Should We All Stop Singing Hillsong Songs?

Post date: Apr 25, 2016 1:44:31 PM

Should We All Stop Singing Hillsong Songs?

I. Intro:

According to the article, “Why I Stopped Singing Hillsong”:

“...It was very clear as the service progressed, Hillsong United and Hillsong the church are one in the same. There is no separation between the two. In the same way Jesus Culture is a ministry of Bethel Church, Hillsong United is a ministry of Hillsong Church...

Hillsong Church is a Pentecostal megachurch affiliated with Australian Christian Churches (the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God)...Hillsong Music Funds Hillsong Church...

Singing Hillsong Furthers Their Mission And Their Message...Every time we sing a Hillsong song, we promote to our congregations the Hillsong brand, send them money, and, in effect, join them in their network and help them spread their message...

Think Before You Sing

My goal of writing this is to challenge churches and worship leaders to think seriously about not only WHAT they are singing, but to also consider where their songs come from and who (and what) they may be unintentionally endorsing in the process.

All MOVEMENTS have an agenda and need to be scrutinized…much more than a solo songwriter.

When it comes to worship, why are we taking our cues from a movement where we don’t align on some very fundamental doctrinal issues?

Apostolic Authority

Second Blessing

Prosperity Gospel

Women Lead Pastors

A church that offers a non-committal answer when it comes to homosexual marriage.

In the same way your theology informs your MINISTRY, it also informs your WORSHIP. It can’t help it. Worship is more than just expression of our hearts…it is instructive to the mind as well. We teach our people through singing.

In effect there are two sermons that go on during Sunday morning, one that is sung, and one that is preached. While we would never put these men in our pulpits, we in effect, invite them to lead our people in worship every Sunday.

Know what you are promoting and who you are partnering with.

It was tremendously helpful for me to have the chance to experience Hillsong and hear Brian Houston personally…straight from the horses mouth so to say. As for me, I do not align with Hillsong, their teaching or their theology. Therefore, no matter how popular they are, or how I might not take issue with a particular song, I do not think it is wise to partner with them in worship. There are enough good songs out there that don’t have the baggage. We have a choice…we can sing something else.”

See https://bruceherwig.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/why-i-stopped-singing-hillsong/

Now, I disagree with the Prosperity Gospel, I don't see it taught in the Bible. However, in my opinion, there are some things we seriously need to consider when answering the question, “Should a Christian not sing music from Hillsong because they disagree with a particular part of Hillsong?” And as I will explain, it ultimately comes down to one's philosophy and presuppositions.

II. The Necessity and Usefulness of Philosophy:

“If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence. Your opponent may call you out on it...” - Victor Stenge vi

* Philosophy is the critical analysis of fundamental concepts of human inquiry, and the normative discussion of how human thought and action ought to function, including the description of the nature of reality. It is often more preoccupied with method than with theory and it is a development of skill; second order discipline, examining method and concepts of first order disciplines, e.g., biology, history, education. It also has clarification as one of its goals: epistemology. i, ii

1. Two different approaches of philosophy:

a) analytical or conceptual-- defines philosophic and scientific terms and clarifies the language of ideas; studies the concepts and terminology.

- Goals: to examine basic presuppositions and concepts that those in special disciplines use, i.e., the scientist, moralist and theologian; to clarify the concepts and terms used in all major areas of inquiry; to analyze the foundations of knowledge

b) speculative – combines the results of the conceptual inquiry into a comprehensive and integrated view of reality.

- Goals: to explain the ultimate constituents of the world and reality and define the proper place of man and his activities in the world;

2. Important tools of philosophy: iii

* Clarity-- the first step in determining whether a proposition is true or false is to understand its meaning

many disagreements happen because we fail to understand another person's position and we engage in argument before we know what we are really arguing about.

* Definitions-- state the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of words. There are two types:

1) nominal-- arbitrary stipulation that a certain word will have a particular meaning

a) many words in science are of this type (ex. electron)

b) found in dictionaries.

c) cannot be true or false only useful or not

2) real-- describe set of properties possessed by all members of a certain class and not possessed by anything outside of that class

a) concerned with factual considerations

b) maybe true or false if it does not described the class of things it is formulated to define

* Analysis of concepts (context)-- the usage of words, usually in ordinary language. iii Process of defining and clarifying terms. i

* Argument-- two or more declarative statements made up of premises or propositions and a conclusion iv

* Inference-- drawing conclusions from premises

* Logic-- a branch of philosophy that involves the understanding of the laws that regulate our thought processes; correct reasoning; basis for all thought; is a study, an ordering, of how to think rightly or how to find truth; a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions; a universal practice; studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions; puts all of these methods into an order that gives the right way to draw conclusions; and is a negative test for truth. iii

1) we always ought to be logical so that we know the truth, come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking?

2) can be used to prove whether or not our faith, opinion, worldview, religion, etc. makes sense; if it's reasonable or foolish?

