Does Using Songs of “False” Churches Give Tacit Approval?

Several months ago, I mentioned the apparent apostasy of singer-songwriter Marty Sampson, who composed several popular worship songs as part of Hillsong Church.  I addressed this question: Can Christians use the songs written by apostates or heretics with a clear conscience?  I argued that we could because at the end of the day, what matters is the content of the song and not the messenger, taking my cue from Philippians 1.  There are even popular hymns, such as “It is Well With My Soul,” that have authors with rather dubious biographies, and even many traditional and very conservative churches use them.  On the flipside, there may be problematic songs that are written by genuine Christians that churches arguably shouldn’t use because something is off about the lyrics.  An example could be the controversial song “Reckless Love” by Cory Asbury; many Christians have criticized it and refuse to use the song, though I haven’t heard any accusations that Asbury himself is some sort of heretic (for full disclosure, I am not as alarmed by the song as others are, but I also haven’t ever used it).

However, I saw a video lately where two gentlemen gave an additional argument as to why we should not use songs from Hillsong, Elevation, Bethel, or any other potentially problematic church.  Here’s the video:

Here’s some background on Justin Peters: I am a little familiar with him because he spoke once at my seminary, criticizing the prosperity gospel and its teachers.  It’s something he does regularly, traveling around America to speak against prosperity theology.  I believe that he was once a follower of prosperity teachings when he was young and hoped that he would one day be healed so that he wouldn’t need a wheelchair anymore, but what he found instead was disappointment and guilt that his faith wasn’t strong enough.  He eventually figured out that prosperity theology was mistaken and became an outspoken critic of it.  Overall, I think it’s a helpful ministry that he does.

This background informs why he’s so strongly against churches that seem so charismatic and also seem to have prosperity leanings, and he makes a case here that their songs should not be used at all.  I think it’s an interesting argument and one worth exploring.

Making Rational Decisions With Unreliable Data and Casting Blame With Hindsight

Frustrations are starting to mount in certain areas of the country due to the varying degrees of lockdown that have been enacted by local governments.  Recently, there was a big protest in Michigan over the governor’s extension of her strict stay-at-home order, a set of guidelines that are harsher than the majority of the country’s (for example, you can’t gather with anyone outside of your own household, even if it’s at another family member’s house).  Many Michigan citizens had enough and blocked the streets around the capitol with their cars, arguing that this was an abuse of government power and an unreasonable measure to take given that the main reason Michigan’s COVID-19 numbers are bad is because of Detroit and not because it has spread uncontrollably throughout the state.  Without endorsing the manner in which they protested (though by all accounts it was mostly pretty peaceful), I think they have a point.

Still, though I am ever skeptical and critical of politicians in general, unlike many on either side of the aisle who blindly follow their “heroes,” I have tried to be a little more gracious when it comes to their decision-making during this time as long as it is humble and not obviously virtue-signalling (come to think of it… that still probably rules out most politicians).  The reason is because we are working with very flawed data right now, but it’s also the only data we have until more comes in.  While we’re gathering more day by day, it’s also unlikely we’ll have a real good understanding of all of this until much later when it can be fully parsed and we have the benefit of hindsight.  That makes making decisions in the present very tricky, and we’re likely to get things wrong.  Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped and won’t stop many people from just casting blame with 20/20 hindsight.

Blaming the Messenger for Something He Did Not Say: A Way to Project Malice and to Silence

Years ago, I heard a story of a young man who possibly might have killed himself partially due to reading The God Delusion.  There is no way to know for sure that’s why he did so, but a relative confirmed that the book made him very upset and that he eventually fell away from his Christian faith.  This allegedly led him to lose hope in life and eventually commit suicide.  His father blamed anti-Christian academia and the book itself for what happened.

This is of course a sad story, but even if it is true that The God Delusion contributed in some way to the erosion of this man’s belief, which partially led to the taking of his own life (there were probably several factors), that’s not Richard Dawkins’ fault, nor anyone else’s who might have suggested the book to him.  I say that as someone who has an extremely low opinion of that book: It’s pathetically argued and pretty much considered a joke among philosophers (even atheist ones).  However, Dawkins never tells religious people to kill themselves or writes that non-religious people have no hope in life and might as well commit suicide.  He not only never explicitly says such a thing, he never intimates or hints at it as well.  I can criticize the book and Dawkins without trying to smear him for something that he did not say or blame him for actions that he did not advocate, even though he is consistently and childishly insulting towards religious people throughout the work.

This seemingly straightforward principle is lost among many people these days who insist that their enemies, especially political ones, have hidden meanings and agendas encoded in their speech that “dog-whistle” to certain terrible segments of the population or otherwise bring out the worst in people.  Indeed, the very concept of “dog-whistling” is to insinuate that while normal people don’t hear a bad or hateful message in what was said, it is allegedly intentionally and secretly broadcast to people who do (these hidden messages, mysteriously, never escape the ever vigilant on social media).  Usually, what happens is that something an enemy has said is either taken out of context or at least interpreted in the most uncharitable ways, like what such-and-such person said was racist.  Then, if such things are corrected by pointing to simple things like context, the back-peddling begins.  There may be a concession that it wasn’t explicitly racist, but it intentionally contributed to racism or dog-whistles to racists, and therefore he’s still a racist and responsible for every racist thing that happens from here on out.

Community During the Coronavirus Shutdown

Recently, I ran into this article online from the folks at Pulpit and Pen, gently titled “May God Help You Feckless Cowards Who Canceled Worship to Honor Caesar” (doesn’t quite roll off the tongue), that blasted churches and pastors for closing during this pandemic.  It had such gems like this:

I understand why the heathen rage at the continuance of church services; they don’t go to church anyway. But what I cannot fathom or tolerate is how you potluck-swollen, paunchy, professional desk-sitting pastors decided to portray yourselves as something other than essential. This is the time when we as Christians are called to shine, and you pusillanimous yellow bellies turned out the lights.

Let me be on record saying that if I become “swollen,” it won’t be due to church potlucks, where many a bad cook tries to make me eat his food, but due to ice cream and Dr. Pepper.

In fairness to the article, the site later tried to clarify that its fightin’ words were not for every church that has closed its doors:

[Publisher’s Note: Please understand that my words are directed at those who have canceled church merely because the government told them to. I do not mean to apply these words to those who canceled services due to what they believe to be a providential hindrance due to illness rather than a government mandate] (emphasis original)

Then again, how many churches, exactly, have closed their doors “merely” because the government told them to and not because they are believe in a “providential hindrance” (whatever that means, I guess they’re referring to hindrances God used to redirect Paul in Acts) regarding spreading a disease?  Several state and local governments actually haven’t explicitly told churches to close in the first place.  Sounds like some backpedaling that makes the original article nearly irrelevant.  And the overall tone of the article is not exactly a surprise given Pulpit and Pen’s combative, angry Calvinist reputation.

The article is as amusing as it is unhelpful, but while I could have done without the presumptuous and arrogant attitude that permeated it, it wasn’t completely wrong.  The new reality due to COVID-19 has presented difficult challenges for churches who are trying to preserve a sense of community but are also trying not to endanger their members and others.  Doesn’t the Bible command us to meet together?  How can we have biblical community while our churches remain closed, small groups are canceled, and sermons preached to empty rooms are streamed?  Should churches begin opening to offer a place of spiritual healing and engagement despite the physical risks and against the wishes (or even orders) of the government?  Easter is just around the corner, and it will be odd indeed to see church parking lots empty across the nation.  These are therefore fair questions to ask.