Category Archives: Worship

Multicultural Worship (3)

Should we use songs by false teachers in worship?

I once served on the Hymns and Music Committee of the church I was in at the time.
As a Committee we had a responsibility to ensure that what was sung was honouring to God and edifying to God’s people. In order to do so, with the concurrence of the leadership, we drew up a number of guidelines we would follow in selecting hymns.
(I hope to look at these in a future post.)

In line with those guidelines we made the decision, endorsed by the leadership, that we would not use any songs that came out of the Hillsong camp. We did so on the basis that we wished to avoid in any way appearing to approve, or encourage others to follow, the Hillsong model.
We have serious concerns about the unbiblical nature of Hillsong “worship” and (despite protestations to the contrary) its evident promotion of the Prosperity Gospel.
For an excellent exposé of the latter watch “American Gospel: Christ Alone” – the full version (2 hr 20 mins) is available on Netflix and elsewhere; a one hour version is available here.

Some would disagree with refusing to use a song in public worship simply because of its source. They invariably cite Martin Luther who, for all the good he did, at times expressed some abhorrent views (Luther went through various stages in his life) – yet we still sing his “A mighty fortress”.
And, one could cite flaws in other older hymn writers too.
For that matter, many artists whose works we admire were deeply flawed. Would we cease listening to the “1812 Overture” by Tchaikovsky because of his many well-known homosexual liaisons?

So, why worry about associations? Why not choose a hymn based on its theological merit alone?
But the issue is more complex and reductionist arguments like this fail to get to the heart of the matter. Especially where a song is produced by a current movement, you have to consider the influence that movement may have on those who think it has your approval because you use one of its songs; it is not enough to consider just the words of the song itself.

In a recent article on the Gospel Coalition website Todd Wagner makes just this point: “In addition to false teachers, we must be aware of directing others toward ministries of well-meaning individuals consistently associated with false or errant theology and practices.”

Here is the article:

“Should We Use Bethel Songs in Worship?”

4 Diagnostic Questions

Evaluate everything against God’s Word, which includes both the teaching we hear and also the lyrics we sing in corporate worship.

This discipline is especially relevant today, given the popularity of songs from Bethel Music and the increasing concerns over Bethel’s theology, practices, leadership, teachings, and school of “supernatural ministry.”
Given that we should “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21), it’s worth asking whether churches concerned with orthodoxy should sing songs associated with individuals or organizations with a history of errant beliefs or practices.

Not a New Issue

For generations Christians have embraced truth-filled hymns composed by authors who have held to unsupportable beliefs or who have fallen away from the faith. Here are just three examples.

  • “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” penned by reformer Martin Luther, who wrote the 95 Theses that rightly protested corruption in the Roman Catholic Church and set off the Protestant Reformation, but who also wrote The Jews and Their Lies and On the Ineffable Name, which were rooted in hostility and horrific views toward Jews. (See Bernard Howard’s article, “Luther’s Jewish Problem.”)
  • “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” written in 1757 by Methodist preacher Robert Robinson, who later fulfilled the “prone to wander” line by drifting away from the faith.
  • “It Is Well with My Soul,” written by Horatio Gates Spafford after he lost his four children in the sinking of the SS Ville du Havre in November 1873. While his most famous work is this anthem to the truth of God’s sovereignty, his teachings on eternal punishment and the Holy Spirit were at best ill-informed, and at worst heretical.

So, should songs that strongly proclaim the truth of God’s Word no longer be used in corporate worship given other errant beliefs or practices by the authors or associated churches?

Here are four questions that might help when assessing whether a song, book, or any form of communication should be used.

1. Are you examining everything you consume (sermons, books, music, movies) through the lens of God’s Word?

It’s important that all believers are equipped with Scripture so they may accurately discern (1 John 4:1–3) whether a sermon, song, book, website, or other media aligns with Scripture and the Spirit. Every believer should be equipped to discern truth from error and live in fellowship with mature believers who hold them accountable in their discerning (Prov. 15:22).
Just because something feels right doesn’t mean it stands the test of God’s Word.