3) emotions are not and should never be involved at all in formal arguments; argument provides reasons for the basis of a conclusion, one cannot do good logical thinking without them

4) limits of: only questions of truth are subject to logic; reveals nothing about some kinds of statements: emotive expressions (expressions of feelings) or aesthetic expressions (appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses; the nature of beauty, art, taste): which are neither true or false

* Syllogisms-- two premises that state the evidence and a conclusion, that affirm or deny something iii

* Types of Propositions-- hypothetical (“if this, than that”); disjunctive (“either this, or that”); categorical (“this is that”) iii

3. How Philosophy relates to the Christian:

* In a general sense, all of us, Christian and non-Christian, are philosophers and theologians:

“Theology is for everyone. Indeed, everyone needs to be a theologian. In reality, everyone is a theologian—of one sort or another. And therein lies the problem. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is everything wrong with being an ignorant or sloppy theologian.” —Charles Ryrie

There are even various kinds of theologians: tabloid, folk, lay, ministerial, professional, academic. (see https://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers).

See also: “Is There a Need for Christian Apologetics?” Worldview Cafe https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

* So, although all Christians are technically apologists (defenders of Christianity) and philosophers, most have not really reflected and studied what they believe and why. On the other hand, those who call themselves “Christian apologists”, amateur and professional, usually have made the mental effort (based on their occupation) to really research and reflect various sides of an issue or subject. They usually are more open to critique, have conducted personal research, looked at the whole system and various sources and considered what others believe and why before formulating their own opinions. They have the skills and tools necessary to be able to make objective informed opinions instead of relying on hearsay information, no evidence, popularity, traditional and religious folklore, emotion, passion, personal investment. This is why I trust (put more weight and certainty in) their opinions, advice, commentary and critique more than I trust that of “non-experts”. (Many who are professional have spent 8-12 yrs in field of specialization within the discipline and even had to  defend their work before a panel of expert examiners in their given discipline in order to earn their degree).

It is best to construct one's view of the world by reflecting upon concepts, formulating beliefs that differentiates essentials from non essentials, being critical of unfounded traditions, using study tools and resources, using methods (systematic rules, procedures), being open to critique, and conducting personal research.

It is also best to avoid opinions and theology based on hearsay information, no evidence, popularity, traditional and religious folklore, emotion, passion, personal investment.

Which is a better method for developing beliefs: learning how to think through issues, coming to your own decisions/conclusions, and learning how to evaluate your own beliefs or being taught what to believe, what someone else thinks is true? This is why learning philosophy is important.

Unfortunately, many people choose beliefs (religions) based on how they want to look at the world (facts/reality)--priori/pragmatic based, instead of seeing how the world (facts/reality) really is and then determining their beliefs—posteriori/inductive based.

* Christians should also not be afraid to disagree with others or to have their own opinions and beliefs challenged. “We must stand against the culture (including inappropriate tendencies in the evangelical subculture), resist the empty self, and eschew the intellectual flabbiness that goes along with it. Motivation is a key here...Expose yourself to ideas with which you disagree and let yourself be motivated to excel intellectually by the exposure. Listen to talk shows, read the editorial page, and walk around a local university and look at bulletin boards or read the student newspaper. Get into discussions with people at work with whom you differ. The point is to spend time around those who do not simply reinforce your own ways of looking at things. There are two advantages to this. For one thing, we can learn from our critics. For another, such exposure can move us to realize just how serious the war of ideas really is and how inadequately prepared we are to engage in that contest.” - J.P. Moreland in Love Your God With All Your Mind.

For more on the importance of “peer review” see “Is There a Need for Christian Apologetics?” Worldview Cafe https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

III. Principles and Patterns (Practice):

It's very important that we differentiate between principles and patterns (practice).

Principles are essential, absolute, timeless, transcultural, and Biblically commanded, they are what we ought to do. v

Patterns (practices) are non-essential, relative, time bound, culturally subjective, Biblically illustrated (not commanded), and have to do with the practice, means or methods, how we do what we should do.

We must be very careful to not take patterns or methods and turn them into principles or essentials.v

For example, the local church is called to educate believers in the truth of the Bible and exhort them to live like Jesus, in obedience to the Word—the principle. The pattern or method of how to accomplish this can vary. It can include, exegetical preaching, topical preaching, classes, Sunday school, small groups, men's ministry, women's ministry, apologetics classes etc.

Futher, the local church is commanded to engage in corporate worship-- principle. The command of corporate worship can be fulfilled by contemporary music, traditional hymns, a cappella singing, no singing, liturgical reading, pastoral prayer, communion (from one cup, from many cups, with wine, with grape juice), etc.--pattern/practice.

Another example, God created us to know him, love him with all of our heart, mind and soul, live with him, and glorify him (1Pet 4:11; Matthew 22:37–40). This is the principle. How we do this, by enjoying him, loving him, trusting him, and by obeying his will, commands, and law (Deuteronomy 11:1) is the pattern or practice. God's commands do not change but how we apply them might. (adapted from http://www.newcitycatechism.com)

This distinction between principle and pattern will be important as I attempt to answer the above questions about Hillsong.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "To believe is to obey and to obey is to believe." Our actions and behavior are the most reliable index to our beliefs. If we are convinced that certain propositions are true, we will behave accordingly. You have a belief system, whether you realize it or not, and our lifestyle often contradicts the beliefs we claim to hold (www.thetruthproject.org). So, since what one really believes will determine how they live, if one is indeed a Christian, a disciple of Christ, they will have a Christian worldview and it will affect every area of their life—the principle: how they relate to people, what they believe about family, government, work, education, music, politics, entertainment, etc., and how they interact with the world. The pattern or practice is exactly how it will affect those areas.

