I still think there is responsibility on leaders to protect their congregation's theology by not singing songs from institutions that have inaccurate teachings. You are adding credibility to those churches by singing their music. Like you said, we have SO many options we can afford to be incredibly intentional about what we choose!
Joyful Blessings, I think the point of the podcast is that we should be incredibly intentional about what we choose to sing without being unbiblically scrupulous or pharisaical in how we make those decisions.
The wrong question is CAN we sing this song? The right question is SHOULD we sing this song? We want to sing great songs, and not just good songs in our limited time to teach and learn from them. Thank you for these excellent points.
Not entirely on point but something I read in Worship Matters a dozen years ago has been great advice I still follow. I try to always read the lyrics of a song before I listen to it for the first time. The music can sell something that one might not otherwise choose.
Good discussion gentlemen. Personally I embrace great songs from theologically questionable sources such as Sovereign Grace.😅. May God bless you richly.
Gentlemen, I think it should be noted that when you sing a song from a questionable source CCLI is compensating the source monetarily. Then there are two questions to answer: 1. “Would I send them money to stand in their congregation and drop money in the collection plate?” If you would not give them direct monetary support then why would you give them indirect support. 2. In singing a song written by and attributed to them are you giving tacit approval to their teaching from the pulpit and in their other writings? We used to do a number of songs by Hillsong. But while the song in itself was fine we had to ask ourselves would we be willing stand in their congregation and submit to their teaching and doctrine. When we answered no we then had to conclude that by continuing to do their music we were giving approval for others in the congregation listen to their music and even their teaching ministry. I recognize this is a matter of individual conscience but for us the matter was clear.
Really appreciate this thoughtful discussion! It's easy to keep wanting new shiny songs without considering the steady diet our church needs to digest God's Word though melodies and lyrics.
It was hinted at early on in the podcast when they were discussing CAN my church sing a song, whether the melody is simple or easy, but also there are good songs that are individual songs, not corporate songs. Even the subtitles of many of the Psalms say "for the choirmaster" or "for the singers". Some are to be sung by all and some are to be sung by a few. Many times a great song for individual meaning falls flat as a corporate song.
If the elders won’t bring an organizations teacher to teach or quote from them then we should ask ourselves why are we comfortable singing their songs and paying them?
Exactly if they can't preach in our churches why are we okay with using their music. Why do we need to there is no need to sing them other than to be seeker friendly.
I would add the law of supply and demand also applies to apostasy. This is why it is of utmost importance we do not bring any media whatsoever of heretics to the table. - Song Police
The aside point about not being able to catch up with the latest tunes is probably something that every church faces I do know of several examples where 'older' songs are being introduced. Last weekend, a church I know of introduced 'All I Have Is Christ' from you... a song from 2008 :)
Lots of good info, thanks. But the reason i watched this video is to answer the question in the title "should we sing from questionable sources" which you did not answer. the guy on the left sort of said "yes we should" and everybody danced around melody, theology of the lyrics, etc. but did not actually address the "questionable source" part.
What we have found is that there seem to be some churches with dodgy theology, and yet the music they produce is high quality AND has great theology. However, by singing those songs (with copyright details displayed as we are obliged to do), it may be seen as us endorsing the doctrine of the church attached to the songwriters. I guess that in the end, it's up to us as leaders within our own churches to make those calls, before God, for how we will select songs for our own church.
Exactly it wasn't answered. And is it should we sing this song or is the better question is this song God glorifying and God honoring... Is it God honoring to pay royalties to churches spreading the prosperity gospel...
Actually they don't have good theology their songs are disconnected from truth, they mainly make God just love and nothing more he is as their churches teach the genie in the sky God who's chasing after you and desperate for your love ...
Don't assume that because a song is popular, and multiple people have asked for it, that that automatically means it must be a song we probably should do, that it must have merit. It may, OR, it could be an "OK" song that doesn't articulate truth as well as other options, or, at worst, a "wind of [false] doctrine" that carries people away :-(
Obviously. That is something that they have stated as a worship podcast perhaps more than anyone else. But biblically speaking, we’re also teaching and exhorting one another (see Col 3:16). Also, let’s look at our Lords song book, the Psalms, where we see the wide range of human experience addressed to learn from. And everyone intuitively knows that there are songs that are better or worse at accomplishing those varied biblical ends. In other words, it’s not enough to say that a song should glorify God. Some songs do that ok, other songs do that a little more, while other songs simply do that best. So yeah, good and great songs are a great way to think about the discussion of songs in a church.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I have a question though. Is there really nuance when we're talking about churches that teach another Jesus, prosperity gospel, and word of faith nonsense? Most books of the NT caution against false teaching. Jesus and Paul both called them by name. Knowing we could inadvertently lead someone to the teaching of a false church, shouldn't there be times when we throw out nuance and say no?
Caleb, thanks for the question. Each church needs to answer those questions. A song containing false teaching is different from a church, ministry, or artist promoting false teaching. We should never let "nuance" be a reason to keep a song. I think the problem in many churches, though, is not a single song, but a whole way of thinking about the songs they're singing. They're not asking SHOULD we sing this song, but CAN we sing this song. Those two questions will lead to two different answers.
