Would Jesus Be Pleased with Us Worshipping Him by Singing Songs that Are Written by Hillsong or Bethel?

Would Jesus Be Pleased with Us Worshipping Him 

by Singing Songs that Are Written by Hillsong or Bethel?

 

Introduction

 

·      A Word about Polemics

 

Throughout church history, Christians have always engaged in apologetics (defending the faith).  This is good, necessary, and biblical (Phil 1:7, 16; 1 Pet 3:15).  However, sometimes a part of this defense involves polemics.  A polemic is contentious rhetoric to support a claim and to undermine the opposing position.  It often involves strong verbal or written attacks on someone or something, especially in a controversial debate.  While there are appropriate times and places for polemics, the difficulty is that someone who gravitates toward polemics easily becomes contentious and controversial, creating disunity.  All three are warned against in Scripture (contention [Prov 21:9, 19; 25:24; 26:21; 27:15; 1 Cor 11:16], controversy [1 Tim 6:4; Titus 3:9], and disunity [Ps 133:1; John 17:23; Eph 4:3; Col 3:14]).  A Christian certainly should not be known as contentious, controversial, or creating disunity in the church.  

 

There have always been polemical Christians and ministries.  In times past they might have written books, given seminars, engaged in public debates, or just made conversation in personal relationships within a local church.  However, in the modern Internet Age, these “discernment” ministries are proliferated through blogs, vlogs, and other means (YouTube, WordPress, Tumblr, Medium).  Then viewers/readers carry out discussion and debate through Social Media like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn; discussion feeds and forums like Reddit, Quora, and Digg; and media-sharing like Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube; etc.

 

There is certainly value in the arguments when such a ministry presents and defends the truth.  People can be equipped to better discern error and defend the faith.  However, often secondary, or tertiary issues are raised to the primary level.  Likewise, often views of what should be considered Christian liberties, where godly Christians may have different opinions or even convictions, become a standard of judgment.  And sadly, at this point, Christians fall prey to the world’s practice of “cancel culture.”  Anyone who doesn’t follow the conviction of the “discerners” is written against and pressured to conform and if not, they will be ostracized, which in churches often means that people will leave a church, separate from other believers, or gain a following and even split churches.

 

·      The Polemic against Singing Hillsong, etc.

 

One recent polemic that is gaining steam across the internet is that a doctrinally faithful church should not sing songs written by people associated with the musical groups Bethel, Hillsong, Elevation, or Jesus Culture.  Because of the longevity and popularity of a group like Hillsong most churches that sing contemporary worship music will probably have several of their songs in their worship cycle.  The most popular of all time is “Shout to the Lord,” published in 1996.  They have published many songs with solidly biblical lyrics often mostly developed from a passage of Scripture.  “Shout to the Lord” is based upon Psalm 98.  In 2014 they released one based upon the Apostle’s Creed called “I Believe.”  Many, if not most, of their songs are clearly orthodox and biblical.  In fact, if you read their church doctrinal statements on their websites their core beliefs cohere with traditional evangelicalism and the historic creeds.

 

So why would someone contend that we purge our music repertoire of songs we may have sung in worship to God for perhaps 26 or more years?  The argument goes something like this: The churches that these groups are associated with promote some questionable teachings at best or at worst heretical teachings (prosperity, new apostolic reformation, second blessing, women pastors, etc.).  Therefore, singing their songs makes you promote, partner with, and support those ministries and teachings.  Some of the arguments will be dealt with below.

 

The Position of the Elders at RCC

 

Since there are now and will always be people in our church that do not think we should sing such songs it would be easiest for us to simply stop singing them.  Thus, we would avoid the controversy.  After all, we have plenty of songs from other sources that we could sing.  But we see this as a valuable teaching opportunity.

 

We think that the most crucial question is “Would Jesus Be Pleased with Us Worshipping Him by Singing Songs that Are Written by Hillsong or Bethel?  Or put in a different way, “Is Jesus displeased with us singing the following words because they come from Hillsong?”

 

You were the Word at the beginning
One with God the Lord Most High
Your hidden glory in creation
Now revealed in You our Christ

Now and forever, God You reign

Yours is the kingdom

Yours is the glory

Yours is the Name above all names

 

That is the key question.  We would only want to do what honors and glorifies Christ and enables His people to worship Him.  The only place we can go to answer this question is to God’s word, the Scriptures.  And since we are talking about examining songs that have lyrics written by potentially heretical people a good place to start would be 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22:

 

19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

 

The topic of these verses is whether the words of someone with the gift of prophecy are true or not.  In this context, it is the words of these prophecies that were to be evaluated for their truthfulness.  The standard would of course be sound doctrine.  That which was found to be good should be held onto for Christian faith and practice.  That which is bad or evil should be abstained from.  It is possible that a false prophet could at times give true prophecy.  Yet, when he gives false prophecy both it (the words) and he (the prophet) is to be rejected.

 

            Some interesting case studies in the Bible are Saul, Balaam, Caiaphas, and the demon-possessed girl.  Saul was a wicked king who prophesied truly (1 Sam 10 & 19).  Balaam was a wicked prophet whom God used to bless Israel (Numb 22-24).  Caiaphas was one of the High Priests who was responsible for sentencing Jesus to death, yet God used him to give an unintended prophecy (John 11:49-53).  In Acts 16 there was a demon-possessed slave girl who was following Paul and Silas around saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”  In each of these cases, the words were true and were to be accepted regardless of the life or beliefs of the person who said them.

 

Most of our Psalms were written by a man (David) who was a covetous, lying, deceptive, adulterous murderer who also disobeyed God by multiplying wives and numbering the people.  He should have been put to death, but Israel sang his songs and so do we.  His son Solomon went directly against the Lord’s warnings for kings in Deut 17:14-20.  He acquired many foreign wives (1 Kings 11:1-2), engaged in false worship at the high places (1 Kings 3:3), accumulated horses even from Egypt (1 Kings 4:26) and vast treasures (1 Kings 10:14-29). His wives "turned away [Solomon's] heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God" (v. 4).  Yet, Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and two Psalms (72, 127).  So, it seems clear that we can embrace and separate true words from the lives and theology of those who wrote them.

 

The RCC Elders’ position is that this should be the criteria for songs that we sing: “Is It True?”  As Pastor Rick recently explained in his sermon, “We sing truth.”[1]  Further, we believe it is logically possible and biblically legitimate to separate the songs and music from the theology and lives of the writers and churches they are associated with today.  The truthfulness of the words in a song matters exponentially more than who wrote it, when it was written, what style it was written in, what bands play it, or how it makes us feel.  

 

But is truth enough of a criterion for whether we sing a song in worship?  Let us deal with some of the arguments that are out there on the Internet.  It is important that one understand that this argumentation comes from the context of our local church.  As elders, we are responsible for our local church, and we must evaluate the issues from within rather than paying attention to those outside who accuse the church at large.  Here are some of the arguments lobbied against singing these songs:

 

 

 

1.    Don’t Those Groups Hold to a False Theology of Worship?

 

            One argument is that the music itself from these groups embodies a false theology of worship.[2]  The argument is that these groups hold to a Pentecostal worship theology that contends that when we sing to God His presence comes among us and that the aim of praise music is to induce emotion for the experience of a closer encounter with God.  Part of the argument against this music is that the “music itself is carefully designed to create a visceral experience of the feelings that then become evidence of God’s manifest presence.”[3]   

 

            It may well be that some of the writers and composers of these songs hold to this philosophy of music, but simply put, our church does not believe that way.  Besides, even if someone intended a song to be used in that way, it is impossible for music to embody a theology except through its lyrics.  The “music” argument revisits the old worship wars when people started singing something different than the hymns.  Silly arguments like “the beat must be submissive to the melody” were made or that certain beats could be tied to voodoo.  The introduction of instruments like guitars and drums was opposed. 

 

Our church clearly teaches and practices the belief that the Spirit is already present within us when we come to worship.  We have no expectation that we can cause the Spirit’s presence to come upon us or bring about tangible manifestations.  Emotion and singing are a response to truth and are the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart.  Some believers may engage in biblical physical responses such as dancing or raising hands, but there is no effort to try to produce these effects.  Additionally, we endeavor to have services that are orderly (1 Cor 14:33, 40).