So, a Christian artist with a Christian worldview will reflect that philosophy in their music. How that happens will vary. They may write about relationships, trials, suffering, death, love, friendship, sin, war, sex and anything else they wish but they will be based on their Christian worldview.

Q: If the above is true, then why is the theology (worldview) of Hillsong Music different from that of Hillsong Church (beliefs, theology, doctrine)?

Other principles: worship should be part of our church service and singing hymns and spiritual songs should be central and the message or worldview conveyed by the music is more important that the mode (pattern) by which it is expressed. The pattern or practice is exactly how those hymns and songs are sung.

* See also “What Makes Music or a Band "Christian"?' Worldview Cafe- https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

IV. Essential Question: Should we separate Hillsong Music from Hillsong Church (beliefs, theology, doctrine)?

It is my conviction, that this an important (if not main) issue.

One must be careful of committing the reductive fallacy which happens when one makes a complex issue look simple by focusing on only one part of it; when one assumes that descriptions on one level exclude or invalidate descriptions on another. this leads to misunderstanding. As I will explain, the Hillsong topic is more complex as it first appears.

one example of this fallacy is the genetic fallacy: when the focus is on the sources or origin of an idea; “something/one should be rejected because it/ they come from a bad source.” searches the secretes of the past for hidden motives to determine whether a proposition is true.

* Ex. “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

* Ex. “Creationism is not scientific since it had religious origins.” but we don't do this with the idea that murder is wrong?

* Ex. “What Hitler said about math (2+2=4) is wrong because he was an evil person.” [I made up this example, as I don't know if he really made mathematical statements]

* In our topic, there are many elements involved: we have the person who chooses to sing or not sing the music of Hillsong, Hillsong Music, Hillsong church, Hillsong's message, beliefs, theology, doctrine (and you could also include observers too, this will be more relevant later on). What the relationships are between these elements is an important (if not main) issue and is something one needs to take into consideration before simply dismissing Hillsong.

Q: Are we committing this fallacy if we don't separate Hillsong Music from Hillsong Church?

You also have to beware of the fallacy of division between the music and teaching. Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole... or putting another way, assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts.

Logical Form:

A is part of B

B has property X

Therefore, A has property X.

Example 1:

Jane is the daughter of Mary and Jack.

Mary and Jack known to be rude and obnoxious.

Therefore, Jane is also rude and obnoxious.

Example 2:

I heard that the Catholic Church was involved in a sex scandal cover-up.  Therefore, my 102 year-old Catholic neighbor, who frequently attends Church, is guilty as well!

“some properties are such that, if a whole object has the property, then all of its parts will, too—for example, invisibility. However, not all properties are like this—for instance, visibility. Let's call a property which distributes from a whole object to each of its parts a "dissective" property, using Nelson Goodman's term. If P is a dissective property, then the argument form above is validating, by definition of what such a property is. However, if P is not dissective, then the argument form is non-validating, and any argument of that form commits the fallacy of Division.” (adapted from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/division.html). "When a part of the whole has a property that, by definition, causes the part to take on that property." (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../Fallacy_of_Division).

Example of Dissective:

People are made out of atoms.

People are visible.

Therefore, atoms are visible.

Q: Are we committing this fallacy if we don't separate Hillsong Music from Hillsong Church? A stated before, what is true of the whole, Hillsong Church, is not true of the parts, Hillsong Music; the music and the doctrine are present different theologies. Again, why is the theology (worldview) of Hillsong Music different from that of Hillsong Church (beliefs, theology, doctrine)? The best answer that I can conclude is that there is a distinction.

and we should also be aware of fallacies of generalization: if one dismisses all differences, then everything is the same; but, differences are at least if not more important than similarities.

Q: Are we committing this fallacy if we don't separate Hillsong Music from Hillsong Church? Are there essential differences between Hillsong Music and Hillsong Church?

Applied to our current topic, can an orthodox Christian separate Hillsong Music from Hillsong Church (beliefs, theology, doctrine)? Can we accept their music while at the same time reject their theological position? Why or why not? There is a theology (worldview) being presented in BOTH the music and the doctrine; but what happens when they are different? shouldn't the music be judged independently of the teaching? I will attempt to answer each question.

* if one can logically (and theologically) separate music from teaching (doctrine) then one can reject one and keep the other (e.g., reject the false teaching and keep the orthodox teaching). But what would be the consequences of this position?

* and if one cannot separate the two, then we must reject both as a whole/unit. But what are the consequences of this?

Let's find out...

V. Essential Question: if one cannot separate Hillsong music from teaching, if they must be viewed as a unit, then are being consistent and comprehensive when it comes to other similar situations?

Would you agree that our belief system and standards should be coherent (make logical sense, cannot be contradictory), consistent (internally consistent with itself and other statements in a given system) and comprehensive (liveable)?

We all have a belief system, whether we know it or not, and our lifestyle often contradicts the beliefs we claim to hold (there is a difference between what one practices and what one professes). What a person really believes determines how they live/ behave. Our actions and behavior are the most reliable index to our beliefs (If we are convinced that certain propositions are true, we will behave accordingly). “Dissonance”, a 15th century

term that means a lack of agreement; especially: inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs — compare cognitive dissonance and an instance of such inconsistency or disagreement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissonance). Unfortunately, many Christians are inconsistent in their theology and behavior. We are called to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistency. vii

* Q:  If you refuse to buy or support x because x supports y which you do not agree with, then shouldn't you apply this to everything else that fits if you want to live a consistent life?

