Why My Church Does Not Sing Songs by Bethel, Elevation, and Hillsong

A few years ago, I proposed to my fellow elders at Grace Fellowship Church that we stop singing songs by Hillsong. Though there were only a couple that were part of our repertoire at the time, I thought it would be wise for us to consider removing them. After some clarifying discussion, we agreed that we would stop singing those two songs, and that we would not add any more. In what follows, I want to explain my reasoning and explain why it also extends to a couple of today’s other major songwriting groups, Bethel and Elevation.

First, though, it’s important to know that I do not mean to bind anyone else’s conscience or pass judgment on churches that make a different decision or on individuals who enjoy listening to these artists in any other context. The Bible does not make this matter perfectly clear, so we are operating according to wisdom and conscience. I simply mean to explain why the elders at my church made a decision that we believe was right for us.

I begin with the foundational statement that Bethel Music, Elevation Music, and Hillsong Music are each connected to a specific local church. It is more likely that you know about the churches because of the music than that you know about the music because of the churches, and that is by design. While some people believe it’s fine to sing any song as long as its content is true, I think it’s important that we consider the source of that music as well, for songs are not merely words, but also gateways to the churches and sources of revenue. This means we cannot take the groups or the music on their own, but must also consider the churches they represent—who is gaining prominence and who is being funded. In that vein, I am going to offer two significant concerns, then a series of smaller ones.

Theological Concerns

Each of these churches raises significant concerns in relation to the theology it espouses.

Bethel Church in Redding, California, led by Bill Johnson, is perhaps the most troubling. While the church formally adheres to a fairly standard charismatic statement of faith, it has become known for teaching what is false and dangerous. For example, it teaches that Jesus did not perform his miracles as God, but as a Spirit-empowered man who had laid aside his divinity; that sickness is never God’s will and healing always is—the unavoidable conclusion being that a lack of healing must be the result of a lack of faith; and that God ordinarily and constantly reveals himself to his people outside of Scripture. The church has long been marked by excess, dubious claims of miracles, and outlandish practices.

Hillsong, based in Sydney, Australia, was founded by Brian Houston and was led by him until he resigned after the church’s board found he had breached its pastoral code of conduct with two women. Under his leadership, the church practiced the principles of the prosperity gospel and Word of Faith movement; it minimized hard doctrines, especially those that might alienate people, such as hell, divine wrath, propitiation, and so on; the Hillsong movement became driven by celebrity; several of its key leaders had to be removed when they were discovered to be committing sexual immorality; and it was known to have covered up other scandals. While the church has made some changes in the wake of many scandals, it remains deeply troubling.

Elevation Church is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, though it has roughly 20 campuses in several states and countries. Its pastor, Steven Furtick, was trained at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, but quickly deviated from that seminary’s and denomination’s theology. Furtick’s doctrine of the Trinity comes close to modalism, which is perhaps not surprising when he names T.D. Jakes as his mentor; he teaches doctrine that is basically indistinguishable from Word of Faith; the church is heavily pragmatic and the preaching often man-centered rather than Christ-centered; the church has no elders, but is led entirely by its pastor and an outside group of overseers; Furtick has become known for the kind of wealth and opulence that is typical within prosperity circles.

Much more could be said, of course, and I will leave you to do more in-depth research if you so desire. But in short, all three of these musical groups are closely associated with a church, and none of those churches faithfully preaches the gospel and the corresponding sound doctrine. If a member of my church were moving to Redding, Sydney, or Charlotte and asked if they should attend these churches, I would not only strongly urge them to find better options, but actively warn them away from them, lest they put their souls in danger.

In my understanding, to sing someone’s song is in some way to endorse that person’s ministry. It should surprise no one if someone goes looking for other songs or teaching material by the people whose songs we sing in church. I am unconcerned, and in fact very pleased, if a church member follows our songs to other music by CityAlight, to Keith Getty’s book Sing!, or to Sandra McCracken’s many projects. But I would be very concerned—ashamed, even—if a church member followed one of our songs to a book by Brian Houston or a video by Bill Johnson.

It should surprise no one if someone goes looking for other songs or teaching material by the people whose songs we sing in church.

My first and foremost concern, then, is that these songs are generated by, connected with, and serve as gateways into some extremely troubling churches.

Financial Concerns

For all three of these churches, the music they distribute is a major source of monetization, which means the churches, their ministries, and their leaders are funded, at least in part, by the music. Individuals who play or purchase the music and churches that sing it in their worship services both contribute to funding those churches. Individuals do this by the royalties that are paid out when they purchase an album or listen to it through a streaming service, and churches do this through their CCLI licensing, which distributes money to the copyright holders of the songs they sing.

Of course, you and I fund all kinds of organizations we disagree with by purchasing their products or services. For example, I dislike a great deal of what Apple stands for, but I am typing these words on one of their devices, knowing that a portion of my purchase was likely used for something I hate. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to live in this world without making use of products or services from troubling organizations. Yet Bethel, Hillsong, and Elevation are different in that they are not businesses, but churches. What they do with the money we distribute to them is done in the name of the Lord. While we should not be surprised when non-Christian businesses dishonor God, we should be dismayed when ministries that bear’s Christ’s name do. I believe we ought to hold Christian organizations to a higher standard and be more wary about the ways in which we support them.

Some may argue that the CCLI payments are small enough to be nearly insignificant, but singing these songs also keeps them at the top of the charts, which then attracts other churches to their music. In this way, singing these groups’ songs helps them both gain and maintain prominence, even though each of them has proven unworthy of it.

While few of us would visit these churches’ websites to make a charitable contribution, we still contribute to their influence and financial well-being when we purchase, play, or perform their music.

Other Matters to Consider

I have provided my most significant concerns under the two headings of Theological Concerns and Financial Concerns. I will add a few more in a shorter format.

Singing these groups’ songs helps them both gain and maintain prominence, even though each of them has proven unworthy of it.

I am far from the only Christian who has developed concerns with singing songs by these groups, and many believers could only sing them by violating the convictions of their conscience. In a similar vein, some Christians may be distracted in a time of worship if they are asked to sing one of their songs. We can avoid such matters of conscience and distraction by simply choosing to sing songs by less troublesome songwriters.

While we may be able to choose a handful of suitable songs from each of these ministries, there are likely to be many more in their corpus that are concerning. We should perhaps be cautious about artists when we cannot endorse or support the majority of their work, not to mention the churches that stand behind them.

I am not aware of any songs by these groups that address a unique area of doctrine or Christian living. This means that we never need to rely on their music but can always opt for a different song to communicate the same truths.

I expect that some people will wonder about historic songwriters whose songs may be sound but who went morally or theologically astray. After all, I recently said in a different context that “immorality does not negate truth.” I agree that this bears some consideration and that even my own response to it is a bit dissatisfying. I would respond, though, that these people no longer receive revenue or gain influence in the same way that living songwriters do, and their songs do not lead anyone to their churches. That said, I freely grant that some churches may choose to exclude various historic songwriters as well, and I would respect that decision. These are matters of wisdom and conscience, not matters of clear right and wrong.

Conclusion

It was a few years ago now that the elders at my church made our decision—a decision that not all of the elders agreed with, but all chose to support when it became clear that it was the position of the majority. Since then, a few people have asked us why we choose not to sing songs by these groups, and we have been able to answer as I have done here. Most have been satisfied with our response. We continue to think it was the right decision for our church, but would unanimously affirm that a different church could thoughtfully and prayerfully arrive at a different conclusion. For those who want to study the question further, here are some additional resources: