Considerations for Worship Music Selection at Council Road 

The Elder Board has been asked to weigh in on decisions related to worship music for our congregation. After much prayer and consideration of all the questions and concerns raised, we would make the following observations: 

1. We solemnly agree that no song should be sung in our worship that promotes heresy or false teaching. Our songs should be strong in biblical content and should never veer away from sound doctrine. We view our worship sets each week as a form of meditation on biblical truth. The music we sing should be an enhancement to the depth of our teaching. 

1. All songs should be judged on the merit of soundness of doctrine and edification of the body of Christ. If a song does not rise to these standards, we should not sing it. 

1. One of the important standards for music selection is how the congregation receives it. If a song does not seem to resonate with the congregation, regardless of the soundness of its theology, it clearly should not be used as often. Conversely, songs that clearly resonate with the congregation should carry more weight.  

1. While we understand the concerns about singing songs from music entities that are outside of our doctrinal perspective, if the song stands up well on its own merits of biblical content and theological soundness, it should not be disqualified. To do so would be a slippery slope, as all of us are fallen creatures unworthy of God’s grace. If the standard of doctrinal perfection was applied to all associations of music production, few would qualify. We do not promote a spirit of exclusivity to music selection. In other words, the merit of a song itself is more important than the hand that wrote it.  (See Appendix for a historical perspective on this stance)

1. We believe a wise worship leader will carefully consider what songs are more edifying to the church when weighing song selection. Our observation is that there is a body of music that is more timeless and theologically substantive and therefore should be prioritized as more edifying. 

1. Some concerns have been raised regarding the funds distributed via CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International) to songwriters associated with churches that teach problematic doctrine. These individuals do receive some kind of compensation when our church uses their music in worship services. However, our church pays around $1,000 a year for CCLI’s services, which is split among all the songwriters from all of the songs our church has done that year, after the cost of the service itself. This means that some songwriters may receive only a few dollars or so from our church. While this is not something to be ignored, we must also consider where our funds are going to support the other areas of our church. We purchase chairs, tables, windows, TVs, AC Units, Wifi, creative application subscriptions, (etc.). Our money goes to those entities so we can use their resources to fulfill our goals as a church. Most of those entities are not Christian, and some use their money to support questionable causes. However, if we restricted our purchases to only be done with orthodox Christian entities, we would not have all that we need as a church, and we certainly wouldn’t have the best versions of those things. If we sing songs written by people affiliated with problematic churches, it is because that in spite of their affiliation, we believe the song serves our church well as we strive to accomplish the goal God has set before us. While the financial compensation of these people and churches is still something to be considered, it would be a slippery slope to restrict ourselves on this basis.

1. Some concerns have been raised about church members being exposed to false teaching connected to problematic churches who have facilitated some of the worship music we lead. This exposure would be via the internet outside of our church. If our discipleship model as a church works to equip the saints for ministry, this issue would lose its impact. We hope to teach our people in such a way that they instantly recognize heresy. If we lead a biblically accurate song written by someone affiliated with a problematic church, we do not see it as a condonement of unbiblical teaching from those entities, nor do we believe it will push our people to believe false doctrine. It has also been brought up that the final slide of lyrics mention the names of these problematic churches in the song credits, implying that we condone the teachings from those churches. We do not believe this slide implies our condonement. Although these are things to be considered and in which to be careful, we do not see these as reasons to prohibit songs that communicate biblical truths and deeply resonate with our church. 

1. We recognize the members of Council Road will carry a wide range of musical preferences that will lead everyone to some disappointment over style and selection. Our hope is to continue to seek our unique worship expression as a church that can unify our diverse congregation around the biblical and theological doctrines expressed in the music.

In closing, we believe the origin from which we find our corporate worship music is a non-essential issue. We would also remind the church of the important 17th century principle that was adopted at the end of the Thirty Years’ War that ended denominational strife. It was espoused by the famous theologian Rupertus Meldenius, “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.” 

Appendix

There is much to learn from church history. For instance, the practice of annulling the validity of worship music because of the suspect character of persons associated with the music reminds one of Donatism. This was a 4th-century practice that claimed that if a sinful person administered the sacrament, it would no longer be a valid act of worship. In other words, the low moral character of the officiant was seen as annulling the grace received. The famed 4th-century theologian Augustine wrote a series of books, letters, and sermons that refuted the Donatist movement and argued that the effect of a sacrament is independent of the moral character of the minister. A form of this crept into Baptist life in the 18th century. In this tradition, the church wrestled with the false claims of “landmarkism” beliefs. This was the teaching that if a Baptist minister or Baptist church had not administered the baptism or Lord’s Supper to an individual, the act itself was not valid. This belief within certain traditions of Baptist life led many churches to reject a variety of forms of worship practice because it was not perceived to be worthy of the elect church. Our strong stance against landmarkism is demonstrated at each baptism service as we uphold the principle that “the heart of the believer is more important than the hand of the baptizer.” We also practice “open communion” in that we allow any follower of Jesus to participate in our Lord’s Supper service. This, too, is a stand against landmarkism. The same principle should be applied to worship music. We do not promote a spirit of exclusivity to music selection. In other words, we believe the merit of the song itself is more important than the hand that wrote it.  

Charles Spurgeon wrote this quote as he was collecting songs for a hymnal for his own church:

“The area of our research has been as wide as the bounds of existing religious literature, American and British, Protestant and Romish; ancient and modern. Whatever may be thought of our taste we have used it without prejudice, and a good hymn has not been rejected because of the character of its author, or the heresies of the church in whose hymnal it first occurred; so long as the language and the spirit commended the hymn to our heart we included it, and believe that we have enriched our collection thereby. The range of subjects is very extensive, comprising not only direct praise, but doctrine, experience, and exhortation; thus enabling the saints according to apostolical command to edify one another in their spiritual songs.” 

Although we cannot deduce that Spurgeon would necessarily say the same thing about this same issue in this current time, his words speak wisdom from the past as we consider this issue in the present.

Additional Links

https://www.renewingworshipnc.org/charles-spurgeons-insights-into-a-churchs-hymnody/

https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/a-defense-of-singing-songs-from-bethel-and-hillsong