Kangaroo Critique
Critiquing music and lyrics is fine...when it's actually fair.
January, 2025
Mid–20th century politics inspired the quip, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." The suggestion is that actual wrongdoing is unnecessary: kangaroo courts can fabricate both charges and convictions. Hypocrisy, melodrama, and onerous standards are all it takes to make the unlikeable illegal. This month's spotlight verse doesn't refer to this, directly, but there are parallels. If you want to find trouble, you will succeed. A worrisome area where this intrudes into the Christian life is in how we judge worship music.
To be clear, this is not about the difference between songs suitable for casual listening versus those appropriate for worship. Some tunes with thin theology are perfectly fine to listen to and sing. Being a poor fit for a church service doesn't make them sinful to enjoy. Nor am I dismissing the need for discernment in worship (Numbers 26:61) and protecting what a church approves (Romans 14:22)
Not every song breeds disagreement. O Maid Conceived Without a Stain is unsubtly unbiblical. What a Wonderful World is harmless but has nothing to do with worship. Neither generates controversy when left off a Sunday set list. Where lines are drawn are the less obvious examples, through two major complaints. One is a lyric that seems "off" with respect to doctrine. The other is when the author comes with spiritual baggage. Both are important, but they're often used as window dressing for preference: I (don't) like this song, therefore it must (not) be good to use in worship.
This is not to minimize those concerned over words and publishers. Those are valid discussions. Some tunes are truly worship-inappropriate. I'd be offended if the worship team sang Lennon's Imagine or introduced a song from the latest Miley Cyrus album because it had "good" lyrics. A church we visited for possible membership performed Guns N' Roses' Sweet Child o' Mine for Father's day…the proverbial straw tipping us to keep looking.
But I too often hear hypocritical criticisms: standards for disliked songs that aren't equally applied to cherished ones. Conscience is important (Romans 14:24). So is not antagonizing those bothered by a concern (Colossians 3:21). It's excellent to carefully consider lyrics. We should know if a song's author has strange beliefs. But recognizing a need for clarification is not the same as inventing standards no song could ever meet. It's crucial for believers to judge with reason (Philippians 4:5), clear thinking (Proverbs 18:17), and fairness (John 7:24). Otherwise, the rules we invent erode what we're trying to protect.
There's only one way to be sure a composition is 100% free from any possible misunderstanding, error, or association with a theologically flawed person: don't write it. To demonstrate what I hear on a regular basis, consider whether these (fictional) reasons to reject songs make sense:
•Amazing Grace implies that God is taken by surprise by His own actions—but nothing can "amaze" God. The song doesn't mention repentance or Jesus. It claims God relieves fears, contradicting Proverbs 1:7. The first line could easily be misunderstood to mean that we are saved by certain noises.
•Jesus Paid it All implies universalism: only stating that Jesus cleansed everything, with no mention of repentance or the gospel. A non-believer would not understand salvation if they heard this song. Almost every rendition is tied to a record label that also promotes sinful music. So, buying, renting, or singing Jesus Paid it All supports the spread of false doctrine.
•How Great Thou Art says Jesus died. It does not say He rose again, and denying the resurrection is apostasy. Composer Carl Boberg was also a politician who said women should not be allowed to vote.
•Churches should not use songs by Fanny Crosby, such as Redeemed, How I Love to Proclaim It! She also wrote racist minstrel show music and some of her hymns were composed after she separated from her lawful husband. Her songs fail to sufficiently explain important doctrines.
•A Mighty Fortress is Our God sounds like politicized nationalism and "Kingdom Now" theology. The author was also a rabid antisemite who criticized including the book of James in the Bible.
•It is Well With My Soul was written by Horatio Spafford, who denied hell and believed in universalism. If a church member learns that we are singing a song by Spafford, they might abandon everything our church teaches and follow his doctrine instead.
Clearly, none of those are sound criticisms. They are good reminders that Hymnals are not Scripture and composers are not apostles. But as death sentences against those songs, they're on the same rational level as (non-fictional) claims that:
•Reckless Love is heresy because God does not see His love as excessively intense or overly extravagant. The song is also tied to a publisher deeply involved in "word of faith," modern prophecy, dominionism, and many other serious doctrinal errors. Using such a song might encourage a person to think Bethel's theology is correct.
•The same is true of Elevation Worship songs, such as The Blessing, since the publisher is associated with several unbiblical teachings. If a church member thinks that song is OK, they will be tempted to convert to Elevation's doctrines.
•Gratitude is unbiblical because it implies that singing is the only thing we have that God wants, and never mentions obedience, service, or giving.
•Hillsong music, which includes King of Kings and What a Beautiful Name, should never be used because the writers / publishers teach prosperity theology; royalties given to them support false teaching.
It's valid to point out that some lyrics need context. But so do many, many lines from virtually every song ever written. Some songs present poor theology or explicitly encourage bad doctrines. We should know this, so we don't promote something that's in error. But even verses of the Bible need context; it we avoided every verse that a non-believer might read and not immediately understand, there'd be no Scripture left to use.
Concerns about using songs from supposedly "problematic" publishers are also difficult to accept. Pepsi, Ford, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, and other companies give exponentially more support and money to exponentially more anti-biblical ideas. Churches / church members give those companies exponentially more money through their business than the royalties generated by song licenses.
Irrational reasoning also applies to the composers themselves. Some critics perform extensive gymnastics to excuse criticisms of Luther, Newton, Crosby, or Spafford. No such grace is extended to modern sources. A common excuse is that the songs are old, so there's no danger in people learning about the composer. But there's no expiration date on heresy. Worse, it suggests incredibly weak teaching in one's congregation. How terrible does church discipleship have to be to make the beliefs of a songwriter they probably haven't heard of a serious threat of apostasy?
To clarify, again, this is not a diatribe against discernment or common sense. Nor is it a push for casual acceptance of any song with non-offensive lyrics. I fully understand the "principled stand" of not giving money or a hint of approval to false teaching—but that principle is hard to respect when applied to almost no other transactions. I prefer worship songs that are less "feely" and more "teachy." But true worship is not mindless incantation divorced from what the worshipper knows and intends. Mouthing words in ignorance or hypocrisy or blatant rebellion doesn't please God (Psalm 24:3–4; John 4:24), even if those words are good and the writers are pure. Sincere and faithful truths are not poisoned because a sinner was the first to put them to music.
Churches should teach important doctrines clearly enough that congregants notice when musicians or publishers are wrong. They should teach those doctrines clearly enough that everyone knows what that church means when they sing that song. Being selective can open opportunities to explain why, for instance, a church only uses one or two songs from some publishers, but dozens from others. We don't need to build gallows that will ultimately hang our own hymnals (Matthew 23:4). Rather, worship leaders can demonstrate how believers can sort good from the bad (Philippians 1:15; Hebrews 5:14), while using the good (Exodus 12:35–36; Acts 17:23–28; 1 Timothy 4:4), and deferring out of unity rather than disguised traditionalism.
Editor
