Like many others, I have a cell phone and when I pull up youtube, it feeds me what I might want to see and it showed me the above video, so I watched (by the way, three days after I published this, the original video was taken down, so I put this up in its place, because it is still at youtube). I must comment. To deal with it in a proper manner, here is a transcript, so you can look at it for reference. I shared the video so you’ll see that it happened and can also hear the intonation in the question and answer.
DARRIUS: Hello, my name is Darrius, and my question is, “Should we listen to songs that have like good Christian lyrics but are ran by false Christians, maybe such as Hillsong or Bethel or those kinds of stuff?”JOHN: I mean, the bottom line would be that if something is true, then it’s true. You can appreciate the truth of a song if it’s true. There are a lot of songs written by real Christians that are bad theology, really bad theology. There are some songs written by non-Christians that are good theology. But I do think it’s important not to get sucked into those movements. Hillsong is an aberrant movement with really aberrant theology. Bethel is the same, or worse. But it doesn’t mean that there isn’t now and then something they produce that is true and you can sing it as true. So just be discerning. But they are powerful movements, both of them – Bethel because of the Jesus culture music group, Hillsong because of Hillsong music. If they didn’t have that music, they wouldn’t have a movement, either of them probably. But the theology of both, particularly Bethel, is taking the Holy Spirit’s name in vain constantly, constantly. So you don’t want to be a part of that movement. But again, a clock that doesn’t run is right twice a day. So every once in a while people will come across the truth. Okay?
John MacArthur most often gives good answers to questions. I remember in recent days in answer to a question MacArthur criticized Drew Brees, the quarterback of the New Orleans Saints, because he didn’t have a spine or wouldn’t “man-up” in apologizing for his national anthem stand. MacArthur himself is weak in answer to these types of questions. I wish he would “man-up” and give a strong answer to this question. He equivocates and vacillates on something that is very important, related to the worship of God.
The right answer would be this:
No, Darrius, Hillsong and Bethel are false worship, and no one should listen to what they produce. They not only do not please God, but they offend God. It’s not right to offend God. No one should listen to what offends God or give any support to it. He should separate from it. Even if you were to find a few true statements in their songs, they are a counterfeit, attempting to look like the real thing, when they are false. They are strange fire and we should separate from strange fire. God isn’t pleased. They require separation not only to please God, but also for the sake of others. The association, like associating with the idol worship in Corinth, has much more severe ramifications for yourself, but also for others. We need to take a public stand against them, but we also can easily be deceived ourselves.Furthermore, Darrius, we don’t just judge the music by the words or the lyrics. The medium itself is corrupt. It’s like worshiping the true God in the high places. The form is wrong. It changes the meaning. It corrupts the meaning. We understand God not just by what is true, but also what is good and beautiful. We worship God in the beauty of his holiness. Their music is sensual, fleshly, carnal, and worldly. Paul commanded in Romans 13 not to make provision for the flesh. Their music attracts or allures so many because of its fleshliness. God isn’t worshiped by fleshliness. 1 Peter 2 commands, abstain from fleshly lust. Titus 2 says deny worldly lust. You can’t obey those verses, obey God, and listen to Hillsong and Bethel.I’ve said before Darrius, that the Hillsong and Bethel movements wouldn’t have anyone without the music. What do you think that means? It’s not because they have true lyrics, but because the music itself is deceiving. It is like the allure of the apostate teachers of 2 Peter 2. They use the music to lure you in and it makes merchandise of its hearers. The music is the vomit that the dog returns to. God does not receive worship that accords with the spirit of this age. That is not acceptable unto Him, and it also gives people a false imagination about God, an idol in the mind. There may be true words, but the meaning of those words is shaped according to the lust. This is how apostasy takes places and scripture says, come out from among them and be separate. That’s what we need to do Darrius.
If the Hillsong and Bethel music is strange fire, which is what MacArthur has said, why doesn’t he say something like what I wrote? Why? MacArthur is wrong in his answer. It is a dangerous answer, much like when MacArthur answered on another occasion that it was fine for a saved person to date an unsaved person, not marry, but to date that person. He is compromising. He is being pragmatic. He doesn’t want to offend those young people, lose them. As a result of what he said, they’ll still be listening to Hillsong and Bethel. These young people will not have the same God in their imagination as the God of the Bible, even if they listen to only the “true” lyrics of the songs.
The bottom line really isn’t, are the lyrics true? The bottom line is, is the apparent worship pleasing to God? Is God pleased by the music, both lyrics and music? The music is not meaningless. The music is not amoral. MacArthur knows this, but he has not stood on this through the years, because he takes a reckless position in his application of scripture. He will comment on cultural issues, even though they are not given clear or plain statements in scripture. We must acknowledge that we can understand truth in the real world. We know what a corrupt word is. We know what the attire of a harlot is. We know that it is wrong to gamble, to smoke crack pipes, to hip thrust in our worship, and to abort babies in the womb, because we apply a second term, a minor premise, in our application. God expects this. This comes out of the truth of natural law or self-evident truth. We know if our children are giving us a rebellious look. It doesn’t have to be defined by a verse. We know when a woman is flirting with a man, even if the Bible doesn’t explain this.
