How Hillsong Church conquered the music industry
christiandailyjournal.com
christiandailyjournal.com
A satirical take on this is How to Write a Worship Song (In 5 Minutes or Less).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhYuA0Cz8ls
Translations of Hillsong music into other languages are also popular. 約書亞樂團 Joshuaband translate some songs into Chinese, and it was a huge help for me learning Mandarin. I also know about illegal translations of a lot more songs, in Chinese, Taiwanese, and Hungarian. It's illegal because CCLI doesn't operate in those countries, so there's no way to license the song translations officially. Email me if you want to know where to get the chords/PPT/OpenSong/sheet music/MP3s.
For other languages, there's Hillsong Global Project for German, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, Korean, Indonesian, French, and Chinese.
(A) Catholic (an example, for contrast) music tends to be institutional: choirs, organs... Formal. You don't just play the organ for fun, it's a scheduled, authorized activity. It's not something that spreads or something that exists outside of its preallocated box.
(B) Hillsong's kind of music is also accessible. You don't need much exposure to play or appreciate it. This isn't exotic tribal music, for and by some specific culture of people (think of Jewish kleizmer for example). It's pop, the stuff anyone can listen to or play.
Ie, you can tell from the music that Hillsong is new/modern, youth oriented, and mainstream-oriented and international/multicultural.
You can tell from catholic music that it's tradition and institution oriented. You can tell from Jewish music that it's tribally oriented. All ideological linchpins of those communities.
Bach was an ultimate nerd, adept in technology of his generation. He knew about organ construction like few did and he earned an income as consultant from pipe organ construction projects that required much risk taking and investment. One has to be technical enough to know a lot about the physics of sound producing, metallurgy (look into the tin/copper content of the pipes to make sure the builder hasn't taken shortcuts etc. ), inspect bellows, air controllers, and suggest design changes, etc.
To the ordinary towns people this might have looked like Moog synthesizer or Hillsong innovations of today. Lets not forget that Bach faced significant career threatening opposition on the musical structure of these very Cantatas that were composed when he was Cantor at St. Thomas in Leipzig where he taught music. His music was too new for most of them too...
Meanwhile Hillsong is repackaged millennial pop/country/hints-of-EDM with all rough edges sanded down to a glossy frictionless finish. It's slick and corporate and essentially parasitic on popular music stylings, visual imagery, and performance tropes.
There's nothing nerdy or edgy about it (unless you include some of the criminal allegations that surround Hillsong - which everyone probably should).
So I think comparing it to the output of a technical genius like Bach is pushing the truth envelope a little too far to be completely convincing.
"Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven" by John Eliot Gardiner. He is a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eliot_Gardiner
A detailed comparison with modern music comes from a recent author whose name slips my mind. He taught at Columbia University, a journalist, his entire book is on the relationship of Bach with all kinds of recorded music in digital age.
People that converted without a high-church context gravitate toward a more modern style of worship.
The downside of so much hillsong influence is that it dominates a culture and drowns out other modern styles. I feel like all hillsong songs sound the same.
For instance, a major component of the Protestant Reformation was encouraging congregational singing, and (particularly Calvanist) church composers of the era brought the music of the church much closer to the contemporary "popular" music of the day.
Definitely, but we also need to consider that before the industrial revolution, Christians were limited in their options (most folks were very poor by modern standards, there isn't much diversity in music in general, and there is a comparatively narrow [and at various times, more corrupt] group of people making decisions on theology and music). So we need to consider history, but we don't weight all history evenly--there is such a thing as 'progress', after all.
That's a bold claim that too many people accept without question and about which too few actually consider the implications.
Progress is improvement. It's moving forward. The notion requires accepting the idea that you were at one point behind where you are now or not as developed/complete/refined. That's fine if you are talking about technology or some other mundane topic, but to make that claim in the context of Christianity - a religion ENTIRELY dependent upon the veracity and completeness of the stories and traditions it is based upon - is to call into question the entire faith.
But to imply that from the BEGINNING Christians were incorrect on something as important as sacramental theology and the role of music in sacramental theology is a completely separate claim with severe implications, as I described above.
I realise this is a very personal perspective, but I find a lot of "secular" music better for worship: Hendrix, Led Zep, Guns 'N' Roses, Soundgarden, Hybrid, She, Pendulum, and of course plenty of orchestral and ensemble music from earlier eras. This stuff stirs my soul.
I'm honestly not trying to be edgy here, and I'm well aware that this isn't going to be everyone's (or even the majority's) bag, and I'm definitely not suggesting that Christian music needs to change for my benefit (it really doesn't). That's all totally OK: it's just me saying that after 22 years of being a Christian I know who I am.
