Hillsongs

Churches are always saying that they need to make their worship more "modern" and "relevant".
The reality is that most of the contemporary worship songs we are hearing now will be forgotten in the next 20 years. Yet in 100 or 200 years times, we will still be singing the ancient hymns that have stood the test of time. We are still singing them not just because of their rich theology, but their adaptability and flexibility to meet a wide variety of contexts. We can play them on any instrument. We can sing them because they are singable. Most modern worship songs don't sound "right" unless they are sung in the way the songwriter originally intended - usually with extensive synchopation, melismas, bridges which can be very difficult to follow as a congregation.

dms1972 said:

Any thoughts on Ulf Ekman?

Are there variations in the Word of Faith movement?

Click to expand...

It's progress that he converted to Catholicism because at least that is much closer to the gospel.

The thing about prosperity gospel ideas is that they put the cart before the horse in a key, profound way. They have the wrong goal.

We don't come to Christ because we want to get rich. Rather, if we follow Him fully, He will take care of our key needs.

Listening to Christ in this chapter will answer very many questions you are asking about --
Matthew 6 NIV

(one way to begin to listen to Christ are these 3 famous chapters, Matthew chapters 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount, and they should only be a beginning, but a very good one. )

Anthony2019 said:

Churches are always saying that they need to make their worship more "modern" and "relevant".
The reality is that most of the contemporary worship songs we are hearing now will be forgotten in the next 20 years. Yet in 100 or 200 years times, we will still be singing the ancient hymns that have stood the test of time. We are still singing them not just because of their rich theology, but their adaptability and flexibility to meet a wide variety of contexts. We can play them on any instrument. We can sing them because they are singable. Most modern worship songs don't sound "right" unless they are sung in the way the songwriter originally intended - usually with extensive synchopation, melismas, bridges which can be very difficult to follow as a congregation.

Click to expand...

You might like this modern hymn (I'll call it that) from 2001, which seems likely to be one of those that last for decades/centuries (though I don't think it's centuries left at this point....) --

(there are already many different musical styles of singing this one, and you can choose from at least a dozen popular versions (if you like it to sound like a traditional choir, there's a version))

Here's just one of the many singers doing it:

A nice Choir version I just found:
or another:


While younger people (under 60 usually) most often will like a more modern sound, you can get great hymns in so many renditions, to meet your own personal preference of the sound of it


But for myself, I find almost every style of sound to be good, when the song is good.

Halbhh said:

You might like this modern hymn (I'll call it that) from 2001, which seems likely to be one of those that last for decades/centuries (though I don't think it's centuries left at this point....) --

(there are already many different musical styles of singing this one, and you can choose from at least a dozen popular versions (if you like it to sound like a traditional choir, there's a version))

Here's just one of the many singers doing it:

While younger people (under 60 usually) most often will like a more modern sound, you can get great hymns in so many renditions, to meet your own personal preference of the sound of it

But for myself, I find almost every style of sound to be good, when the song is good.

Click to expand...

I do like both of those songs and they do sound great even with a modern arrangement!

"In Christ Alone" has been particularly successful because songwriters such as Stuart Townend and Keith & Krystyn Getty have chosen to write many of their songs using a classic hymnody. They follow a metrical pattern which makes it easy for a song/hymn to be learned and followed as a congregation. The tune is memorable and familiar right from the start. Within the first verse, the congregation has already picked up and learned the song which makes it much easier to use for worship.

They also follow the tradition of other hymnwriters by incorporating theology into their hymns - including scripture, creeds, doxologies and prayers (such as the Kyrie, Gloria Patri, etc). They affirm the Trinity and promote a sound Christology, as well as focusing on confession, repentance and holy living. They are not simply singing love songs to Jesus (although of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). They are boldly proclaiming the truth of the Christian faith that has been taught to us for generations.

Anthony2019 said:

I do like both of those songs and they do sound great even with a modern arrangement!

"In Christ Alone" has been particularly successful because songwriters such as Stuart Townend and Keith & Krystyn Getty have chosen to write many of their songs using a classic hymnody. They follow a metrical pattern which makes it easy for a song/hymn to be learned and followed as a congregation. The tune is memorable and familiar right from the start. Within the first verse, the congregation has already picked up and learned the song which makes it much easier to use for worship.

They also follow the tradition of other hymnwriters by incorporating theology into their hymns - including scripture, creeds, doxologies and prayers (such as the Kyrie, Gloria Patri, etc). They affirm the Trinity and promote a sound Christology, as well as focusing on confession, repentance and holy living. They are not simply singing love songs to Jesus (although of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). They are boldly proclaiming the truth of the Christian faith that has been taught to us for generations.

Click to expand...

I think you should like to see the annotations of verses I made to another very popular song then in post #10.

Here's a link to post 10: Hillsongs

Halbhh said:

Right, no one should rely on a few song, or a preacher, or a pope, or a doctrine, instead of Christ. We are His if we listen to and follow Him, instead of men.

This means of course:
we do not follow doctrines (as if a doctrine replaces the Word),
nor sermons from some favorite preacher (as if a preacher can replace Christ),
nor the theology of some theologian (as if the Word can be reduced)
nor a church, nor a pope, nor a king, nor a mortal man

Those would all be following men. Putting our faith in men (which is explicitly instructed against in scripture).