There are many songs with good messages, but we have to dig down deep to get their meaning. Their messages are expressed in a third level language. Songs should make the messages hit directly to the heart.
Hey guys..... I'm a newer worship leader at my church. At my last church, my family was there over a number of years, and it was originally more a big mix, like Matt Redman, Vertical, Chris Tomlin, Hillsong, whoever sang Jesus At The Center first 😅😂 anywho, and then when I came back from college we moved much quickly more to City Alight, Sovereign Grace, Keith and Krysten Getty, Shane & Shane, and Matt Boswell and Papa. It kind of hurt us, because even though we love a lot of these other songs and they're great, their quickly became an emphasis on we can't do a song unless it's theologically rich, and often times musically it was very dry or the same kind of song with little variety. Please do not misunderstand me, I LOVE theologically rich songs, but it was very restrictive. What I'm struggling with is that Colossians 3:16 says, and I love that verse, but does that mean I can never do a simple song that articulates a truth in a simple way that my congregation has heard on the radio or spotify?? Please forgive me for my pointedness I want to do the right thing, but I fear I could be legalistic if I go this route, and that it wouldn't go well with my church.
I listened to this whole episode and the question was not answered. Specifically, who are these questionable sources, and why are they questionable? Seems like you're afraid to name names. I know some people really love the songs coming out of the Bethel collection of artists, and others who say that the songs per se may be theologically okay, but Bethel has heresy going on and so we should not be contributing to their coffers via CCLI. I myself have some vague misgivings about the content of a lot of Bethel songs, but have a hard time putting my finger on just what gives me concern. I'd like to see/hear another podcast where you get more specific.
We should be able to testify about a song, "We sing that song at church," rather than, "I have sung that song at Church." Can you catch the difference?
Hi, is there any chance that that the podcast is in Spanish or subtitle in Spanish, I’m from Argentina and I got friends that would love to listen to this, but can’t. Any chance that it’s gonna be subtitle in Spanish? Thank you
I still think there is responsibility on leaders to protect their congregation's theology by not singing songs from institutions that have inaccurate teachings. You are adding credibility to those churches by singing their music. Like you said, we have SO many options we can afford to be incredibly intentional about what we choose!
Joyful Blessings, I think the point of the podcast is that we should be incredibly intentional about what we choose to sing without being unbiblically scrupulous or pharisaical in how we make those decisions.
The wrong question is CAN we sing this song? The right question is SHOULD we sing this song? We want to sing great songs, and not just good songs in our limited time to teach and learn from them. Thank you for these excellent points.
Not entirely on point but something I read in Worship Matters a dozen years ago has been great advice I still follow. I try to always read the lyrics of a song before I listen to it for the first time. The music can sell something that one might not otherwise choose.
Good discussion gentlemen. Personally I embrace great songs from theologically questionable sources such as Sovereign Grace.😅. May God bless you richly.
Great idea Jim before the beat arrests you😂
Gentlemen, I think it should be noted that when you sing a song from a questionable source CCLI is compensating the source monetarily. Then there are two questions to answer:
1. “Would I send them money to stand in their congregation and drop money in the collection plate?” If you would not give them direct monetary support then why would you give them indirect support.
2. In singing a song written by and attributed to them are you giving tacit approval to their teaching from the pulpit and in their other writings?
We used to do a number of songs by Hillsong. But while the song in itself was fine we had to ask ourselves would we be willing stand in their congregation and submit to their teaching and doctrine. When we answered no we then had to conclude that by continuing to do their music we were giving approval for others in the congregation listen to their music and even their teaching ministry.
I recognize this is a matter of individual conscience but for us the matter was clear.
Really appreciate this thoughtful discussion! It's easy to keep wanting new shiny songs without considering the steady diet our church needs to digest God's Word though melodies and lyrics.
It was hinted at early on in the podcast when they were discussing CAN my church sing a song, whether the melody is simple or easy, but also there are good songs that are individual songs, not corporate songs. Even the subtitles of many of the Psalms say "for the choirmaster" or "for the singers". Some are to be sung by all and some are to be sung by a few. Many times a great song for individual meaning falls flat as a corporate song.
If the elders won’t bring an organizations teacher to teach or quote from them then we should ask ourselves why are we comfortable singing their songs and paying them?
Exactly if they can't preach in our churches why are we okay with using their music. Why do we need to there is no need to sing them other than to be seeker friendly.
Great conversation and terrific perspectives on this topic- covered a lot of ground in a short amount of time! Really well articulated!
I would add the law of supply and demand also applies to apostasy. This is why it is of utmost importance we do not bring any media whatsoever of heretics to the table. - Song Police
Very well articulated! Thank you so much! I am edified and encouraged :)
The aside point about not being able to catch up with the latest tunes is probably something that every church faces
I do know of several examples where 'older' songs are being introduced. Last weekend, a church I know of introduced 'All I Have Is Christ' from you... a song from 2008 :)
Lots of good info, thanks. But the reason i watched this video is to answer the question in the title "should we sing from questionable sources" which you did not answer. the guy on the left sort of said "yes we should" and everybody danced around melody, theology of the lyrics, etc. but did not actually address the "questionable source" part.
