Recently, a thought-provoking discussion emerged online when Mackenzie Morgan, a worship leader at Refine Church, announced her church’s decision to discontinue singing songs originating from Bethel Church and Hillsong Church. Morgan’s rationale stemmed from concerns about the theological teachings of these influential churches, suggesting that using their music could inadvertently endorse potentially problematic doctrines. This decision highlights a crucial question for churches worldwide: when we sing in worship, Who Is Singing This Song, and what message are we truly conveying?
Morgan rightly asserted that “theology matters” in corporate worship, emphasizing the importance of songs accurately reflecting God’s holiness. This resonates deeply with the principle of ensuring our worship is biblically sound. At payoffsong.com, we believe in the power of music to shape understanding and faith, making theological integrity paramount in our song selections. We, too, carefully evaluate songs to ensure they align with Scripture, regardless of popularity or melody.
Morgan’s concerns extend beyond theology to the financial aspect, questioning whether royalties paid to Bethel and Hillsong inadvertently support the spread of potentially “false gospel messages.” She further challenges the modern worship aesthetic, questioning the emphasis on stage lighting, smoke machines, emotional displays, and loud music if the songs themselves are not theologically sound and pleasing to God.
While production elements are a matter of stylistic preference and can enhance or distract from worship, the core of Morgan’s concern centers on the source and theological underpinnings of the songs we sing. Her questions prompt deeper reflection: who is singing this song – in terms of authorship and theological background – and does that influence our choice to use it in worship?
Let’s address the specific churches in question. Bethel Church and Hillsong Church are global phenomena, known for producing a vast catalog of contemporary worship music sung in churches across denominations. Their influence is undeniable, but with influence comes scrutiny. Are these churches genuinely promoting a gospel worthy of our worship, and who is singing this song within their congregations and leadership?
To answer this, we must examine their theological foundations. Bethel’s statement of faith, upon closer inspection, reveals a largely orthodox and evangelical stance. They affirm core Christian doctrines like the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, his atoning death and resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith. While their views on Spirit baptism might differ from some denominations, it remains within the broader spectrum of Pentecostal and charismatic theology.
Similarly, Hillsong’s statement of beliefs aligns with evangelical orthodoxy, rooted in Pentecostal traditions through their affiliation with Australian Christian Churches. Minor doctrinal nuances exist, as is common across denominations, but their foundational beliefs are firmly within the Christian mainstream.
The question then becomes: if their stated beliefs are largely orthodox, why the controversy? Concerns often arise not from their official doctrines but from perceived emphasis on certain practices or interpretations. For example, some critics point to elements within Bethel and Hillsong associated with the “prosperity gospel” or “Word of Faith” movement. While such teachings, if present, would be considered theological errors by many, it’s crucial to distinguish between individual interpretations and officially stated doctrines.
Morgan’s call to “read their church’s doctrine and see what they preach, teach, and believe” is sound advice. However, her subsequent conclusion – that theological differences should automatically disqualify their music – warrants further consideration. We must ask ourselves, when evaluating who is singing this song and whether to incorporate it into our worship, what criteria are truly essential?
Is it necessary to agree with every secondary doctrine of a song’s originating church to sing that song in good conscience? Or should we focus primarily on the lyrical content of the song itself: is it biblically sound, glorifying to God, and edifying for the congregation?
Many beloved hymns and worship songs throughout history originate from individuals or movements with whom we might have theological disagreements on secondary matters. Martin Luther, author of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” held anti-Semitic views. Horatio Spafford, who penned “It Is Well With My Soul,” later embraced universalism. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, influential figures in American Christianity, were slave owners. Matt Maher and John Michael Talbot are Roman Catholic. Even the Churches of Christ, from which biblically sound songs might emerge, hold differing views on baptism.
Does this mean we should discard all music from these sources? To do so would be to impoverish our worship and disregard countless songs that have profoundly ministered to generations of believers. Instead, a more discerning approach is needed. We must evaluate each song on its own merits, asking: who is singing this song – in terms of the message it conveys – and is that message consistent with Scripture?
Focusing solely on the originating church and “canceling” music based on association risks creating an echo chamber, isolating ourselves from the broader body of Christ. While vigilance regarding theological integrity is crucial, extending that vigilance to blanket bans based on denominational affiliation can be overly restrictive and ultimately unhelpful.
The question of royalties is also pertinent. When we sing songs from Bethel or Hillsong, royalties are indeed paid, contributing financially to these ministries. However, in our interconnected world, complete separation from entities with differing viewpoints is virtually impossible. Do we boycott businesses with stances on social issues we disagree with? Do we discard helpful resources from scholars who hold different religious beliefs?
Drawing lines becomes a slippery slope. Instead of striving for unattainable purity through complete separation, perhaps a more balanced approach involves discernment and engagement. We can utilize resources and even music from various sources while maintaining our theological convictions and critically evaluating everything against Scripture.
Ultimately, when considering who is singing this song and whether it’s appropriate for our worship, we should prioritize the following:
- Lyrical Content: Is the song biblically accurate and theologically sound? Does it glorify God and edify believers?
- Congregational Impact: Does the song lead our congregation into genuine worship?
- Discernment over Dogmatism: Can we exercise discernment, appreciating the good while remaining aware of potential theological nuances or disagreements with the originating source, without resorting to rigid exclusion?
Let us be rigorous in our commitment to biblical truth in worship, carefully selecting songs that honor God. But let us also avoid a spirit of division and exclusion, recognizing that the global church is diverse, and valuable expressions of worship can emerge from various streams within Christianity. The focus should remain on the song itself and its ability to connect hearts to God, rather than solely on who is singing this song in terms of denominational affiliation. Let us strive for unity in the essentials, charity in the non-essentials, and wisdom in all our decisions regarding worship.
