This summer’s big regional youth conference has been cancelled. Because of tunes.
The leader of the denominational office notified all the churches in the region that he decided to pull the plug. The reason? Conference organizers had planned to use Christian songs that did not come from the official denominational worship book.
He cited church rules that require the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda” and “theologically correct hymns and materials.”
So, what has been gained by the cancellation of the youth conference? Well, the churches’ teenagers have been protected from attending a conference and hearing Christian songs penned by “unapproved” Christian composers. Instead, the kids spent the time at home listening to their usual secular songs.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case of churches’ desperate attempts to cling to their man-made sectarian rules, relics and soapboxes. They’re in survival mode. But their actions amount to acts of institutional suicide.
Most denominations in America are shrinking—some rather precipitously. Financial giving is down. Generally, the influence of the church in American culture is dimming. Faith in the institution of the church is waning, particularly among the young.
In the face of these negative trends, many church bodies have taken a bunker mentality. They’ve attempted to isolate, tighten controls, lob grenades at anyone outside their bunker, dig in and clutch what’s left inside.
Some believe their only chance for survival lies in denominational brand distinctiveness. And they’re resolved to ride their quaint distinctives to the very end. They’ve adopted the old Kodak brand mindset: “Our hope resides in clinging to what we’ve been known for, to what we’ve always done. If we don’t stand for film, what do we stand for?” Kodak old-timers forgot they were really in the picture business, not the film business. Similarly, many in the church have forgotten they’re in the faith business, not the doctrinal nit-picking business.
These churches aren’t withering because they’re not gripping tightly enough to brand distinctives. Their enemy is not other brands, other churches, other believers, other doctrinal nuances. The enemy is much more elemental. The enemy is disbelief.
If we want any hope of reversing troubling church trends, especially among young people, we must focus not on tribal heritage, denominational branding, theological hair-splitting, or pharisaical purity. We must focus on Jesus—and his sacrificial love for us and all people.
Unfortunately, I have yet to research this particular account or event of the real reasoning behind it all, but canceling the youth conference is not the solution to the challenge (problem). What kind of message as adults are we relaying to the youth today?
Good point Thom. In my work, I see this frequently around the country. We need to understand that our communications skills must be adaptable to our ever changing world, without changing the message. That is hard work. It is worth it to keep open the avenues of encouragement for changing lives for Christ. Stay focused on the King.
Well said Thom! My hearts cry and prayer is that churches and people who love the Lord will truly hear and reach out with the love Christ in every community. Thank you for bold honest commentary.
Jesus has to be the core focus. Matt 6:33
Tom, I want you to look at this and see if it contrasts with what you’re talking about. See, I don’t know that cancelling the event was the way to go, but having no boundaries is not the answer, either.
http://churchformen.com/how-were-off-the-mark/does-a-lack-of-men-lead-to-liberalism/
Thanks, Carl. We all benefit from following biblical principles, guidelines and commands. My concern lies with idolizing man-made rules and rituals.
Excellent point. But wouldn’t it have made more sense to go to the governing body and appeal the rules, rather than to schedule the music without consulting them? Perhaps they did, I don’t know, but it sounds like a situation that may have been rebellious.
The article I sent you, though, talks a lot about issues where the church is sliding down a slippery slope to appease the world. I can understand a leader taking a strong stand to stop a rebellion. I can see debating the rules, and letting him test the doctrinal integrity of the lyrics. One might say it is equally suicidal to let go of the wheel and jump on the accelerator. However, I do like your point, and have heard that the history of music in the church has been one where anything new can’t be good.
Alarms went off when I read “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda” and “theologically correct hymns and materials.” What human doctrine can ever be “pure”? What does “theologically correct” look like?
When anyone starts talking about “pure doctrine” or “theological correctness,” that’s a pretty good indication that any genuine dialogue has ended.
Lee, no doubt that you are aware that the most famous claim of evangelical churches is that we believe the bible is the inspired Word of God.
In actual fact, they don’t because if that were the case, there would be no denominations. What they actually believe is their interpretation of the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
Because of that fact, there is no such thing as being doctrinally pure or theologically correct.
Hmmm…I wonder if this denomination will only allow their churches to eat chicken now? Ok, that was probably uncalled for. However, speaking of pure agenda…I was talking to two college interns at my church this morning about the “chicken issue”. They just can’t understand why the Church hates gays and to prove it, the church is going to support chickens. There seems to be a metaphor here. Are we afraid to love as Jesus loved through our actions? I think it’s easier to divide and conquer like the crusades and colonialism. I’m not saying that was easy-certainly sounds like Hell to me. However, loving as Jesus loved (of course my view is biased here) is so incredibly hard. It’s hard to talk to people who are different than us, smell bad, look way more beautiful than us, or look wasted. I’m very concerned about this pure doctrine mentality. At the end of the day, I think we need to ask, “who has been transformed by the love of Jesus.”
hmmm…should I reply??? the church doesn’t HATE anyone. However, there is this little issue of sin – has a part the ‘church’ forgotten that? I challenge you to study history, love is not total acceptance of everyone/everything. My question is how did a moral issue become so politically charged? How did one family who happens to own a business, state something that almost everyone believed in the last generation suddenly become hate speech?