2. Does the song stand on its own, proclaiming the truth of God’s Word without explanation?

Every song a church sings should be grounded in Scripture and sound doctrine and should edify the body of Christ (Eph. 4:29). Right worship is a form of equipping, and if the song is communicating unbiblical ideas, then it shouldn’t be welcomed in the church.
Every song is the responsibility of the shepherds, and shepherds are to be on guard so that savage wolves (Acts 20:28) with snappy melodies don’t come into the flock.

Over the years at Watermark we have examined countless songs for clarity, from “Away in a Manger” to “Reckless Love.” We constantly ask ourselves questions like, “Is it accurate to describe God’s love as ‘overwhelming, never-ending, and reckless?”—as the chorus of “Reckless Love” says?
It’s the responsibility of the spiritual leaders in every church to make these calls. It’s not an overstatement to say that their protection of their people (Acts 20:28–30) and their own future judgment (Heb. 13:17) depend on it.

3. Is it possible to separate the truth being sung from the error of its associations?

A church is never in more danger than when a false teacher communicates under the guise of proclaiming truth (2 Cor. 11:14; Acts 16:16–18). In addition to false teachers, we must be aware of directing others toward ministries of well-meaning individuals consistently associated with false or errant theology and practices.

The leadership of Bethel and the teachings and practices embraced by its members, students, and ministry partners would, at a minimum, fall into this category. Promoting their songs—even though the songs themselves are theologically accurate [emphasis mine. KS]—could open others to additional messages and ideas that are errant in practice and theology.

Historically, there is at least one significant example of music and lyrics being a means through which heresy was propagated. Arius (AD 250–336) was a capable songwriter and a theologian who denied Christ’s deity. He wrongly asserted that Jesus was a finite, created being with some divine attributes—not the eternal God. The popularity of his melodies and songs led to the rapid spread of his heretical ideas.

We must acknowledge that a well-written song can quickly lead others to a truth-forsaken place. While it’s unlikely that many today will dig up Horatio Spafford sermons if they sing “It Is Well,” many people will want to know more about Bethel’s “supernatural school of ministry” because of their excellent music.

4. Would using the song cause us to actively support an errant ministry?

Perhaps the most unavoidable implication is that using songs from these ministries and artists supports them financially. Even if you protect your flock from future influence, you unavoidably will be strengthening the ministries. The cost-benefit of the truths should be weighed in your ultimate decision.

Examine Everything

Our team examines the content and implications of every song we sing—whether they come from our own artists at Watermark, Bethel Music, Hillsong, Passion, or any other collective community or individual artist.
We’ve often chosen not to sing certain songs because we didn’t believe the content to be theologically accurate or glorifying to God. At the same time, we sometimes sing lyrics and music written or produced by churches we wouldn’t want to disciple the saints.

We don’t need to be paranoid, but we do need to be vigilant. May everything we put before Jesus’s church ensure that “we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14).

Catchy tunes can cause a lot of trouble, so listen with care and lead with godly conviction. Don’t sing a song just because people love it; sing it because it’s true and leads you to places where you can find more of God’s truth.

(end of Todd Wagner’s article)

 


“Why your Church Shouldn’t Play Bethel and Hillsong Music”

In a recent interview Justin Peters also addressed this question. Here are two questions he was asked. (I would encourage you to listen to the whole interview here.)

QuestionThere have been a lot of good hymns written in the past by bad theologians, but we still sing them anyway. Why should this be any different?

“With those hymns to which you are referring, most of those hymns were written one, two hundred, maybe three hundred years ago. And so, there has been so much time that has elapsed between the individual – that may have written a good piece of music – but still had theological issues, or maybe even personal issues.
“But there has been so much time that has elapsed that, when we sing their music we’re not automatically making the association with that individual that lived one, two, three hundred years ago.
“With Bethel and Hillsong it is very, very different – that’s very current.
“These churches, false churches, are constantly putting this music out and they use their music as their primary tool of evangelism.”

