Terrible Worship Songs; Should We Sing Them?

        Age-old hymns and Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) are predominantly sung in the churches. Contemporary Christian Music is also labeled as “Worship Songs” or “Praise & Worship Songs.”

            Quite undoubtedly, young people are largely attracted to churches that sing contemporary worship songs. However, the detractors of worship songs claim that some of these songs are theologically incorrect and hence they should not be sung in churches.

            This is not an endeavor to establish or suggest the supremacy of either of these genres of Christian music. But is it possible to justify Contemporary Christian Music, even if it is not theologically correct, for the simple reason that it attracts young Christians to the churches?

            Consider two key allegations against contemporary worship songs:

            (1) Some songs do not mention God or Jesus e.g. “In the Secret” & “Draw Me Close.” If the song does not mention God, it’s quite easy to misunderstand the lyrics. These songs would make sense if they were sung in churches or clubs.

            Consider the song “Draw me close,’ “Who do you want to draw you close? Could be the Lord. Could also be your middle school crush.”¹

            The song ‘In the Secret’ contains the lyrics, “I want to touch you, I want to see your face, I want to know you more.” Since this song does not mention God or Jesus, “It’s tough to sing lines like these when the song never mentions who you’re singing to, and this one never does. The vague lyrics could easily suggest a plan to sneak around and make out in the bushes or a desire to encounter Jesus.”²

            (2) Some songs contain faulty theology. The song, “When I look into your Holiness” contained the lyric, “when my will becomes enthroned in your love.” Our will cannot be enthroned in God’s love; instead HIS will should be ours. Hence, a more acceptable word “enthralled” replaced the contentious word “enthroned.” Our will can certainly be enthralled by HIS love, but it cannot be enthroned in HIS love.

            Another well known song that apparently contains faulty theology is, “Blessed be your name,” “the lyrics of the bridge (“You give and take away…”) are problematic.”³ The faulty theology is explained here, “The words “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away,” from the lips of Job, are not good theology.  They’re bad theology.  According to Job 1, it was not God, but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health and wealth.  God allowed it to happen, but when Job said these words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened about the true nature of where his calamity came from and what God’s will actually was for his life — which was for good, and not for harm.”⁴

            Poor theology could be excused but what about songs devoid of theology? A well-known song, Oceans (Where Feet May Fail), is a case in point, “The whole thing seems to live in this self-indulgent purgatory, without any concrete statement of faith, without any trace of the Christian story, beginning and ending in these dream-like sequences of possible drowning. And it’s simply not a congregational song. If you MUST sing it, have it be done as a prayer by a soloist.”⁵

            Are these allegations devoid of rationality? Should we continue to sing these contentious worship songs?

            First, should we not sing any song that does not mention God or Jesus? If we are literally bound to this rule, then we should protest against the book of Esther (in the Old Testament), for there is no mention of God in the book of Esther.

            If the worship song does not mention God or Jesus, would not the sole purpose for writing the song and/or the context in which that song is sung, provide the much needed credibility to that song?

            The contentious song, Oceans, written by Hillsong United, was written for the sole purpose of singing in the church to worship God. Isn’t this sufficient to prove that that song is a Christian song? 

            Likewise, even if the song does not mention God or Jesus would not the church in which it is sung offer clarity that that song was meant to worship and glorify God?

            Second, should a worship song that is theologically incorrect be discarded? A worship song should be discarded if it contains a heresy. A worship song should be discarded, if it denies the core tenets of Historic Christianity.

            If the worship song does not promote a heresy, it need not be discarded. If a worship song does not deny the core tenets of Historic Christianity, it could be tolerated or suitable changes could be made to that song (if possible).

            Finally, those who claim to have apostatized⁶ because of a theologically incorrect worship song would discover, upon sincere introspection, the underlying reason(s) that was/were the primary cause for their desertion. For instance, a deep disappointment in God or Christians could surface while hearing or singing a particular worship song.

            Therefore, it is that deep disappointment in God that motivated the apostasy, and not the worship song. A worship song, in itself, cannot be cited as the sole reason to reject Christianity.

            Satan has succeeded in making substantial splits in Christianity, let us not be his agent to divide the church anymore. Let us be channels of unity and peace in the church of Jesus Christ.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.onfaith.co/discussion/lets-stop-singing-these-10-worship-songs?facebook_join=1#/_=_

²Ibid.