 

2.    Is Singing Their Songs an Endorsement of Their Teachings?

 

A second argument is that singing these songs endorses, promotes, or associates one with the teaching of their churches.  Those who make this argument will usually use several verses about false teachers and prophets.  False prophets will use signs and wonders to mislead people (Matt 24:24), distort the gospel (Gal 1:7), will try to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30), and introduce destructive heresies (2 Pet 2:1).  In light of these things, believers are called to not believe them (Matt 24:23, 26), not to greet them and invite them into their houses (2 John 1:10-11) and to be on guard against savage wolves coming in or people rising up from within to draw others after themselves (Acts 20:28-30).

 

            Our answer to this is simply that we do not believe singing these scripturally accurate songs violates any of these verses.  In the context of our church, we clearly teach sound doctrine and refute false teaching, even exposing false teachers when needed.  We do guard ourselves and shepherd the flock of God.  There could be no legitimate charge that we are partners, friends, companions of or are in any way joined with or are in a relationship with any false teachers.  

 

The thinking seems to be that no good song can come from a writer who might be in error doctrinally.  Yet, this is to commit the genetic fallacy demonstrated by Nathanael’s mocking question, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”  As seen above with David and Solomon, the origin of a song does not determine whether it is scripturally accurate or whether it is legitimate to sing it in worship.  Scripture is the measure of truth.

 

3.    Can’t Singing These Songs Lead People to Believe Their False Doctrines?

 

There is also the fear that if we sing Bethel or Hillsong music a brother or sister may see the name on the copyright slide, go look it up, and then fall prey to their false teaching.  This is the logical argument of the slippery slope, that a small step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant negative effect as unintended consequences.  One way to evaluate a slippery slope argument is to consider whether it is likely to occur.  These types of arguments are often a form of fearmongering where the possible consequences of an action are exaggerated.  

 

In this case let us first say that a person is much more likely to hear such a song on Christian radio, a playlist online, or one of these vlogs, blogs, or podcasts speaking against singing Bethel songs and become enticed to check it out themself.  Further, to be consistent, should we never mention the names of false teachers, cults, false religions, even in our teaching against them for fear that someone may be intrigued, go study them, and fall prey to their teaching?

 

Nevertheless, let’s remind ourselves that we are talking about the context of our particular local church.  It is hard to fathom someone being led astray by a copyright slide in a context where there is ongoing sound teaching, shepherding, and active discipleship.  These are the best safeguards against false doctrine getting a foothold in the local church.

 

As we discussed above, we could examine the scenario of a worshipper in Israel singing Psalm 72 or 127.  Both are attributed to Solomon in the prescript.  The Israelite could read this ascription to Solomon, be drawn to Solomon, and follow him into his lust for women, power, and prosperity.  This could lead him to marry a foreign wife and turn away from God to worship idols.  Is God displeased when the believer sings these songs for fear of their being led astray?  Surely not!  One might say, “But that’s different because it is Scripture.”  But why would it be different?  In fact, it appears to be a clear-cut inspired way of determining exactly what we are discussing.

 

 Additionally, does God really want us to look up the names of every writer/composer of every song we sing and make sure they agree with our theology?  In this discussion, many have legitimately pointed out that there are many songwriters throughout history that have had bad theology yet produced great, doctrinally accurate songs.

 

The hymn “Come Thou Fount” was written by Robert Robinson. Apparently later in his life Robinson became a Unitarian and denied the divinity of Christ.  “A Mighty Fortress is our God” was authored by Martin Luther who made some anti-Semitic statements.  Horatio Spafford wrote “It is Well with My Soul” but eventually denied the existence of Hell, affirmed universalism and purgatory, and was guilty of multiple instances of fraudulent financial dealings.  Bernard of Clairvaux composed “Jesus the Very Thought of Thee” and “O Sacred Head.” Sadly, he was the first to suggest the veneration of Mary. The Wesleys (“And Can It Be,” “Alas and Did My Savior Bleed”) preached Arminianism (you can lose your salvation if you do not live a holy life). Thomas Chisholm (“Great is Thy Faithfulness”) was editor of the “Pentecostal Herald,” a Pentecostal journal which is still widely revered among those who practice Charismatic excesses. 

 

The church also has a history of singing bar tunes and classical music written by hedonist composers. In fact, “O Holy Night” was written by an atheist.  Francis of Assisi, who wrote “All Creatures of our God and King,” was Roman Catholic.  Matthew Bridges, author of “Crown Him with Many Crowns,” converted to Roman Catholicism.  In fact, there are many great hymns written by Catholics.  All of these historic individuals had negative impacts on the Church that persist today.

 

The counter is usually that it is okay to sing the dead guys because they are not current false teachers.  But we cannot be so dismissive.  These authors had a great impact on the church at large and many of their teachings are very much live issues to this day.  Also, does this argument mean that if the Hillsong church closes and all the writers die we can then sing their songs?  Someone could just as easily go research Spafford and fall prey to his beliefs as they could fall to Hillsong today.  To say that it is acceptable to sing songs written by the dead and not by the living is inconsistent.  Also, to police the authors’ personal lives or their autonomous churches is not our place or our responsibility. In fact, it is impossible to cover every one. We choose not to go down that never-ending path and so we judge songs on their own merit as Israel did.

 

Again, this is all done in the context of a church committed to teaching, shepherding, and discipleship which would guard a person from falling prey to the beliefs of false teachers.

 

4.    Aren’t We Financially Supporting Their Ministries If We Sing Their Songs?

 

A fourth argument is that we are financially supporting these ministries and the spread of their teachings because they receive royalties when we pay for the copyright license to sing these songs.  

 

The best response to this is Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 8 about eating meat sacrificed to idols.  He considers eating the meat and even doing so in the pagan temple to be a freedom for the believer that has a strong conscience (the weaker brother issue will be covered below).  Obviously, for the believer to eat this meat someone would have to buy it, thus indirectly financially supporting the pagan worshipper.  Paul is not concerned about that.  Likewise, we do not need to be concerned that a miniscule amount of our money goes toward supporting those singers who are involved in false teaching.

 

Also, if we do use these songs, since we want to obey Christ when he says that the worker is worthy of his wages, we are obligated to pay for it.  

 

Besides, Christian Copyright Licensing International, the agency we use, pays royalties to these groups whether we use those songs or not.  Therefore, even if we chose not to sing any songs from these groups, they would still receive the same amount of money from what we pay to maintain our license.  If we did not use the CCLI service, it would be an administrative nightmare to try to get approval to legally use every song we sing individually.  We would essentially have to stop using projected or printed lyrics, recorded tracks for the singers to practice, etc.  Also, people do not usually realize that a lot of the rights to Christian songs are actually held by secular publishing companies.  Do we need to be concerned that our money goes to Atheists?  

 

In this vein a good question is whether proponents of boycotting Bethel/Hillsong on this basis are consistent.  Do they refuse to shop at Kroger and Target because they are decidedly pro-LGBTQ?  Will they go to Disneyworld?  Do they carefully avoid purchasing gas from those stations that obtain their products from oil companies that fund Planned Parenthood?  Do they invest in companies that promote any liberal agendas?  Is the church supposed to run down the beliefs of any corporation or individual they might do any business with?  Would we be wrong to have a Mormon provide our IT service, a Buddhist to do our painting, an atheist our plumbing?

 

 

5.    Will I Be Causing My Brother to Stumble?

 

A fifth argument appeals to the admonition by the apostle Paul not to do something that causes your brother to stumble (Romans 14:13-21; 1 Cor 8:4-13).  The questions are “What does this mean?” and “How does it apply to this situation?”

 

First Corinthians 8:4-13 concerns the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols.  Who was Paul writing to?  These were primarily Gentile believers who were saved out of a society that was steeped in idolatry and immorality.  The problem for Christians in this society was that the false religions were so prominent that they were integrated into the social and economic fabric of the culture.  Some of the food that had been sacrificed to idols was also sold in the market with usually no way to discern which meat was and which was not from the temple.  Socially, the festivals were huge cultural events.  Could they participate socially in the dinners associated with them?

 

Some Christians believed that they could eat meat sacrificed to idols and they could even eat in the pagan temple.  And Paul would say that they are right.  They had the liberty to do so.  Yet, in their personal individual practices they were to consider the consciences of weaker believers.  Some of these felt that if they engaged in these practices, they would be participating in the idolatry associated with them as well.  So, the believer with the strong conscience should be very careful not to allow his liberty to wound the conscience of the weak believer.