Question: The music is being used by them for what goal?

“To enlarge their own camp, to enlarge their reach, to enlarge their churches, to bring people into their false theological system.
“Here’s what happens: They’re not going to write music that has completely outlandish lyrics. Some of it we may need to talk about, it’s borderline.
“But, a lot of their music – it’s going to pass a basic doctrinal smell test. And that’s intentional, because they know if it doesn’t most churches are not going to put it in their services.
“And here’s what happens: on Sunday morning, when churches put these lyrics up on the screen, and the unsuspecting person, sitting out there in the pew, reading the lyrics, singing the lyrics – and then they see in the fine print at the bottom: “© Bethel Music”, “© Hillsong” – and, let’s throw in “Elevation Music” with that as well, i.e. Steven Furtick – when they see the fine print, they think, ‘Oh, Bethel. Oh, Hillsong. I think I’ll check them out, they must be O.K. – we’re singing their music.’
“And so, they use their music as a hook to pull unsuspecting people into their false theological system.”

Peters also notes that, added to this is the fact that, each time you use a Hillsong or Bethel song in worship, you are paying them a royalty that helps support their false teaching.

No, we don’t expect a current song writer to be perfect and without flaws – who is?
But please, let’s exercise discernment here.

Learning from the Iconoclasts

The importance of considering, not just the message, but the associations of the messenger, is illustrated in the current wave of iconoclasm that is sweeping the globe.
Much of that is misguided and irrational: when mob rule prevails, passion trumps logic.
Witness how, e.g. a statue of Hans Christian Heg, an abolitionist who died trying to end slavery, was decapitated and thrown into the lake; while that of Margaret Sanger, a rabid racist (but an icon of today’s godless society) is left untouched.

In any case, if we all tore down statues of those we, or others with a different view point, don’t agree with, nothing would be left standing.
Why not each “side” have statues of their own heroes (none of whom were without their flaws anyway) and live and let live?
In Britain the Celtic leader, Boudica, rides in her chariot adjacent to Westminster Bridge, not far from a statue of Julius Caesar whose invasion of Britain led to the Roman subjugation of the Celts the following century when Boudica was publicly flogged and her two daughters raped.
In the same city stands Alfred the Great, whose Anglo Saxon ancestors drove out the Celts.
And not far away is a bronze bust of William the Bastard (aka “the Conqueror”) who invaded and conquered the Anglo Saxons – much to the chagrin of my father (whose surname was Anglo Saxon), but to the delight of my mother (whose maiden surname was Manx-Celtic).

Yet all these statues live side by side, cheek by jowl, and no one seems concerned to tear them down just because of the atrocities one committed against the other.
Not even the perfidious Charles I, riding proudly on his horse in Trafalgar Square, has been touched; while a stone’s throw away, in front of Westminster Parliament, still stands his nemesis, England’s greatest statesman.
Why do so many of these ancient figures remain untouched by the current Monstrous Regiment of Iconoclasts?
Principally because they are ancient characters whose worse deeds are now little remembered and whose present influence is negligible.

But there are those from more recent times whose worse deeds so resonate with some of the horrible problems society is still dealing with that removal of memorials to them seems justified.
It would be hard to argue with the civic fathers of Bassendean W.A. who decided, after careful consideration, to remove all public memorials to their once favourite son, Rolf Harris, after he was found guilty on 12 counts of indecently assaulting four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986.
His sexual morals may be little removed from those of Julius Caesar or Charles I’s promiscuous offspring; but the fact that he is now principally known (and that in recent memory) for crimes that are a blot upon today’s society justifies removing any public association with him.
He may have been an accomplished song writer who wrote some catchy tunes. But would you want your children to know they are his songs by singing them?
More to the point, if he were to write a popular Christian song, one that passed the basic doctrinal smell test, would you use it in worship?