

The other cause for concern in Baldwin's teachings is the way he talks about his life before his conversion. I'm not trying to condemn him in saying these, but there are quite a few things in his past that he has reason to regret and feel some sense of shame over. I am not judging him; I say this based on what Baldwin himself has freely admitted. He led a life full of sexual sin and starred in many movies with blatantly immoral scenes. As Baldwin is now a Christian, these things should no longer be held against him - that is, if he has sincerely repented of them. But when he talks about them now, it is with more pride than regret. He spends nearly half of the first chapter of his new book, "The Unusual Suspect", talking about how he knew which steps of the staircase to the basement of the Playboy mansion triggered a silent alarm. He is not at all graphic in his descriptions of what he did or saw in his former life. I'm not accusing him of that. I merely object to the tone in which he discusses these things. As a Christian, his attitude toward his past should be one of abhorrence and repentance. That is not what one finds in his book. You can read the first chapter at his web site, stephenbaldwin.com, and see what I mean.

Here is the most offensive quote I have found from Stephen Baldwin so far. I hesitate to post it here, but I feel my readers need to understand fully why I am rebuking Baldwin. He speaks of his book, "The Unusual Suspect":

“Well, I jokingly call it 'The Gospel According to Stevie B.' I said some things in the book that I’m getting a lot of flack about—people are saying, 'Well you can’t talk about sex and you can’t talk about this.' Well, as long as it’s sex with your wife and as long as it’s within a decent taste [it’s ok]. I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of the Christian movement being so stuffy and farty. The whole thing’s gotta relax. It’s the reason why people are so against it here in America.”

If Baldwin objects to the status of the Christian movement, must he condemn it in such an excessively blunt and even profane way? It would be more to his advantage for him to logically present his objections and then discuss, with courtesy and respect, what the Christian response to the problem should be. And no, it is not correct to talk about sexual intercourse - something that God has meant as a private, beautiful thing between a man and a woman - in a flippant manner, even if it is between a man and his wife. As for "The Gospel According to Stevie B.", wouldn't it be better for him to talk about "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ"? To use such a phrase borders on irreverence.

In your youth ministry, do not make the mistake of using Stephen Baldwin as an example of someone who has made a complete turn-around and is now following Jesus with his whole heart. His actions, words, and attitude are not befitting a true Christian. Give youth a better role model if you want to make headway in leading them to Christ.

True or False? - Rob Bell

Rob Bell is the founder and pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. He attended Wheaton College without any specific goal in mind as to what he would study. At this time, he gained some attention locally from his work with the indie rock band _ton bundle. (That was not a typo). His rise to popularity in the Christian sphere later on was due to the NOOMA films, a series of short ministry films. Recently, he authored two books, “Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith” (Zondervan, 2005) and “Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality” (Zondervan, 2007). As he is relatively young and increasingly popular, many Christians consider his teachings to be useful in youth ministry. As a youth minister, it is highly likely that you will hear of or have already heard of Bell and his ministry.

However, as with all teachings, those of Rob Bell must be compared with the Word of God in order to determine whether or not they are true. Let's look at a quote from Bell in which he discusses the Bible:

The Bible itself, he writes, is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted. He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader's bias and current realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.

“It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,” Bell writes. (Online source.)

The idea that the Bible must be "re-interpreted" is one of the most dangerous doctrines in Christianity today. There is only one correct interpretation for each verse of Scripture, and those interpretations do not change over time, just as God does not change. And what does Bell mean in saying that "Scripture alone" will not answer all questions? Sure, it won't tell you which pair of socks to put on in the morning, but answers to every problem a Christian faces can, indeed, be found in the Scriptures. If this is not true, then why even waste time going to the Bible for help?

In his books, the Bible translation primarily used by Bell is the new TNIV (Today's New International Version). Not only is this translation a paraphrase, but it is gender-neutralized, to the extent that it changes the meanings of many Bible verses. If Bell is using this "translation" as his guide, how much can we really trust his teachings to be accurate?

Elsewhere, Bell says, "We're rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life." An Eastern religion? Are we going to incorporate Hindu philosophy into our faith, like the New Agers, and thus come up with a mystical, humanistic "new" gospel?

And finally, let's simply look at the title of Bell's latest book: "Sex God". If that wasn't irreverent enough, what about the title of the first chapter, "God Wears Lipstick". How could anyone who truly wants to glorify God through his teachings and ministry ever make light of God in such a vulgar fashion?

Throughout his writings, Bell emphasizes "the glory of mankind" and proclaims a self-centered gospel based upon inaccurate paraphrases of Scripture and the teachings of less-than-Christian philosophers. I have only been able to give a short synopsis of his false teachings here, but I would encourage you to do more research on your own. As a youth minister, you must be zealously careful to analyze each new "fad" in Christianity using the Bible to keep false, detrimental teachings from pervading your ministry. Remember 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, do not put faith in every spirit, but prove (test) the spirits to discover whether they proceed from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world." (Emphasis mine.)

Note: The views and opinions expressed on sites linked to in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Fishers of Youth.

A Musical Balancing Act

Perhaps one of the most hotly debated issues in Christianity today is worship music. What styles are right and what styles are wrong? Are all of them acceptable? Does it even make a difference?

I think it does.

There are two extremes in this debate. There are people who believe (in essence) that all Christian music written before 1960 should be thrown out and that worship should be done in a completely contemporary style. Others think that only the old hymns are acceptable for worship. Which view is correct? Well, to be honest, neither is entirely correct.

Let's look specifically at how this applies to youth. First of all, it isn't true that all young people despise old hymns, so don't make this generalization in your youth ministry. Don't be afraid to incorporate older worship music into your youth activities. A lot of hymns written in the 17th and 18th centuries (and even earlier than that) have appealing melodies and worshipful lyrics that even young people will like. However, many (not all) of the hymns and even gospel songs written in the 19th and early 20th centuries have lyrics that are somewhat simplistic and trite. It's important to carefully examine all music you're considering using to make sure it's reverent and harmonious, and that it glorifies God.

These same guidelines apply to contemporary worship music. One point that is important to make here is that not all young people like contemporary music. You don't have to use rock and rap in your youth ministry. As a matter of fact, I would not use them at all. You may disagree with me on this. But can you really say that these music styles are reverent and that they give glory to God? Plus, when you bring these music styles into the church, you inevitably bring with them a very sinful culture. That's why many young "Christian rock" groups dress and act in ways that are offensive to many people: it goes with the music. You really don't want to take that risk.

However, there are many, many worship songs that are done in a contemporary style that are not irreverent and that will appeal to most people. These are very good options. Try to choose from this group if you're attempting to bring more contemporary music into your youth ministry.

In general, your music should be within the boundaries of reverence and humility. We are bringing an offering to the throne of God when we worship, not just putting on a show. If our worship is driven by a love for Jesus and a genuine desire to please him, then we are on the right track. Do whatever is necessary to make your worship pleasing and glorifying to the Son of God.