³http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ponderanew/2016/02/08/10-worship-songs-we-should-stop-singing/2/#MrvQMLLOUg7DEuEV.99

⁴http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/01/24/good-grief-soundings-part-one/#PYCFjAGxD8hr1rbU.99

⁵http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ponderanew/2016/02/08/10-worship-songs-we-should-stop-singing/5/#Prb0QwOLVZUIqQwy.99

⁶http://www.nashvillescene.com/music/article/13056969/how-a-terrible-worship-song-drove-me-from-christianity

Read More

What Does Critical Theory Say About Jonestown?

If anybody feels compelled to debate me on the Frankfurt School can you connect with me on Skype so I can record it please?

Read More

Interview With Robert Stanley

I first connected with Robert back in 2011 via Skype from Thailand to the US. Later on he moved to Hong Kong and we chatted again while I was in Bangkok. Then, by pure synchronicity I subsequently moved to an Island in Hong Kong that is literally minutes away from the Bay he lives on and we hooked up when time permitted and very pleasant it was too.

One thing about Robert's work and life journey that seperates him from most other researchers is that he's the only one to name the eye of the pyramid or rather if there really is an hierarchical control structure, then there must be an all seeing eye at the top in control. An individual if you wish.

Robert has a name for that being, and a back-story too which I don't think anybody else has articulated as cogently and persuasively as in Robert's case though he also comes  with first hand experience too. 

Having met him multiple times and at length I can vouch for his credibility.

Read More

Winston Keech

Win Keech of course is somewhat responsible for ushering in Simon Parkes on to the wider stage. There's a wonderful interview from back in the day when Simon was deferential to Win, though he now struts the contactee/experiencer stage in full jungle loin-cloth and chest wig expounding on any subject callers care to ask questions of, as well as charging for remote healings, a sideline I could easily get into if I started to believe my own BS.

This is still an excellent interview for just thought-provoking information grounded in Keech's obvious engineering credentials. I'm not saying it's all kosher. I'm just saying it's interesting.

Read More

No Country For Old Men

Intrigued by Tommy Lee Jones performance in A Coal Miners Daughter I returned to No Country for Old Men. 

10 years or so later,I'm still not convinced it's as great a movie as the critics claim, but it does have great characters. I particularly found Woody Harrelson's role as powerfully confident, though of course it's short lived, when he is prematurely terminated by the deeply unsettling Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem.

Read More

Wild Tales - 2014

Wild Tales is laugh out loud funny. It's a compilation of six stories of Argentinian script writing that really bring the human experience to life. It was a pleasure to watch this kind of film making again and it reminded me of the more humorous scenes of some of Pedro Almodovar's movies.

The story about the guy who has his car removed by the city council is particularly pleasing.

Read More

Exclusivity Claims of Major World Religions

You may have encountered and engaged these claims, “Christianity is intolerant!” and “Christianity is exclusive!” The other religions are allegedly tolerant and hence, inclusive. Is it so? No! Every major religion claims exclusivity.

Within the theme of “Religious Diversity,” three relevant theories should be recognized.1 The “Pluralist theory” believes that one religion is as truthful as another. The “Exclusivist theory” considers only one religion as uniquely valuable – the sole bearer of truth. The “Inclusivist theory” finds merit with both the pluralistic and exclusivistic religions by arguing that while the exclusivistic religion could hold most value, the others still have religious value, for there may be partial truth in the other religions.

A religion proclaims exclusivity if it absolutely contradicts an essential doctrine (Godhead, Sin, Salvation etc.) of another religion. Since mutually contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense (Law of noncontradiction), the either-or logic (not the both-and) should be applied while determining the truth. When two religions mutually contradict each other, the truth remains with eitherreligion A or religion B (both religion A and religion B cannot be true, in this instance). Therefore, only one religion could be true, but the fact remains that both religions claim exclusivity, for both these religions claim to bear the truth.

Every major religion in the world, either implicitly or explicitly, claims exclusivity. Ravi Zacharias states, “The truth is that every major religion in the world claims exclusivity, and every major religion in the world has a point of exclusion…”2 Therefore, a preliminary study of the claims of exclusivity of the major world religions is in order.

Exclusivity of Hinduism

Hinduism, one of the world’s oldest religious systems, claims to be inclusive.3 But it is not so.

Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.4

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.”5 But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.

While Hinduism claims inclusivity, it excludes the exclusivists, “Hinduism does not recognize claims of exclusivity or a clergy. Anyone who claims to by [sic] the exclusive possessor of spiritual truth or the only ‘method’ of reaching God finds no place in Hinduism; a method or a message can only be one among many…Krishna, speaking as God in the Bhagavad-Gita, says, “All paths lead to me”, and also those who worship other gods with devotion worship me….Hinduism does not force itself on others through proselytisation…”6

Existentially, Hinduism contradicts its own claims for inclusivity. If Hinduism is truly inclusive, it would not proselytize. But Hinduism, in India – the country of its origin, is actively converting people. The recent Ghar Wapsi (Home Coming) program in India is a classic case in point. Ghar Wapsi is, “a series of religious conversion activities, facilitated by Indian Hindu organizations Vishva Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to facilitate conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism”7

Furthermore, Ravi Zacharias, who was born into a Hindu household, asserts the exclusivity of Hinduism, “Hinduism, for example, is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. That is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines—the Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation.”8

Therefore it is very reasonable to conclude that Hinduism is not an inclusive faith, since it claims exclusivity.

Exclusivity of Buddhism

Rejection of Hinduism led to the birth of Buddhism, says Ravi Zacharias, “Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism. Buddha rejected the authority of the vedas and the caste system of Hinduism.”9

There are several irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Historic Christianity. Two such differences are found below:

First, Buddhism rejects the notion of a personal God, which is in stark contrast to Christianity, “There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.”10 However, Buddha is worshipped by some Buddhists.

Second, Buddhism excludes other religions that believe in sin, for there is no such thing as sin in Buddhism, “Buddhists do not regard man as sinful by nature of ‘in rebellion against god’. Every human being is a person of great worth who has within himself a vast store of good as well as evil habits…According to Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin as explained by other religions.”11

There are many such points of exclusions in Buddhism. Hence, Buddhism is also an exclusive religion.

Exclusivity of Islam

Islam, being strictly monotheistic, rejects every contradicting worldview (Trinitarian monotheism, polytheism, pantheism etc.). Moreover, Islam, by virtue of rejecting Christ’s divinity, excludes Christianity.

Islam is also a legalistic system. A Muslim must earn his salvation by holding to the “Articles of Faith” (belief in God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days) and following the “Pillars of Faith” (The Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and Hajj Pilgrimage). This is in absolute contrast to Christianity, which believes that man is not saved by his good deeds, but is saved by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Islam stakes claim to exclusivity by excluding the contradicting religions.

Exclusivity of Judaism

It may be an effortless task to prove Judaism’s claim to exclusivity vis-à-vis other religions that are not named Christianity. Judaism and Christianity have much in common. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, in their work “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” state the fundamental similarity, “It is to historic Judaism, the Judaism of the Old Testament, that Christianity traces its roots. Christianity does not supplant Old Testament Judaism, it is the fruition of Old Testament Judaism. One cannot hold to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as God’s one divine revelation without also recognizing and honoring the place God has given historic Judaism.”12

Given this relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the exclusivity of Judaism would be clearly emphasized if Judaism excludes Christianity. A couple of points of exclusion are highlighted below:

First, Judaism rejects the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, “While Christianity recognizes that the promise of a personal, spiritual savior is the core of biblical revelation, Judaism has long vacillated in the concept of messiahship. That Jesus Christ, the true Messiah predicted in God’s Word, would be rejected by the Jews of the first century shows that even at that time there was divergence of opinion on the meaning and authority of messianic passages in Scripture. In the course of Jewish history the meaning of the Messiah had undergone changes. Originally, it was believed that God would send His special messenger, delivering Israel from her oppressors and instituting peace and freedom. However, today any idea of a personal messiah has been all but abandoned by the majority of the Jews. It has been substituted with the hope of a messianic age characterized by truth and justice.”13

Second, the salvation of the Jews is predicated on sacrifices, penitence, good deeds and a little of God’s grace, since they reject the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.14 Salvation in Christianity is absolutely contingent on God’s grace, but not on the performance of good deeds.

Conclusion  

Every major religion of the world remains exclusive, for there are irreconcilable contradictions between these religions. The notion that Historic Christianity is the only religion that claims exclusivity is, therefore, incorrect.

Endnotes:

1http://www.iep.utm.edu/reli-div/

2http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/point-of-exclusion/

3http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/hinduism-is-more-inclusive-and-not-exclusive-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-2947063/

4http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp

5http://www.hinduwebsite.com/onegod.asp

6M. G. Chitkara, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: National Upsurge, A.P.H Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 2004, p61.

7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghar_Wapsi

8http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/point-of-exclusion/

9Ibid.

10http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm

11http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/182.htm

12Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1983, p364.

13Ibid. p372.

14Ibid. p373.

Websites cited were last accessed on 2nd August 2017.

This article was published at www.christianapologeticsalliance.com

Read More