Examples:

1. If one says “I refuse to buy groceries at Smiths Food and Drug because it's founder was Mormon and I don't agree with Mormonism”. Are you also only going to buy from Chick Fil A and In and Out and Hobby Lobby because of their Christian history/origins? and if so, what if one of their employee is a non Christian? what if they are a Jehovah Witness? Are you still going to be their customer and support the employee's beliefs by shopping with them? 

2. I see this as similar to a Christian who refuses to sell to or serve a homosexual couple. They should also be consistent with their logic/reasoning (with their beliefs and practice) and also refuse to sell to ALL consumers who have a non-Christian worldview and lifestyle that they disagree with, such as people who lie, lust, steal, hate, have sex before marriage, are prideful...See “Tolerance and Judging Non-Christians”. Peter Urquidez https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

3. If someone avoids smoking because it controls one's body, then to be consistent and comprehensive, they should also avoid coffee. If they avoid smoking because it is bad for heath, so is fast food and laziness. We should avoid hypocrisy and inconsistency as much as we can. We should check our beliefs, standards and judgments (criteria) for consistency.

* One should also make a distinction between true relativity and true objectivity. That is, we must ask what truths are relative and what truths are objective? (adapted from “Introduction to Theology”. The Theology Notebook. www.bible.org). One should understand: “What are the essential beliefs that make a Christian a Christian? What are the core beliefs that someone must believe to be saved ? What truths are relative? How legalism where people are judging others for not agreeing with them on each and every detail on non-essential issues comes in?:

True Relativity are things that are either completely independent of right or wrong, or the right or wrong is determined by the situation (context); subjective; non transcending. Includes (a) situational (contextual) relativity: ex. evangelism, public school, going to the movies, drinking alcohol, eating meat sacrificed to idols. and (b) autonomous relativity, personal opinion; tastes: ex. best kind of food, church music, best song, room temperature.

True Objectivity are things that have a definite right or wrong. There is always an objective truth that is true no matter whether one believes it. It is not dependent upon time, culture, or any situation. It exists as true or false in and of itself. All biblical principles and doctrines belong to this category. This includes (a) Essential Objectivity, those truths that are essential for salvation, truths which you believe a person must accept in order to be considered a true Christian: ex. existence of God, the atonement, faith alone. (b) Non-Essential Objectivity: This category contains both doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues that are not necessary for one’s salvation. the truth here is surely objective. But at the same time, it is non-essential, because it is not necessary to believe one way or the other as a prerequisite to salvation: ex. date of Jesus' second coming, canon of scripture, views of predestination.

As we can see, “not all beliefs matter equally but all matter” (Roger Olsen).

Q: Applied to our topic, where does Hillsong fit? Which category True Relativity or True Objectivity does it belong to? Is it situational relativity or autonomous relativity? is it essential objectivity or non-essential objectivity?

If one can separate Hillsong music from Hillsong teaching, then one can place each in different truth categories.

But, if one cannot separate their music from their teaching, then they must be in the same truth category.

* Returning to our topic of consistency, if one cannot separate Hillsong music from Hillsong teaching (if they must be seen as a unit), then we must reject both and so if you refuse to sing (buy, support) music from Hillsong because you disagree with the teaching or their statement of faith, philosophy of ministry etc., then shouldn't you also not support other things (churches, music, businesses, etc.) that also have different views then your own if you want to be consistent and comprehensive?

Q: Would you agree that we should have consistent beliefs, criteria, standards and judgments?

Q: How consistent and compressive are we when we pick up a book? Do we really take the time to research not only the author or writer but the publishing company behind the book? What about the author's church affiliation?

What about the author's personal view of revelation, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, anthropology, sin, salvation, church, end times (future prophetic events)? What about when we pick up a music album or movie? What do we do when we discover that we disagree with some part of the writer’s beliefs? the publishing company? the writer's church, etc.? Again, we must distinguish between essential and non-essential matters and between principles and practice.

A more, specific example: What if I agree with John Piper's book on marriage, “This Momentary Marriage” but disagree with his view on end times? or on his view on the relationship between the Church and Israel?

*  Again, if you refuse to buy or support x because x supports y which you do not agree with, then shouldn't you apply this to everything else that fits if you want to live a consistent life?

* Q: If one cannot separate Hillsong music from teaching, then should one also not separate the beliefs and practice of Starbucks and Smiths? Background: Starbucks supports equality, i.e. homosexual marriages. See June 26, 2015 Company

Starbucks Applauds Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage Equality: https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-applauds-supreme-courts-ruling-on-marriage-equality

and Smith Food and Drug's founder was Mormon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%27s_Food_and_Drug

Now, someone may argue that supporting (directly or indirectly) Hillsong is different from supporting other things (groups, miniseries, writers, etc.) because Hillsong claims to be Christian or to represent the Gospel and are misrepresenting it. For example:

* Comparison in not supporting Hillsong, Starbucks, Smiths Food and Drug:

Hillsong Starbucks Smiths (founder was Mormon)

institution: a church a business a business

promoting: false Gospel Atheism (pluralism) false Gospel

issue: claims to be the Truth rejects/in different to the Truth Mormons claim to be the Truth

claims to be Christian rejects/indifferent to Christianity Mormons claim to be Christian.

goal/purpose: evangelism make $ make $

open to/ serving: public open to/ serving: public open to/ serving: public

offers: spirituality food/drink food/drink

Q: one must ask how similar are these analogies?