But instead we listen to Christ, Jesus, == His words to us in the 4 gospels, listened to with a full listening ("ears that hear"), taken to heart, kept in us, and followed.

Click to expand...

Also the apostles and prophets and teachers. You probably know that the gospels were the last books of the New Testament to be written. The early church flourished without the written gospels.

Aussie Pete said:

The other thing that bugs me is the rarity of the name of Jesus being included in songs. It's the name above all names, the name that drives out Satan, the name that strikes terror into evil spirits and gladdens the hearts of those who are born again. Songs are for edification, not entertainment.

Click to expand...

That's not true for Hillsong, but it can be found in the works of a few others.

Those songs are intended as "crossovers" to the secular market, where they must counter the fact that, as Paul said, "The name of God is blasphemed by the gentiles because of you."

The West in general and the US in particular is a "post-Christianization" environment. Everyone in the US has had opportunity to see people calling themselves Christian and judge them by their words and deeds...and what they see and hear is usually obnoxious. Too many Christians in the US use the name of Jesus as a gang sign, not as a way of life, and those are usually the ones with the microphone. So the US environment isn't like a missionary out in some region where the name of Jesus has never been heard. We're not like Paul walking into Philippi. We're in an environment where the name of Jesus already has a bad reputation because of the actions of those claiming to be His followers.

However, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" and "He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

Jesus himself didn't always use even His own name. The Holy Spirit, who does the enabling and the drawing, will still speak to those who are enabled and drawn even without Jesus' name being uttered.

Aussie Pete said:

Also the apostles and prophets and teachers. You probably know that the gospels were the last books of the New Testament to be written. The early church flourished without the written gospels.

Click to expand...

They had only the scrolls we now call the 'old testament' and the eye witnesses telling them directly the words of Christ they had personally heard.



We now have these recorded testimonies, accounts, God-breathed words from the Lord.

And that's the best way to evaluate a song, ideally -- not by what we were most used to hearing when we were kids necessarily... (many great songs, some not so much) -- but ideally best by reading and then remembering scripture because we've read every book in the common bible with a real listening.

It's also how to know whether your own local pastor is doing good preaching, because, like the Bereans (Acts chapter 17), you actually test what they say against the Word. That's the ideal. But it's also necessary in the long run.

Anthony2019 said:

Churches are always saying that they need to make their worship more "modern" and "relevant".
The reality is that most of the contemporary worship songs we are hearing now will be forgotten in the next 20 years. Yet in 100 or 200 years times, we will still be singing the ancient hymns that have stood the test of time. We are still singing them not just because of their rich theology, but their adaptability and flexibility to meet a wide variety of contexts. We can play them on any instrument. We can sing them because they are singable. Most modern worship songs don't sound "right" unless they are sung in the way the songwriter originally intended - usually with extensive synchopation, melismas, bridges which can be very difficult to follow as a congregation.

Click to expand...

I agree most current P&W songs will be forgotten rather quickly. Only a small percentage will still be sung in worship.

I will point out that we only sing a very small percentage of hymns that were written as well. Only a minutia of them stood the test of time. Charles Wesley, for example, wrote nearly 9000 hymns himself. The best stand the test of time, as it should be - and as it will be with music written today.

WolfGate said:

I agree most current P&W songs will be forgotten rather quickly. Only a small percentage will still be sung in worship.

I will point out that we only sing a very small percentage of hymns that were written as well. Only a minutia of them stood the test of time. Charles Wesley, for example, wrote nearly 9000 hymns himself. The best stand the test of time, as it should be - and as it will be with music written today.

Click to expand...

I think the percentage of modern music--of any genre--that weathers the test of time will be vanishingly small primarily because of the enormous volume of music being generated. Songs like the Beatle's "Yesterday" certainly deserved to at least outlive the writer...but it may not, under the deluge of so much more material.

When Mozart published a new symphony, it stayed in the "popular top ten" for a decade. Mozart wrote 41 symphonies in his lifetime. The modern music system requires an artist to produce 10-12 songs every year to remain commercial. At that rate of production, not all of them can be excellent and probably not even Spirit-driven.

I think Christian music creation would do well to get off that merry-go-round and stop emulating the system of the world. If a church worship ministry is blessed by songwriters, they should be compensated as necessary, if that's going to be their primary occupation, so that if they write no more than 40 excellent worship songs in an entire lifetime...that would be sufficient. Wesley ground out a lot...but have even as many as 40 actually stood the test of time?

Halbhh said:

They had only the scrolls we now call the 'old testament' and the eye witnesses telling them directly the words of Christ they had personally heard.

Click to expand...

Paul's epistles were being circulated at the same time too, years before the 4 gospels were written

Guojing said:

Paul's epistles were being circulated at the same time too, years before the 4 gospels were written

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree mostly. Though in the case of the Gospel of Mark, it's not that long.

Mark was written down it's generally thought about 66-70AD. (Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia )

I love Hillsong. Their music is from the Creator Himself. There is nothing wrong with worshipping with their format.