 

Notice our emphasis upon the individual practice of the believer.  We point that out because of several factors in the context.  First, the believer who cannot in good conscience eat is called weak.  Second, the remedy to a weak conscience is knowledge.  Paul teaches that we are to know that there really is no such thing as an idol, that there is only one God (vv. 4-6), and if someone embraced this knowledge, they wouldn’t have defiled consciences by eating (v. 7).  Also, that there is no detriment or value spiritually of eating or abstaining (v. 8).  Third, it is very important to point out that when Paul says these things he is speaking to the whole audience of weak and strong believers.  The implication is that he intends for the weak believers to become strong through this knowledge.  The church as a gathered body is not to be controlled by the consciences of the weak.  It must teach the full truth, but meanwhile individual believers in their daily lives should limit their liberties when they interact with the weak believers.

 

            How might this apply to the issue of singing songs written by the groups we have mentioned?  The weaker brother would be someone who believes that singing a song from one of these groups is somehow sinfully involving them with false teaching.  On an individual level, if such a person came to a friend’s house or rode in his car, the stronger brother should not play such a song.  However, the remedy for this condition is knowledge, particularly knowledge that there is nothing wrong with singing the song if it is scripturally true.  That is the purpose of this paper.  We teach this to the whole church, but on the individual level we are careful not to allow our liberties to offend their consciences.  Meanwhile we cannot allow the weak to dictate what the gathered church would practice.

 

            Some other examples of these types of liberties might be Bible versions, views of communion, instruments and lights in worship, participating in holidays (Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc.), drinking alcohol, contraception, dancing, going to the beach, clothing, tattoos, movies, electronics, food to eat, having insurance, views of youth groups, dating, family integrated church, schooling choices, etc.  Each issue requires wisdom, but each church’s leadership will ultimately decide what will be the position toward such things.  Are they freedoms or not?

 

            What we want to be careful of is falling into legalism.  What we mean by legalism is when people bind others’ consciences by adding rules and laws to what God has written, forbidding what God allows.  This practice creates division over strongly held opinions and heaps upon people false guilt.  It produces prideful people who are self-righteous and have a critical spirit.

 

Romans 14 has further instruction on Christian Liberties.  It shows that stronger believers need to sacrificially deny themselves for the weak brother’s sake, but the weaker brother should also not pass  judgment upon the stronger brother in what he approves.  The problem with Christian liberties is that the weaker brother usually does not see it as a liberty.  So, the weaker brother judges the stronger brother, and the stronger brother looks down on the weaker brother or even flaunts his liberty.  

 

If a church is ever to come to one unity and mission, it must practice Christian liberty under Christian freedom. The church must be taught what is lawful and what is not for the Christian. It is God’s will that the strong and weak ultimately come to the same opinion about what is in conformity to God’s truth. This removes the stumbling blocks of unfounded opinions which destroy conscience and unity.

 

Conclusion

 

Our conclusion is that Jesus is pleased when we sing a scripturally correct song to Him and one another, even if the writer/composer of the song holds to some false teaching.  Singing such a song does not promote a false view of worship or endorse their teachings.  The fear that someone might be led into their teachings through our use of their songs is highly unlikely in the context of the teaching, shepherding, and discipleship we are actively engaged in. Further, the OT pattern of singing Psalms by Solomon provides a definitive argument against abstaining from using this type of music. Regarding the concern about financial support, by using CCLI we are not directly supporting them.  They would receive a portion of our payment whether we used their songs or not.  Finally, it is incumbent upon the church’s leadership to determine what it believes are liberties, based upon Scripture, and teach this knowledge to the whole church.  Meanwhile it is important in our individual lives for the strong to be patient and sacrificially loving to the weak and for the weak not to condemn the strong.

 

We would like to end with a quote from Spurgeon in the preface to his church’s hymnal (Our Own Hymnbook): “Whatever may be thought of our taste we have used it without prejudice; and a good hymn has not been rejected because of the character of its author, or the heresies of the church in whose hymnal it first occurred; so long as the language and the Spirit commended the hymn to our heart we included it, and believe that we have enriched our collection thereby.”[4]  One can see that this exact debate has occurred throughout church history.  We agree with Spurgeon that singing a doctrinally sound song can be pleasing to the Lord regardless of its source or associations.

---

[1] Rick Cobb, https://www.riverbendchurch.com/sermons/sermon/2022-04-20/developing-a-biblical-view-of-worship

[2] Scott Aniol, https://g3min.org/stop-singing-hillsong-bethel-jesus-culture-and-elevation/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, preface to Our Own Hymn Book: A Collection of Psalms and Hymns for Public, Social, and Private Worship (Pasadena, Tx.: Pilgrim Publications, 2002), iii.