One must avoid a faulty analogy: “accept this because of these (superficial) similarities with that.” Not all analogies are created equal; some are not as relevant because of critical difference in the things being compared. For example, “Believing in Jesus Christ is like believing in Zeus, the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.”

Analogies can present very strong and effective arguments, when there are strong similarities and only non-essential differences between the things being compared. Do we find that here? But, if the similarities are only accidental or the differences are essential or if some similarities are found but there is an essential difference in aspects then an analogy is invalidated.ii “Two important points about analogy: No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different...How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough.” (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html). So, for example, the color of two otherwise identical chairs is irrelevant to their function but the color may be relevant when the overall room decor is considered.

Q: Are there critical, relevant differences between Hillsong, Starbucks and Smiths? What are the consequences of supporting each, Hillsong, Starbucks and Smiths?

My current position as I understand the facts is that there are strong similarities and non-essential differences among them. All three are examples of rejecting the true orthodox Gospel, all three rely on consumers (or church members) for their existence. So, one could and should (logically and theologically) separate and judge Hillsong the music from Hillsong the church (teaching). One can reject one and keep the other (e.g., reject the false teaching and keep the orthodox teaching).

Even if there these are extremely dissimilar, invalid, one still has to justify not separating their music from their teaching.

* Q: Now, what if we were okay with singing Hillsong music when we didn't know about their church? What if we don't know for certain what another person's (company's or church's) lifestyle or beliefs are? Should we still support them?

This is similar to the view of how and when one should help the homeless. God calls us to help the homeless and those in need. But what's the right thing to do? God wants us to give without judging them, i.e. assuming that they will use the $ we give them for drugs and alcohol or assuming that it's a scam. But, God also tells us to have wisdom and discernment (understanding). “John Bradshaw puts it in his book, Reclaiming Virtue: Practical wisdom 'is the ability to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason.' Without the correct application of practical wisdom, the other virtues would be lived too much or two little and turn into vices.” (see Practical Wisdom at http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/12/19/practical-wisdom/). Christians are to do the right thing (what), the right way (how), with the right motives (why) and at the right time (when). So, if we are good reason to believe that a person in need will use the $ for unwise choices then we should not give them $. But, if we are unsure, yes, they may use it for wrong but it is between them and God. It's their responsibility (and free choice). God will judges our motives of whether or not we helped them. (See To Give or Not to Give to the Homeless… Andrew Schwab.

http://andrewschwab.com/2010/03/to-give-or-not-to-give-to-the-homeless).

Applying this to our topic, one may claim that he or she did not know about the position of Hillsong Church, so when they were supporting them, they were being consistent based what they knew. And now that they are aware of it, and have stopped supporting, they can and will be consistent if they also stop supporting other things that they do not agree with as soon as they become aware of them as well. Taking this view, if one cannot separate Hillsong music from teaching, and so decides to not support either of them, then they will be consistent when it comes to other similar situations if they also stop supporting them as they become aware of them. With awareness comes responsibility.

(See To Give or Not to Give to the Homeless… Andrew Schwab.

http://andrewschwab.com/2010/03/to-give-or-not-to-give-to-the-homeless)

On the other hand, if one can logically (and theologically) separate music from teaching (doctrine), as we do with many other things such as Smiths and Starbucks (assuming they are similar), then there is no inconsistency and being aware of the respective worldviews makes not difference.

VI. Essential question: what are the consequences of each view to oneself and others?

In “Are Christians justified in refusing to serve Non-Christians?” Peter Urquidez https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe. I review some of the common reasons that some Christians are refusing to serve, e.g., make a cake or take pictures, non-christian, specifically homosexual, customers. It seems to me that we can apply the reasons given there to our current topic. Some Christians believe that singing Hillsong songs would:

1. Conflict with what the Bible teaches (the Christian worldview):

-- The reasoning: “The Bible teaches that their church theology is wrong; therefore, I will not sing their music because I don't agree with their theology (regardless of the songs)”

– again this comes down to whether or not one can separate and judge the music from the teaching

2. Endorse, support or approve their Church either directly or indirectly:

--The reasoning: “If I sing Hillsong music, it explicitly leaves the impression that I support their church theology (teaching).”

-- these Christians believe that if they listen to or buy their music, they would be approving/supporting of (or even taking part in) their teaching.

-- this reason concerns how other people will view you singing their songs.

– again this comes down to whether or not one can separate and judge the music from the teaching

3. Make them disobey God (sin): similar to #1 above.

--The reasoning: “If I listen to their music, even if I have no theological problem with it, I would be disobeying God and sinning against Him.”

-- these Christians believe that if they sing their music, they would be participating in their sin

-- But is this true? Is a Christian singing their music the same as them participating in their sin?

– again this comes down to whether or not one can separate and judge the music from the teaching

4. Make them and/or others personally uncomfortable or tempt them to stumble:

--The reasoning: “If I sing this music, it would make me (or others) uncomfortable.”