What we have found is that there seem to be some churches with dodgy theology, and yet the music they produce is high quality AND has great theology. However, by singing those songs (with copyright details displayed as we are obliged to do), it may be seen as us endorsing the doctrine of the church attached to the songwriters. I guess that in the end, it's up to us as leaders within our own churches to make those calls, before God, for how we will select songs for our own church.
Exactly it wasn't answered. And is it should we sing this song or is the better question is this song God glorifying and God honoring... Is it God honoring to pay royalties to churches spreading the prosperity gospel...
Actually they don't have good theology their songs are disconnected from truth, they mainly make God just love and nothing more he is as their churches teach the genie in the sky God who's chasing after you and desperate for your love ...
Thanks for posting
Doctrinal truth for emotional fire 🔥
Don't assume that because a song is popular, and multiple people have asked for it, that that automatically means it must be a song we probably should do, that it must have merit. It may, OR, it could be an "OK" song that doesn't articulate truth as well as other options, or, at worst, a "wind of [false] doctrine" that carries people away :-(
Well said Devon.
Excellent episode.
I hear you saying good song to great song...
The song should be to honor and worship Our God
Obviously. That is something that they have stated as a worship podcast perhaps more than anyone else. But biblically speaking, we’re also teaching and exhorting one another (see Col 3:16). Also, let’s look at our Lords song book, the Psalms, where we see the wide range of human experience addressed to learn from. And everyone intuitively knows that there are songs that are better or worse at accomplishing those varied biblical ends.
In other words, it’s not enough to say that a song should glorify God. Some songs do that ok, other songs do that a little more, while other songs simply do that best. So yeah, good and great songs are a great way to think about the discussion of songs in a church.
Thank you for this
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I have a question though. Is there really nuance when we're talking about churches that teach another Jesus, prosperity gospel, and word of faith nonsense? Most books of the NT caution against false teaching. Jesus and Paul both called them by name. Knowing we could inadvertently lead someone to the teaching of a false church, shouldn't there be times when we throw out nuance and say no?
Caleb, thanks for the question. Each church needs to answer those questions. A song containing false teaching is different from a church, ministry, or artist promoting false teaching. We should never let "nuance" be a reason to keep a song. I think the problem in many churches, though, is not a single song, but a whole way of thinking about the songs they're singing. They're not asking SHOULD we sing this song, but CAN we sing this song. Those two questions will lead to two different answers.
There are many songs with good messages, but we have to dig down deep to get their meaning. Their messages are expressed in a third level language. Songs should make the messages hit directly to the heart.
Hey guys..... I'm a newer worship leader at my church. At my last church, my family was there over a number of years, and it was originally more a big mix, like Matt Redman, Vertical, Chris Tomlin, Hillsong, whoever sang Jesus At The Center first 😅😂 anywho, and then when I came back from college we moved much quickly more to City Alight, Sovereign Grace, Keith and Krysten Getty, Shane & Shane, and Matt Boswell and Papa. It kind of hurt us, because even though we love a lot of these other songs and they're great, their quickly became an emphasis on we can't do a song unless it's theologically rich, and often times musically it was very dry or the same kind of song with little variety. Please do not misunderstand me, I LOVE theologically rich songs, but it was very restrictive. What I'm struggling with is that Colossians 3:16 says, and I love that verse, but does that mean I can never do a simple song that articulates a truth in a simple way that my congregation has heard on the radio or spotify?? Please forgive me for my pointedness I want to do the right thing, but I fear I could be legalistic if I go this route, and that it wouldn't go well with my church.
There’s certainly room for simpler songs. Neither Jesus nor the NT writers always spoke in deep theological terms. The issue is still “what edifies?”
Edify means building up correct??
Thank you for your reply!! I do appreciate and love your music! Shine Into Our Night is one of my favorites!!
I listened to this whole episode and the question was not answered. Specifically, who are these questionable sources, and why are they questionable? Seems like you're afraid to name names. I know some people really love the songs coming out of the Bethel collection of artists, and others who say that the songs per se may be theologically okay, but Bethel has heresy going on and so we should not be contributing to their coffers via CCLI. I myself have some vague misgivings about the content of a lot of Bethel songs, but have a hard time putting my finger on just what gives me concern. I'd like to see/hear another podcast where you get more specific.
We should be able to testify about a song, "We sing that song at church," rather than, "I have sung that song at Church." Can you catch the difference?
Hi, is there any chance that that the podcast is in Spanish or subtitle in Spanish, I’m from Argentina and I got friends that would love to listen to this, but can’t. Any chance that it’s gonna be subtitle in Spanish? Thank you
Hello, Sam! We are currently working on adding Spanish subtitles to all the podcast episodes. Hope this helps. Blessings!
Helpful
As good as truth married to a melody is effective, so are lies married to a melody. The evil one knows that.
Hillsong in the 90s is a bit different to Hillsong of today
MUCH different, I’d say.