We forget that people are extremely varied, there is room for everybody. An infinite God probably doesn't create only ~3 "right" ways of worshipping, living, serving, teaching, etc.
One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend.
Counterpoint: Lots of people, especially those who had not-great experiences growing up in the church, tend to go hard in a different direction when they grow up.
In "Blue Like Jazz", Donald Miller talks about how he thinks it would be super cool to belong to a relatively obscure (in the US) denomination like the Greek Orthodox --- that is, unless he had grown up Greek Orthodox. Then he thinks it would be totally lame and predictable.
For those interested in this sort of thing, Minnesota Public Radio's app has an entire streaming channel of choral music.
I expect that history will look back and see Hillsong as an example of sacred music from this time period.
The Hillsong song still is very pop chord-cyclic. Much of the song is dominated by a variation of a C minor - E flat major - B flat major - A flat style cycle -- essentially, I would call it vi I IV V (to my ears at first listen the song's "home base" is E flat at least). The chord pattern shifts a little bit from time to time and there is some occasional variation in chord choice -- for instance, later in the song the A flat gets substituted with a F minor (ii) -- and some chord order variation. But Hillsong (like a lot of modern pop music) more relies on texture and instrument density (or lack thereof) for their expression . (Here the repetitive nature itself also can be thought of as an element of expression I'm sure, repetitive chant is a well known element of various religious cultures.)
Bach's tunes were written in the counterpoint style, which is an entirely different way of composing (very much a voice leading dominated style, with a clearly defined function for various chords -- tonics, dominants, etc.). The Bach cantatas honestly are not comparable to Hillsong in some ways as I think they were more meant to be performed, not sung along with by the entire church. But the older unison singalong hymns also did not tend to lean on chord loops like modern pop.
Take Adolphe Adam's "O Holy Night" aka Cantique de Noel (link to a French choral-orchestral version found on Youtube -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCFvg5M-yA). It "loops", but like most older hymns the loop is more verse-chorus oriented. You can have simple tunes with this structure ("Silent Night" is just three chords), but "O Holy Night" IMHO has a fair bit more complex chord progressions while still retaining enough simplicity to be a sing-along. Just to give one example, instead of repeating the chords at the end of the first part of the verse (I-V-I), the second part ends with a iii-VII7-iii so it can transition to the next section (in the Youtube version which appears to be in Eb major, that would be G minor - D7 major - G minor). The chorus goes through another set of chords entirely.
Personally, too often I find the Hillsong style of composing (which actually is very typical of modern secular pop as well) too repetitive for my personal taste, and lean more toward the older style. But this obviously is just my opinion. Hillsong is obviously popular, as is the modern pop style that they are written in.
I provided the example [above](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18283308) of popular non-(simple, catchy, and easy to play) tracks.
I guess it's the musical equivalent of Poe's law: it's over the top and a bit insencere but the medium it mimics is already so over the top it fits right in and nobody bats an eye.
As a (struggling with faith) christian, I tend to think my fellow tech heads will mock me if it comes up. And yet this post has been really respectful, largely just debating the merits of the article rather than as an opportunity to attack.
Kudos, hackers, for proving civility still exists. I'm tickled pink.
Hillsong's music and most "mainstream" music that come from white english-spoken megachurches have lyrics that talk about "grace","love" and "God accepting you as you are". While the themes on worship music coming from South America (and I think black churches in US too) are more about "Joy", "Freedom" and "God, the mighty warrior defeating his enemies and delivering his people". I found that really interesting.
The other thing is that even while Hillsong's and similar music is very shallow and simplistic, it is becoming increasingly difficult to perform with simple, cheap instruments. So small and poor bands like ours lose appeal against the ones in megachurches with lots of instruments, talent-pool and technology.
I, for one, I'm embracing this and going for a rock-punk attitude for my little worship band.
Western worship has become heavily "I/Me" based, where historically it was more "Us/We" based. To the point it's starting to drive me crazy. Worship is becoming almost entirely selfish. A group of individuals having an individual experience, instead of a group of people having a collective, binding, experience with God.
Another really interesting fact: this difference in style correlates much better with demographics than with doctrine/dogma/congregation. There was a dissertation or maybe book about this, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
Generally a good song can hold up when performed on a single piano or acoustic guitar, and obviously with a singer[1]. The problem here is not you: it's the songs.
Assuming you're half competent musicians, which you sound like you are, they don't sound good when you play them, not because your instruments are cheap and your band is small, but because they don't hold up as songs. They're not strong enough to carry themselves with a simple arrangement. I suspect it's not a conscious effort but what Hillsong (and others) are doing is using an impressive production to disguise weak songs.
And even if in some cases I'm wrong, songs that require a massive production aren't necessarily that helpful to the church at large. For smaller churches, how is it useful to have songs that require 10 musicians to pull off to even a borderline acceptable standard?
Your comment about rock-punk attitude is bang on. Hillsong is the overblown self-indulgent rock music of the early-mid 1970s (I mean, think how long some of their songs go on nowadays): it is time, and over-time, for the punks to take over.
I think there's a real opportunity here for strong songwriting and simplified arrangements to win through and displace the turgid mega-productions we're being submitted to with something - at the risk of being accused of rank hipsterism - a little more authentic.
Just think how many great bands over the years have been three, four, or five pieces with no massive productions (until, perhaps, later on): The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, Blondie, The Police, The Pretenders, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Manic Street Preachers, Cranberries, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Garbage, U2 (yeah, I know, everybody loves to hate Bono), Metallica, AC/DC, GnR, REM, Radiohead, Paramore, and the list goes on - even Fleetwood Mac were pretty basic to start off with. I'd rather listen to any of these (and many more) than Hillsong or similar.
You can do a heck of a lot with an acoustic (or even electric) guitar or two, some percussion, and a couple of voices. If you can add a bass in there, more power to you.
[1] There are, obviously, exceptions. Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't really work as anything other than a big production. Neither does Beethoven's Ode To Joy. The interesting thing about Ode To Joy though is that, if you strip away the massive production, the tune is kind of crappy - it doesn't hold up on its own.
I was going to take exception to this and say that a lot of choral music doesn't really fall under this because a soprano line on its own is often not great, but I think instead there's a different point to be made: don't try to take 3-4 parts verbatim out of a larger arrangement and expect it to work.
A piano, for example, does not play the same arrangement with just a choir as it would with a choir+orchestra. Similarly, a good 2-part version of a 4-part song with soprano melody[1] is rarely obtained by taking the 'soprano+alto', 'soprano+tenor', or 'soprano+bass' parts of the 4-part, but instead by using 'soprano+alto/tenor/bass' or even 'soprano+all new harmony'.
Basically, don't judge a song by how good a 1-2 parts sounds on its own. (Said differently: the important harmony or even the melody can move between singers/instruments throughout the song)
[1] Of course, for complex songs the best 2-part version of 4 parts can approach 'S/A/T/B+S/A/T/B' as the melody moves around.
I know you can't brush everyone with the same stroke, but it feels reminiscent of those mega-pastors that fly around in their private jets to shake hands and take selfies with the poor - the message becomes a sideshow to the brand. It makes me uneasy - but, disclaimer, I don't really know on the pentecostal spectrum of commercialism where they lie.
Hillsong often get the plaudits (and the rap), but there are other similar movements. Worship Central and HTB here in the UK spring immediately to mind. I do go to these kinds of places from time to time and, whatever the organisation, you talk to the people involved: they're approachable and seem genuine, and they talk about empowering and benefitting the church and Christians at large, and I have no evidence to the contrary. All of which just leaves me feeling guilty about my discomfort, and maybe that's OK because maybe I'm wrong.
On the flip-side everything is so shiny: everyone you see ministering is beautiful and/or handsome and, although the quality of the music and lyrics might be questionable, the production values are excruciatingly high, and you're surrounded by people - particularly at the front - who appear to be going out of their way to model this kind of aching hyperreal trendiness.
Compare this with the composition of the average congregation (of any denomination) in the UK[1]. Even stepping past the issue of ageing congregations in many places, we're (and I mean no unkindness in saying this) a pretty miscellaneous bunch. In lots of churches you end up with all sorts having to get involved in making it work, not just those who are good-looking or loaded or "good people". There's space for everyone, and all can contribute, or at least that's what we aspire to - we believe in a God who calls the things who are not as though they are.
Possibly that last observation is rose-tinted when compared with reality, and possibly unfair on Hillsong and its imitators. Still, the contrast between Hillsong-like and most other churches does feel jarring and leaves me with that lingering unease.
Sorry: this ended up a lot longer than I expected.
[1] Note that I deliberately haven't gone down the route of comparing with the lives and lifestyles of Jesus and the Apostles, not because I necessarily think the comparison is invalid, but because: one, for many people I think there's a lack of familiarity with the source material that may render the comparison meaningless to them, and, two, because the societal and cultural situations are radically different, which makes any such comparison much more complex.