– a person's conscience is sensitive to the knowledge of Hillsong's theology

– This is more of a subjective or personal reason for not singing their songs that may not necessarily be based on anything that the Bible teaches. Tradition, experience, emotions, culture, revelation all affect our beliefs and in turn, our conscience and convictions. One's past experience may influence our conscience in certain ways that may make us easily disturbed, sensitive and convicted which may be subjective and not really based on Biblical principles. Our conscience can be wrong or mis-calibrated due to bad theology or logic. Christians should recalibrate their mind with the standard, objective word of God.

* “Session 6 - Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials” from https://bible.org/seriespage/session-6-defining-essentials-and-non-essentials

describes: What the essential beliefs that make a Christian a Christian are? What the core beliefs that someone must believe to be saved are? What truths are relative? How legalism where people are judging others for not agreeing with them on each and every detail on non-essential issues comes in? viii

1) a Christian should know and understand the difference between True Relativity and True Objectivity.

2) True Objectivity: things that have a definite right or wrong; no matter whether one believes it; not dependent upon time, culture, or any situation; exists as true or false in and of itself; all biblical principles and doctrines belong to this category; does not mean that we have to have a complete understanding; includes (a) Essential Objectivity, those truths that are essential for salvation, truths which you believe a person must accept in order to be considered a true Christian: ex. Existence of God, the atonement, faith alone. (b) Non-Essential Objectivity.

3) True Relativity: things that are either completely independent of right or wrong, or the right or wrong is determined by the situation; subjective; non transcending; includes (a) situational (contextual) relativity: ex. evangelism, public school, going to the movies, drinking alcohol, eating meet sacrificed to idols (see 1Corinthians 8). and (b) autonomous relativity, personal opinion; tastes: ex. best kind of food, church music, best song, room temperature.

a) Situational Relativity: The right and the wrong of something is dependent upon the culture, time, situation, or some other variable.

4) Christians should look at the principle behind their rule and ask what principle they are following by doing or not doing a particular thing.

a) some Christians in wanting to avoid violating a Biblical principle, sets up rules, that become their norm/standard and they begin to judge others based on that personal rule/conviction.

* Ex. in Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8, Paul is speaking about essential and non- essential beliefs, principles (what) and practices (how) of Christian personal freedoms:

1) As John MacArthur explains: “the threat to unity which Paul addresses in this passage arises when mature (strong) believers—both Jews and Gentiles— conflict with immature (weak) believers. The strong Jewish believers understood their freedom in Christ and realized that the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law were no longer binding. The mature Gentiles understood that idols are not gods and, therefore, that they could eat meat that had been offered to them. But in both cases, the weaker brothers' consciences were troubled, and they were even tempted to violate their consciences (a bad thing to train oneself to do). Knowing that the mature Jews and Gentiles would be able to understand these struggles, Paul addresses most of his comments to them...the weak Jewish believer had difficulty abandoning the rites and prohibitions of the old covenant; he felt compelled to adhere to dietary laws, observe the Sabbath, and offer sacrifices in the temple. The weak Gentile believer had been steeped in pagan idolatry and its rituals; he felt that any contact with anything remotely related to his past, including eating meat that had been offered to a pagan deity and then sold in the marketplace, tainted him with sin. Both had very sensitive consciences in these areas, and were not yet mature enough to be free of those convictions. Cf. 1Co_8:1-13...The consciences of some newer converts were still accusing them strongly with regard to allowing them to eat idol food without feeling spiritually corrupted and guilty. They still imagined that idols were real and evil. A defiled conscience is one that has been violated, bringing fear, shame, and guilt.” (The MacArthur Bible Commentary. John MacArthur

Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

2) what is the solution to a weak conscience? knowledge, specifically knowledge of the truth, which requires renewing of the mind (Rom 12)

3) nevertheless, stronger/mature Christians should use their personal freedoms

wisely. Applied here, the stronger Christian may be able to serve non-Christians while the weaker Christian may not and so making them uncomfortable or even stumbling them.

4) In their post, “12 Principles for Disagreeing with Other Christians”, Andrew David Naselli and J. D. Crowley assert that, “a church will have two groups: (1) those who are “weak in faith” (14:1) on that issue and (2) those “who are strong” (15:1). The weak in faith have a weak conscience on that matter, and the strong in faith, a strong conscience...“faith” here refers not to saving faith in Christ (14:22a makes that clear) but to the confidence a person has in their heart or conscience to do a particular activity, such as eat meat (14:2). The weak person’s conscience lacks sufficient confidence (i.e., faith) to do a particular act without self-judgment, even if that act is actually not a sin. To him it would be a sin.” Some of the principles they list are: ix

a) “Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don’t (Rom. 14:3–4).

b) Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom. 14:3–4). They may say, “How can those people be Christians and do that? Don’t they know they’re hurting the testimony of Christ? Don’t they know that they are supposed to give up things like that for the sake of the gospel?”

c) Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom. 14:5). Should Christians celebrate Jewish holy days? This issue, which Paul is addressing here, illustrates the principle that on disputable matters, you should obey your conscience. This does not mean that your conscience is always right. It’s wise to calibrate your conscience to better fit God’s will. But it does mean that you cannot constantly sin against your conscience and be a healthy Christian. You must be fully convinced of your present position on food or drink or special days—or whatever the issue—and then live consistently by that decision until God may lead you by his Word and Spirit to adjust your conscience.

d) Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom. 14:6–9). Notice how generous Paul is to both sides. He assumes that both sides are exercising their freedoms or restrictions for the glory of God.

e) Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom. 14:10–12).

f) Your freedom to eat meat is correct, but don’t let your freedom destroy the faith of a weak brother (Rom. 14:13–15). Free and strict Christians in a church both have responsibilities toward each other. Strict Christians have a responsibility not to impose their conscience on everyone else in the church. It is a serious sin to try to bind someone else’s conscience with rules that God does not clearly command... the bulk of responsibility on Christians with a strong conscience. One obvious reason is that they are strong, so God calls on them to bear with the weaknesses of the weak (Rom. 15:1)

g) Disagreements about eating and drinking are not important in the kingdom of God; building each other up in righteousness, peace, and joy is the important thing (Rom. 14:16–21).

h) If you have freedom, don’t flaunt it; if you are strict, don’t expect others to be strict like you (Rom. 14:22a)

i) We must follow the example of Christ, who put others first (Rom. 15:1–6)...[but this] doesn’t mean that the strong have to agree with the position of the weak....[or] that the strong can never again exercise their freedoms. On the other hand, neither does it mean that the strong only put up with or endure or tolerate the weak, like a person who tolerates someone who annoys him. For a Christian, to “bear with” the weaknesses of the weak means that you gladly help the weak by refraining from doing anything that would hurt their faith.

j) It matters how you treat those who disagree with you on disputable matters.

-- one needs to ask “does the Bible really teach this or is this my interpretation of what the Bible says, my personal opinion?”

– Applied here, the stronger Christian may be able to separate Hillsong music from their teaching while the weaker Christian may not and so making them uncomfortable or even stumbling them.

* Guiding Questions to Questionable Practices and Situations (adapted from Practical Christian Theology. Barackman and Quick Scripture Reference for Counseling Youth: God’s Will):

1. Relating to God

a. will this action or behavior glorify and honor God?

1. 1Co 10:31-33

2. Does it hinder God’s work in your life?

3. Does it give a bad witness to the world of who God is and who Christians are?

b. can we do this by faith in God?

1. Gal 2:20

2. our old self, who we were before we were saved, is dead

3. we now have a new nature

4. to have doubts about the rightness of an action or to act without God’s approval is to sin

c. can we do this in Jesus’ name?

1. Col 3:17

2. a name represents a person’s character and nature

3. Jesus’ name represents His person, who He is, His character, His function, His power and authority and His interests

4. is what we want to do in agreement with the nature of Jesus and with His interests?

2. Relating to other People

a. will this behavior cause others (saved or not) to stumble?

1. 1Cor 8:9, 13; 10:32

2. it may be a wrong action that tempts others to sin or

3. a lawful action that violates the conscious of another (1Cor 8:10-12)

4. will this action ruin your witness before the world?

a. 1Pe 2:11-12

b. will this behavior promote the well being of others?

1. Rom 13:10

2. Rom 15:2

3. Relating to Ourselves

a. what kind of effect will this behavior have on my body and mind?

1. 1 Cor 6:12-20

2. God uses our body to bring glory to Himself in this world (v.20)

3. our bodies are to be God’s instrument or tools for righteousness

a. Rom 6:13

4. we are not to do anything that violates our bodies’ well being and sanctity (1Thess 4:3-7; 1Cor 6:18)

5. we are to avoid anything that enslaves us (1Cor 6:12; Rom 6:12)

6. we are to give ourselves to God for His use and glory (Rom 12:1; Eph 3:17; Col 3:16)

7. it is sinful to give ourselves over to things that causes us to lose self control and to act opposite of God’s will (Rom 6:11-13; 8:5-8; Gal 6:8; Col 3:5-8; Acts 5:3)

b. what effect will this behavior have on my spiritual life, on my relationship with God?

1. will this decrease my desire for God’s word, prayer, worship, fellowship and ministry(1Pet 2:1-2; Phil 4:8)?

2. does this violate my conscience (Rom 14:5, 23)?

3. will this ruin my testimony before the world (1Tim 4:12; 2Tim 2:22)?

VI. Some more words of caution before making judgments:

A. What is the true gospel?  see https://bible.org/article/common-assaults-gospel

B. What Should We Avoid? A Word of Warning:

* The dangerous division between people who do polemics [defending orthodox Christianity from within] destructively and those who want to avoid polemics altogether:

-- Timothy Keller expains how to discern and refute theological error the way Jesus would.

-- "I fear that we are in a period in which many in the Christian church are dividing into extreme positions over the very conduct of polemics. On the one side there are seemingly more people than ever, especially through the Internet, engaging in polemics, and yet it looks to me like there is a large number of younger Christians leaders who are reacting to this as if polemics is a pure evil. We want “conversation”, never argument or apologetics..."

-- "Anyone who enjoys theological controversy, who makes it their main purpose and who feels virtuous as they do it, is in a bad spiritual state."

-- "Polemics is medicine, not food. Without medicine we will surely die—we can’t live without it. This is why “polemical theology’ must be a required part of every theological curriculum. Yet we cannot live on medicine. If you engage in polemics with relish and joy—if polemics takes up a significant percentage or even a majority of your time and energy—it is like trying to live on medicine alone. It won’t work, for the church or for you."