MacArthur says things that are true, but he does not explain them, perhaps to try to scare the young man away from Bethel and Hillsong without giving a real answer. He says, these movements are “powerful.” Really? How? What is the power? It’s not the power of the lyrics, except that they are so simple and so emotional that they are attractive to non-thinking people. The power is in the music, the meewwwzic, Dr. MacArthur. The music sucks people in because it is addictive, it is drug-like, it titillates the flesh. Say that. But no, can’t say that because it would empty out a big chunk of the group. What about the casual, ratty clothes, the stage, the lights, the dancing, the waving arms? Can we not judge this? Nope, not in MacArthur’s world.
He also says that Hillsong and Bethel “blaspheme the Holy Spirit.” That’s a strong statement. How do they blaspheme the Holy Spirit? How? Isn’t it because the Holy Spirit is Holy? The music isn’t Holy. It brings down the Holy Spirit to something common and profane. It isn’t sacred. Is anything sacred anymore? Almost nothing is to evangelicals. They have scorched the earth so that nothing is holy. We as leaders are required to differentiate between the holy and profane. Do that. Please. I beg you.
MacArthur’s vacillation on these sorts of issues will result in the apostasy of his church and others very quickly after he is gone. He has left his people with nothing to equip them to deal with what Satan and the world system are doing in the world. He talks about being discerning. In other words, sort through Bethel and Hillsong and pull out what is good. Nothing is good there. He’s not being discerning himself. He’s not applying scripture himself.
Grace Community supporters should take seriously what I’m writing. Don’t set up straw man arguments, like you often do to these types of criticisms. Don’t approach this issue with, Brandenburg is a flame thrower, he’s not with the doctrines of grace, or he is KJV only. Those are red herrings. They are also not giving an accurate representation of me. Doing that will not stop the slide that will occur with you and your people in the future, because you will not stand for pure worship of God and give biblical instruction on these cultural issues.
"I mean, the bottom line would be that if something is true, then it’s true. You can appreciate the truth of a sermon if it’s true. There are a lot of sermons written by real Christians that are bad theology, really bad theology. There are some sermons written by non-Christians that are good theology. But I do think it’s important not to get sucked into those movements. Mormonism is an aberrant movement with really aberrant theology. JWs are the same, or worse. But it doesn’t mean that there isn’t now and then something they produce that is true and you can listen to it as true. So just be discerning."
Just saying.
Prediction: There are people who got all upset about John Mac's stand on holding services who will be completely fine with what he's said here.
Jon,
It is a case study on not having discernment. Thanks.
Some portion of people will always get upset. Whether someone is afraid of this and spineless is one thing. Those end up being jellyfish.
Whether someone maybe isn't dominated by the above fear but is still being pragmatic and not saying the things that they know will tank their popularity, even if true, this is still carnal thinking. They still have popularity in view above pleasing God with their speech, in that case. They are just being pragmatic about it and can't live with themselves being a pure jellyfish.
This appears to be something of a potential case #2 to some degree. I can see where a point needs to be made, that he did make. A broken clock really is right twice a day. We cannot let what other people say or do control what we do. At least not to a reasonable degree. At the same time however, what should have been stressed at no expense is the subversiveness of the producers of the music, who were mentioned by the asker by name. The stress he placed here just seems too measured (listening to the audio). Despite coming across as defensible on paper. If you have more of a physical revulsion of subversive doctrine, you would have a harder time measuring your condemnation of it.
good entry
I saw nothing wrong with MacArthur's response. He is 100% correct to say if something is true, then it is true. He just made a point — a point for discernment in my book — that even false teachings can get something correct once in a while.
And regardless of whether truth was true, MacArthur criticized the movements. He gave a succinct response. Just because he didn't go into the groups as deeply as you think he should, that doesn't make him wrong,
Glenn, If you ask a Mormon if he believes Jesus is God, answer, "yes." See, Mormons are telling the truth. The problem there is that they also believe you can become a god like Jesus became god. He should have said, no, don't listen to Bethel and Hillsong. Separate from them. That music is godless and pagan, false worship. He doesn't think that their music is false worship, just the parts that are not true. This is false, Glenn. If it is strange fire, everyone should separate from it. God killed Nadab and Abihu for it. This is not having biblical discernment. The context and the medium make the truth untrue and that allowing for any of them is a bridge to their false worship.
Kent,
Bad logic. With Mormons that answer isn't true because their definition of God is wrong.
He didn't say that he didn't think their music is false worship. HE just noted that there may be some that are true — AND THERE ARE. But notice he did in fact say to avoid Hillsong and Bethel et al
You wanted him to be more specific or else he was not being a good teacher. That is pharisaical.
Glenn, It isn't bad logic. Saying something is true doesn't make it true, so that is the same as my Mormon example.
You write, "He didn't say that he didn't think their music is false worship." In other words, he was silent about something he shouldn't have been silent. He should say that their music is false worship. Saying that some of their lyrics are true doesn't mean it is true worship, Glenn, in the same manner as Mormons says Jesus is God.
MacArthur also didn't say, like you above say that he said, in his answer to avoid Hillsong and Bethel. Where did you see that in his answer? Is that the truth, Glenn? Where does he make that statement?
Also you call me pharisaical. Really? Explain how what I'm writing is Pharisaical. Be specific from scripture. MacArthur needed to tell the truth, it is false worship. I said nothing about his not being a "good teacher." Is that the truth, Glenn?
Thanks for interacting and not ignoring.
It is NOT bad logic to compare a Mormon's statement about God. Their definition of God doesn't even fit the Biblical definition so there is nothing at all true about their statement. I know, I'm an ex-Mormon! That is not the same as saying something that IS true when it is true.
"So you don’t want to be a part of that movement." is what he said about the Hillsong/Bethel movement. That's the same as saying to avoid them.
Lyrics can be true so therefore there cannot be anything wrong with them if you had no idea from where they came. That is not the same as Mormons saying Jesus is God (actually a god because they have a father god separate).
What is Pharisaical is demanding a person give a fuller treatment to something just because you think he should. Perhaps in another context he has. My point is that he was answering a specific question and gave a specific answer. Demanding he do more or else declare him to be wrong is Pharisaical and nit-picking.
Glenn,
Mormons use the term "God." They say, Jesus is God. That is true. However, you've got to look at the definition. Hillsong says something true, but in the context of Hillsong and Bethel, what they say is true is in fact not true either. I think you understand what I'm saying, and I think you know it's true. MacArthur himself says that Bethel and Hillsong are the bridge by which people are brought into Bethel and Hillsong. However, he also knows hundreds of his own young people listen to them. I think you should be supporting what I'm saying. Instead, you'll get more people drawn into Bethel and Hillsong with your philosophy. If you read my post, you know that truth and beauty and goodness are inseparable, so the music changes the meaning. Did you read that? It's like Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday to JFK in a breathy voice. That changes the meaning of the words.
Not being part of the movement is different than avoid Hillsong and Bethel music. That was the question of the young person. It's different than, sure, listen to their music, just don't join the movement, but the music is what brings people into the movement. Come on, Glenn!
It's not just because I think he should have said more. He avoided giving the right answer. You didn't show how I was Pharisaical, which I knew you would not, because what I'm saying isn't Pharisaical. The Pharisees were rejecting Jesus as Messiah and teaching salvation by works. Nit-picking? Was offering a different recipe for the incense at the altar of incense nit-picking? God killed Nadab and Abihu for that.
You want to quibble. He gave the right answer to the particular question; he was succinct and did not discuss the complete issue. He didn't avoid anything.
And I know all about Hillsong; I did a ton of research and wrote an article for the Personal Freedom Outreach Journal:
http://www.pfo.org
Now, how someone uses the truth does NOT affect the fact of the truth, nor does it change the meaning of the words.
When a Mormon says Jesus is God his meaning of that statement makes it 100% untrue. No one else but a Mormon would have the same meaning. That is not the same as with the lyrics of a GOOD Hillsong song –the meaning of the lyrics are the same for everyone. The reason we don't use their material because using it helps finance their false teachings. They could put out a record with all the lyrics of Amazing Grace with changing anything, not even the tune or proper expression, and there would be nothing wrong with it except if you buy the recording you assist their ministry.
And, no, my philosophy will not draw anyone to Hillsong or Bethel. My blog soundly and roundly condemns both movements as apostate and heretical.
Nit-picking is when YOU think the man should have said what YOU think he should have said in a short response to a specific question.
Glenn,
Quibble. Nitpick. Pharisee. Just deal with what I'm saying instead of the incessant name-calling. What's the verse on quibbling, nitpicking? Are these in the Bible? Bethel and Hillsong are false worship and should not be allowed for anyone. I've explained why and you have not dealt with it at all. You just don't want me calling out MacArthur for falling short in how he dealt with the question. I guarantee you there are numerous people in his church that listen to Hillsong and Bethel, as do numbers of other evangelical churches.
You can give the final answer, but it's been disappointing, what you've written.
One more thing, Glenn, I just went to your blog for the first time. You posted this.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ta9k4YaCYw4/W4RptAf8FPI/AAAAAAAAHqI/uwMVOAzIpFYOcBqLMWjSqpLga25OXWvZQCLcBGAs/s1600/20799968_1995844797313568_245814100301610471_n.jpg
Is Justin Peters a nitpicker and quibbling? This is the answer I would have expected.
Again,
I keep pointing out that MacArthur's response was fine for the question given and was succinct and obviously not intended to be all inclusive. YOUR demand that he respond the way YOU wanted him to respond is what is legalistic and pharisaical YOUR quibbling is just because he didn't go far enough in his answer to suit you.
Peters' statement was not in response to a question and was part of a teaching session. Go ahead and ride your high horse.
His response was defensible on paper. However, if he really did want to prevent people from listening to the subversive group, he would not have been so measured as he was in this particular response. I don't want to criticize him too much, but that's because it's for a single answer out of thousands. We are not always completely on the top of our game. But I agree with Pastor Brandenburg it would have been preferable if his answer did more to warn against it, and I can see how the way he measured his response might have had something to do with not scaring off or giving pause for people in the crowd who do dilly-dally with it. This would be the opportunity to be an example, because I'm sure he doesn't personally dilly-dally with it. We shouldn't be afraid to give the reason why. But it's probably partially out of the desire not to be straw-manned and quoted out of context behind his back without being able to defend himself, for giving such an answer, something he probably knows very well people are waiting to do. The devil is a false accuser. However, this will always happen anyways and should not be a deterrent to giving the answer the person up front needs.
But as to the right of Pastor Brandenburg to say they are wrong, yes he has that ability. And you have the ability to comment on his comment, if you have a problem with it. I would not describe this article as a "demand" persay, but simply as "criticism." The way you describe it as a "demand" on the article-writer's part here, seems to imply you think threats were made against MacArthur. I did not get that impression from this article though.
Glen, the issue at stake here is rather simple. JM did not fulfill the requirements that the Bible includes as an essential part of his office. All pastors are required to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine." II Tim 4:2
“Reprove” means to charge with a fault, to convict, to blame. An example is John reproving Herod for marrying his brother’s wife (Lu. 3:19) and Paul reproving Peter for his hypocrisy (Ga. 2:11). To reprove also means to persuade, to give evidence, to convince. The word “reproof” in 2 Timothy 3:16 is the Greek word “elegchos,” which is elsewhere translated “evidence” (Heb. 11:1). To reprove is to convince someone of his sin or error (1 Co. 14:24; Tit. 1:9). To reprove means to shine the light of God’s Word on the deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11-13). The Spirit of God has come to reprove the world of sin (John 16:8).
“Rebuke” means to reproach, correct, chide, scold, or reprimand. Nehemiah rebuked the elders (Ne. 5:7). The judges of Israel were to rebuke sin (Amos 5:10). Christ will rebuke the nations when He returns (Is. 2:4). Jesus rebuked Peter (Mr. 8:33). The Christian is to rebuke his brother when he trespasses against him (Lu. 17:3). Sinning elders are to be rebuked (1 Ti. 5:20). The Word of God is to be preached with rebuke (2 Ti. 4:2; Tit. 2:15). Some are to be rebuked sharply (Tit. 1:13). Christ rebukes those He loves (Re. 3:19). One’s attitude toward rebuke reveals his spiritual condition (Pr. 9:7-8; 13:1).
The reason that a pastor is commanded to do these things is very clear. "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." It's all about using the truth to recover people from the devil. This is a serious rescue operation.
If a pastor's answer to a particular question does not include enough information to constitute true Biblical reproof, rebuke, exhortation or instruction in sound doctrine then he is NOT satisfying the requirements that are intrinsic to his office. He is not obeying the Bible. This is not an optional part of a pastor's responsibility. In the context of truth, what is NOT said is just as important as what IS said.
John MacArthur is a new-evangelical, through and through. One of the primary identifying characteristics of this false philosophy is often seen not in the outright repudiation of Biblical truths, but rather in the purposeful neglect of them. This is why Hosea said, "My people are destroyed for LACK of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge." What we DON'T say is every bit as consequential as what we DO say.
An uncompromising and obedient pastor views questions like this one as a wonderful opportunity to reprove, rebuke, exhort and to teach sound doctrine. A faithful pastor will give the people all of the Biblical resources and truth that he can. JM clearly failed to do this. The issue regarding the content of his answer is not a matter of (Pharisaical) personal preference as you have asserted. It is a matter of strict obedience to God and to His Word. This is why Paul stated, "For I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL the counsel of God."
Jed
Jed,
I agree with you. I love John MacArthur and all the people who listen to him. I want them to think through this. A lot of what MacArthur teaches would apply to the answer of this question to give one like I gave, but he doesn't do it. He repudiates everything about Hillsong and Bethel in principle but he won't tell them, separate from it, partly because he doesn't in general teach the biblical doctrine of separation.