Cindy, thanks for your response. I was just reporting what my college interns’ impressions were. One of the points I am trying to make is that my college interns’ first impression is a reality of what a group of people (an important group too) think about the church. We need to listen to what they are saying and not ignore it. As far as studying history, thanks for the challenge, I love it and continue to study it. History is biased to the writers who wrote it, so context and other points of view are very important. As far as the “little sin” comment, please share more. I don’t want to assume what your talking about here. 🙂 To be helpful in the dialogue, I do believe in Scripture and pray that marriage will be available to all of God’s Children-heterosexual and homosexual oriented persons.
Hello Joel,
I do believe the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a women. There are no unions in Scripture between two men or two women that are blessed by God. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge”. Romans 1:26,27 talks about ‘unnatural affection’. I know this opinion is sooooo outdated to many, but I hold those Biblical beliefs.
As far as my ‘little issue’ of sin – Jesus did love those He came into contact with, (His very nature is LOVE) yet He was yet He was firm with people to say ‘go and sin no more’ as the woman who was to be stoned for adultery.. We have blurred the lines in the church in America – many instances of sin are now considered personal choices. YES YES YES, love each one, but God’s love and permissiveness in a culture are not equal.
Homosexuality has always been, it is not new. It has historically been called many things. I know the attitude these days is to jump on board and agree – especially when we have fed this to a generation – but I still have to believe what Scripture says – it’s been around much longer than a generation or two.
Thanks Cindy for your comment. We do disagree on the Biblical view of marriage. I’m so sorry I can’t finish what I started, however I value your response and can appreciate you holding on to your convictions. I grew up under a similar understanding of marriage and view of Scripture. However, I have had a new found transformational experience of God’s love through Jesus Christ and have discovered new found freedom by trying to live out the teachings of Christ. Am I good at it? No! But I try. Although this dialogue has been brief, I think respecting each other through conversation via media is important. Thanks for doing this. Peace Sister and may you always experience the love of Christ on your journey.
It’s amazing how much silliness we will put up with when we try to mask it as “holiness.” To be so scared of breaking the gospel that they forget what the true meaning of gospel is… good news!
I agree it’s sad to hear tales of these kinds of theological stand-offs that at the end of the day, make no difference. We tend to lose sight of the big picture which is influencing this next generation for Christ by being loving and accepting. Instead of creating cultures that invite the youth we repel them with a bunch of silly nonsense. Very sad.
Wow. I am a member of this denomination and my dad was at the meeting where this was decided. The truly sad part of this is that there is truth on both sides. Keeping pure BIBLICAL doctrine is not silly. Wanting more popular music is not unBiblical. There is no mention of an organ and hymns in scripture and there are some popular Christian songs that have questionable lyrics. Just because something is called Christian and is played on Christian radio does not mean it has a good Biblical message. But some are very good! The problem is that those in leadership are letting their feelings of fear overrule their sense, as are those planning the “gathering” (as we call them). Appropriate and popular songs can be chosen. The beauty of some old hymns must be passed on to the next generation. It is shameful that leaders (on both sides of the argument) allow their feelings to get in the way of doing what is right for the kids. This problem could easily have been solved.
I agree Laura and as for questionable or not modern Christian music, I am overawed by the song “Thankyou for the Cross Lord” Every time I sing it I am filled with awe and wonder and I just want to keep singing and singing it. I have it on my iPod on repeat and listen to if for hours.
This is not a question of doctrine – it is a question of values. When we get those two mixed up we have trouble. There are strong, clear “doctrinal” arguments on both sides of this discussion. The issue is the values that shape the decisions, and the position of power needed to enact the decision. Attempting to impose a set of values on the next generation from a position of power, rather than inspiring such values in the next generation through genuine love and servant leadership is what causes the division. The older generation voted with their hands in an assembly hall, the youth will vote with their feet as they walk out the door. Values and vision are not prescribed or imposed, and trying to hide the attempt behind the guise of “good doctrine” accomplishes very little except the alienation of the next generation.
One question that hasn’t been asked…instead of adapting to the new rules and then fighting it later, why did the church hosting the youth gathering cancel the whole thing like a huffy teenager? They weren’t sticking it to “the man”, they were sticking it to the kids who didn’t get to go at all! This seems like a knee jerk and immature reaction at best. I don’t agree with the ruling but the church that decided to pull the plug because they didn’t like it is as much to blame for those kids staying home as anyone else.
Where did this happen? And at whose orders? It’s an interesting topic to discuss. But given the nature of the internet today I think the reader would like to be able to confirm a few details.
In response to my own prior post, someone sent me a link confirming this action:
http://www.ignitingchurchandcultureforchrist.org/sites/default/files/users/igniting/2012%20Convention%20Proceedings%20Saturday%20June%209.pdf
(see p. 3, action taken at 11:10 AM)
I asked, because the internet is full of urban legends.
Just wanted to give an update to those of you who have commented. I served as the Chairperson of this Gathering and was saddened over what was decided at our District convention and ultimately to cancel it. The offer our team made since this resolution was passed so close to the Gathering is to lead as we had planned the gathering, but the decisions was up to the District. We had already contracted with bands/speakers/ etc, so we thought that was the best way to move forward.
Even though the Gathering was canceled our student ministry still honored the contracts of those involved and held an event for local students and those who wanted to attend – it was not the District Gathering.
So as we move forward we must work as the Body of Christ to walk together in sharing the Gospel in an ever changing culture that needs to hear the Gospel through it all!