For more see "Gospel polemics” http://www.timothykeller.com/.../4/17/gospel-polemics-part-1

VII. Conclusion:

My current position as I understand the facts is that one could and should (logically and theologically) separate and judge Hillsong the music from Hillsong the teaching. One can reject one and keep the other (e.g., reject the false teaching and keep the orthodox teaching). However, the stronger Christian may be able to separate Hillsong music from their teaching while the weaker Christian may not and so the stronger Christian should take this into consideration with weaker Christians at least until the weaker Christians mature in their faith and understanding. This means that we all should be growing in our knowledge of God and of our personal beliefs, be doing theology in community, checking our beliefs and theology to make sure they are coherent (make logical sense), consistent (internally consistent with itself and other statements in a given system) and comprehensive (live able). We should not be afraid to have our personal beliefs challenged. It seems to me that we tend to be inconsistent and in comprehensive with our beliefs because of our laziness, complacency. We don't want to be inconvenienced. We don't want to give up our traditional and religious folklore, or the passion, and personal investment we have made.As I mentioned before, J.P. Moreland comments in his book, “Love Your God With All Your Mind”, “We must stand against the culture (including inappropriate tendencies in the evangelical subculture), resist the empty self, and eschew the intellectual flabbiness that goes along with it. Motivation is a key here...

Expose yourself to ideas with which you disagree and let yourself be motivated to excel intellectually by the exposure. Listen to talk shows, read the editorial page, and walk around a local university and look at bulletin boards or read the student newspaper. Get into discussions with people at work with whom you differ. The point is to spend time around those who do not simply reinforce your own ways of looking at things. There are two advantages to this. For one thing, we can learn from our critics. For another, such exposure can move us to realize just how serious the war of ideas really is and how inadequately prepared we are to engage in that contest.” Greg Koukl from Stand To Reason further emphasizes the importance of having our beliefs challenged so that we can know how valid they are, “None of us wants his views proven wrong, especially his most cherished ones, regardless of which side of the fence we’re on. But if we want to cultivate a sensible faith, we need to be aware of our own powerful instincts for theological self-preservation.

This instinct is so strong, in fact, that sometimes we are tempted to intellectually circle the wagons and guard against the slightest challenge to our beliefs. This strategy, however, provides a false sense of security. The opposite approach actually provides much more safety.

In Medieval times when a knight threw his gauntlet—an armored glove—into the arena, it was a challenge to fight. This was his signal to the world he was willing to take on a challenger. He was in the game.

In the same way, Christians need to throw down the gauntlet. Instead of digging in behind the trenches to defend against attackers, we should tear down our defenses. We should throw our ideas into the arena and invite attack by hostile witnesses.

In academic circles this is called “peer review.” Philosophers, scientists, and theologians present their ideas in professional forums and solicit critique. They test the merit of their thoughts by offering them to people who are inclined to disagree.

The idea of peer review is based on a very sound notion. If our ideas are easily destroyed by those acquainted with the facts, they ought to be discarded. But if our ideas are good, they will not be upended so easily. In the process, we’ll learn what the other side knows, and may be surprised at how weak their resistance really is...”

(from Ambassador Insights “Peer Review”. www.str.org).

In my paper “Does the Church Need A New Reformation: An Argument for A New Reformation”, I ask: Why the local church needs to get back to reason and training: The Importance of Understanding Barriers to the Gospel, the Nature of Truth and the Christian's and Church’s Responsibility then move on to how the church can do that: By Understanding The Importance of Philosophy in Theology, by Understanding The Importance Purpose and Audience, by Interpreting and Applying The Bible Correctly, by Explaining Why There Are Different Systems, Views and Interpretations? and by Incorporating Apologetics. And I reached the conclusion that: All Christians and especially pastors should have some basic knowledge of philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and apologetics so that they can know and love God better and explain more effectively and more convincing what they believe and why in our postmodern culture.” You can find my paper at: https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

We should all attempt to live consistently between the claimed beliefs we claim to hold and between our actions and our claimed beliefs. We should continually ask ourselves: Is what I say, claim, really how I live?

** See also:

1. What Makes Music or a Band "Christian"? Worldview Cafe. https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

2. Come Let Us Reason. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks

3. Why Would A Conservative Christian Disagree With Hobby Lobby? Worldview Cafe. https://sites.google.com/site/worldviewcafe

4. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater

Notes:

i Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences by H. Wayne House; Joseph M. Holden.

ii Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective by Norman L. Geisler and Paul Feinberg

iii Come Let Us Reason. Norman Geisler. Ronald Brooks

iv. Zondervan Charts: Philosopy and Philosophers. Craig Vincent Mitchell.

v. The Theology Notebook – Ecclesiology and Eschatology at www.bible.org

vi. How Not To Debate A Christian Apologist. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/02/how-not-to-debate-a-christian-apologist

vii. Introduction to Theology. The Theology Notebook. The Theology Program. www.bible.org.

viii. Session 6 - Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials. Introduction to Theology.

https://bible.org/seriespage/session-6-defining-essentials-and-non-essentials

ix. 12 Principles for Disagreeing with Other Christians”, Andrew David Naselli and J. D. Crowley.

https://www.crossway.org/blog/2016/04/12-principles-for-disagreeing-with-other-christians