Bad Theology in Worship

Bad Theology in Worship

While many contemporary worship songs are great in terms of the melody and the overall message, some may have slight theological issues. Hence, this article will present 5 popular worship songs that have some theological flaws or errors. HOWEVER, please note that while I’m being technical and picky here, my goal here is not to bash but to inform (but I will, in a sense, bash). Also, just because some of these songs have errors it doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t sing it at church. Ultimately, I don’t think theological issues in worship songs should affect us too much because our theology should not be based on songs but on the Word of God. Let us begin!

#5: “No Longer Slaves” by Bethel

I love this song—especially the chorus as it accurately depicts that, when one becomes a believer, one is no longer a sinner but a saint, a righteous child of God. Yet, being technical in an exegetical manner, the bridge does have an issue.

“You split the sea
So I could walk right through it
My fears were drowned in perfect love…”

Wait, when did God split the sea for me? I don’t seem to remember.

The only account of God splitting the sea is during the Exodus where God delivered His people, the Israelites, from Pharaoh’s pursuit (Exo 14). So, the problem with the first two lines of the bridge is that God did not split the sea for us. God split the sea for the Israelites 3500 years ago. Not for you, not for me. In fact, a similar problem is found when some people quote Exodus 14:14 to encourage others. The verse writes: “The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.” You see, the “you” in the verse is not you. The “you” are the Israelites. If you are a believer and a child of God who imitates God (Eph 5:1), will God fight for you? Yes (with conditions). But does this verse imply that? No.

So, while the lyricist of this song probably understands this and intended it to be symbolic, this song does teach us a good exegetical lesson—that is, DON’T READ THE BIBLE OUT OF CONTEXT! In fact, if we believe that God really did split the Red Sea for us, that would be “eisegesis”, which is, reading and adding into the Scriptural text.

Nonetheless, great song.

#4: “What a beautiful Name” by Hillsong Live

Similar to No longer Slaves, this is a great song. It has a great melody and the theology is quite deep and mostly spot on. However, there’s this one line that is problematic (or to some, even blasphemous):

“You didn’t want Heaven without us,

So Jesus You brought heaven down.

My sin was great, Your love was greater…”

Oh! So the reason why Christ—who is the Kingdom (Lk 17:21)—came down to save man was because He didn’t want heaven to be without us! How sweet!

Well, as you might be able to tell, the problem with the entire song lies in how the line “You didn’t want Heaven without us” is given as the reason for the First Advent. This line implies that God is needy and He came to save us because He needed our company, in a sense like He’s tired of being home alone.

First, biblically speaking, God doesn’t need us. He has His heavenly host (1 Kings 22:19; Lk 2:13 etc.) and His living creatures (Rev 4:6-11). Most importantly, God Himself (singular) is communal and is Three Persons and lives in perfect harmony. During the First Advent, Christ said: “…yet I am not alone, for the Father is with Me,” (Jn 16:32) which was predicting what would happen when all His disciples disbanded from Him. So, Christ is never alone nor does He feel lonely.

Second, Christ came not for His own needs. He came to save (Matt 18:11; Lk 19:10; Jn 3:17; 1 Tim 1:15) and to serve (Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; Lk 22:27) through taking on the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) and giving Himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14). Christ did not bring heaven down because He didn’t want Heaven without us—that is severely messed up.

Thankfully, I’ve been to a church which changed that line to “You showed mercy upon us, so Jesus You brought heaven down.” Some may say that it doesn’t sound as good, but theologically speaking, that’s truly spot on. I personally don’t sing that line (the original version) in church. If I don't agree with something (especially when its bible/truth-related), I won't sing it.

#3: “Always” by Kristian Stanfill

The problem lies in the first part of the chorus, which goes:

“Oh my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always”

We can approach this issue from a grammatical or theological point of view. Grammatically speaking, why does the first line suddenly change from first-person to third-person? In other words, since the “oh my God”—which is a biblical term, but we’ll get there—is first person, why change the following phrase to third-person “He will not delay”? Instead, it should be, “You will not delay”. Think of it like this: (You’re talking to a friend directly) “Hello my friend! How is he/she doing today?” Doesn’t that sound weird? It should be “how are you doing today?” So, grammatically speaking, there is an error with the voice.

Theologically speaking, things get a bit worse. “Oh my God” is a biblical phrase. It has a Greek and Hebrew equivalent: Eli (pronounced “eh-lee”). Quite a few biblical figures have used this phrase, including: David, Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the Anointed One Jesus Christ. Contrary to how it is commonly used today—in which it is used as an expression of shock, excitement, surprise, or relief (or whatever)—“Oh my God” is always used during an intimate prayer in which the person is directly addressing God. So, to be biblical, we should use “O my God” in such a way too.

Most importantly, however, whenever “O (pause) my God” is used biblically, the speaker does not refer to God with third-person (2 Chronicles 6:40; Ezra 9:6; Nehemiah 13:31; Psalm 3:7, Psalm 25:2; Matthew 27:46 etc.)! Rather, after he (literally all Bible characters who say this phrase are guys) says “O my God”, the speaker addresses God with “You”, which is second-person. Take Ezra 9:6 as an example, which writes: “O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to You, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads…” Do you see it? Ezra does not talk to God with “He”, but “You”. So, the correct way to sing this song is to similarly change the “He” to “You”.

#2: “Reckless Love” by Cory Asbury

The problem with this song lies in how God’s love is described as “reckless”. “Reckless” is not popularly known as a positive description. (you can look up its definition on dictionary.com or whatever) Aristotle’s virtue ethics describes “recklessness” as a vice, meaning, not a virtue (by the way, we are called to supplement our faith with virtue—2 Peter 1:5). Most importantly, however, the Bible has the word “reckless” and it is never used to describe anything associated with God. Rather, it is always used to describe something negative. Thus, biblically speaking, “reckless” is always used negatively.

In the ESV, the word “reckless” appears 4 times and “recklessness” appears once. Consider Proverbs 14:16: “One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless.” Do you see how the word “reckless” is used to describe a fool? Is God’s love foolish then? In 2 Timothy, Paul tells his son in the faith (1 Tim 1:2) to avoid people that are reckless, “for among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:3-8) 

So, if the Bible is 100% clear on the meaning of the word “reckless” and “recklessness”, why is it used to describe something associated with God? God’s love should never be described as something that is used to describe a fool. Describing God’s love as reckless is blatantly unbiblical. (then you have the argument of whether all worship songs should be biblical. Well, at least they shouldn’t be unbiblical)

Oh! But if we replace “reckless” with “relentless”, that would be better theologically but it may not sound as good.

**Recent update: Some people have challenged me (and others who hold similar views on this issue) stating that this song is not claiming that God is reckless, but rather our perception of His love poured out onto us. In other words, God's love is "reckless" in our understanding. Again, I am not discrediting the good that this song has done (if someone finds Jesus through this song, Praise the Lord!) or even saying it's a bad song. However, the problem is theological, that (1) God is not separated from His love, as He is love (1 Jn 4:8) and (2) God's love is defined, and that definition is the furtherest thing from being reckless. God and His love is not relative. While love can be a feeling, God's love (agape, in contrast to other forms of love such as: eros, storge, phileo) is objective--similar to how we wouldn't call the "affection" a pedophile has towards one's victim as "love", but lust or a corruption of love. Similarly, God's love cannot be defined as reckless on the same basis.

Also, the parable of the lost sheep is a dig a the Pharisees (Lk 15) and a dig at those who discredit the young ones (Matt 18). FYI, I would love further dialogue on this issue!

#1: Clarity by For All Seasons

This song isn't really that popular, which is a good thing? Anyway, the bridge goes like this:

“If it's not good, You're not finished
If it's not good, You're not finished
If it's not good, You're not finished with it yet”

(and repeat and repeat and repeat)

“If” is a conditional. An “if-clause” is a conditional statement. For example, “(if-clause) if I love God, (main clause) [then] I will be known by God (1 Cor 8:3).” The main clause is always definitive, meaning, if I love God, it is definite that I am known by God.

So, the problem is this. This song is saying that, if something is not good, (it is definitive) then God is not finished with it. But, where do we find that in the Bible? Sure, God may not be finished with something because it (whatever ‘it’ means) is not good, but is that the only reason? No.

Romans 8:28 writes that all things work together for good for those who love God (to love God = to keep His Word—Jn 14:15,21; 15:10; 1 Jn 2:3 etc.) and those who are called according to His purpose! So, just because something isn’t good, it may not have anything to do with whether God is finished with it or not.

The reason why I have such an issue with the bridge is because it entirely places the responsibility, of why something isn’t good, on God. God is sovereign but there’s also our own responsibility and the importance of works. Hey, you know what, if something’s not good, maybe that’s because of you, not God. Don’t blame God for everything. Hey, you also know what, if something’s not good, maybe it has something to do with sin—as sin is always destructive.  

I am not saying that everything in life is meant to be good for those who love God (that would be the prosperity gospel). The book of Ecclesiastes shows that life has various seasons (Eccl 3:1-12) and not all is well. Yet, the conclusion of the book states that, most importantly, life is about fearing God and keeping His commandments, as “this is the whole duty of man.” (12:13) Interestingly, this aligns with Romans 8:28, as it shows the condition for things to be good lies mostly in whether one loves God and walks in His purpose. So, don’t just blame something “that isn’t good” on God, saying “well, He’s not finished with it.” Rather, let us allow the Spirit of conviction (Jn 16:8) to lead and change us so that we may walk in His will at all times, then things will be "for good".

Conclusion:

I hope this article shows you why we shouldn’t base our theology on songs but on the Word of God. Once again, please don’t think that I am against contemporary worship songs or how I think we shouldn’t sing such songs at church. I myself am a worship leader and I thoroughly enjoy spending time in God’s presence through singing and playing worship songs with my guitar.

Ultimately, according to Jn 4:20-24, while worship is meant to corporate (Heb 10:25), true worshipers worship in Spirit and in truth—speaking of a lifestyle that wishes to put God first in all things. Similarly, let us integrate worship in our daily lives and find joy in encountering God whenever and wherever. 

-Barnabas Kwok
Biblical and Theological Studies major at Biola University