I suppose it might be fair to include music-induced group ecstatic experiences in your definition of “religious”. But I find the mix-n-match, the implied claim that the emotion of the large-context experience is actually a result of some kind of personal, relational connection to God, to be a heavily loaded and ambiguous possible untruth.
ymmv — I definitely have religion issues :-)
That is a very thought-provoking perspective, which I think I'll probably be chewing over for a while - thanks for sharing it.
gave me a permanent distaste for "concerts" at church.
I think it's similar with churches like Mosaic in LA and Hillsong broadly speaking - they attract a lot of young people who are skilled in these areas and then those young people go on to use their talents in service to the church.
But that's not the point and it should never be the point. The teaching, the community, these things are far more important than the production values. I guess my thinking is that this polish is fine, as long as it's due to the talents of people in the church, rather than a need to impress others and put on a show so to speak.
I was always disappointed that there wasn't more efforts like Marty Haugen's Holden Evening Prayer, which really does a good job of keeping the liturgical structure but updating it to use some new instruments and be applicable in some new ways.
I was always supportive of adding new and different music, in fact I spearheaded it in a lot of cases, but the further along we went the more the new music just seemed repetitive and empty. (I can't imagine what it is now, about 9 years since I last played a service.)
I noted this past sunday that one of the songs had "I" statements for the vast majority of lines. Funny that a song which is intended to speak to God's position (ie, worthy of worship) was so focused on self. Not surprising from one of the most selfish societies to ever have existed.
In Australia a lot of people called the denomination "charismatic churches" which is largely overlapping with "evangelical" in the states, where it comes from. The larger family of denominations has been growing and internationalising at a serious pace.
In any case, when it comes to religion, opinions are.. sensitive. But, I think the recent history of this religion is worth learning about, for those interested, just because they've been "making things happen". Religions are pretty diverse structurally, from one another.
Hillsong and related movements (mostly descendants of American evangelical denominations) tend to be quite decentralised. The Church (institution) and the church (building/parish) are almost the same thing. They don't have a traditional, top-heavy hierarchy (bishops, cardinals) and they don't have a traditional local parochial structure.
Actually, my biggest fear about Christianity in the USA today is that it's NOT "making things happen" Or, perhaps more accurately, the things that it's making happen are businesses.
The mainline congregations and Catholics of the 19th and early-mid 20th centuries made serious contributions to:
1. Education. In addition to the obvious middle and high schools, they started colleges and universities. There are literally hundreds of catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. colleges dotting rural America. There are also many more that have since shaken the affiliation but were originally started as schools for pastors and teachers. These christian educational institutions touched more than just the churches; e.g., Fred Rogers was educated at a college founded by Congregationalists and a seminary founded by Presbyterians.
2. Pastoral training/care. Aside from the above-mentioned colleges and universities, these congregations also started/supported seminaries and -- perhaps more importantly -- insisted on well-trained pastoral leadership that understood the church's teachings.
3. Congregational care. This included everything from helping out a sick congregant, to gardening, to helping keep the church building in working condition.
4. Community care. Everything from running food pantries to setting up and staffing health clinics, and sometimes even entire hospitals.
Many modern christian churches aren't much more than tax-free concert venues with a self-help workshop on the side run by charismatic communications majors. They'll take the parsonage exemption, but don't seriously engage in any of the traditional Christian charity work: education, healthcare, caring for the homeless and elderly, or even teaching the gospel.
Even the congregation's own members seem to have become not much more than leads for related businesses; e.g., the charismatic church a family friend attends runs a (very profitable) counseling center and refers its members there for basically every problem mentioned to a pastor or other staff member. Not a casserole in sight when she threw out her back, though.
Which I suppose is reasonable. After all, running a lead-generating combination concert/lecture venue is already a full-time job.
There's definitely a continuum, though. There are small churches doing the traditional thing just as there's megachurches doing God, Inc. The church I attend now has a definite focus on the fundamentals you listed above.
I've been attending a Rock & Roll Jesus church. Partially out of curiousity. It's been weird.
There are some that break down every non-Sunday-sermon level thing into a "small group" level of organization, and the quality varies by who leads. They also could have more budget to do better trips or activities.
Smaller venues trade population for intimacy. More one on one time to invest.
When you get down to it, my (albeit limited) experience has been the size doesn't matter as much as the people involved. Hopefully that helps!
Anyway... I see your point. It's true.
But, you need to remember that american catholic and "mainline protestant" churches mostly descend from a state religion origin. The american revolution's secularism totally changed the role of the church. The church-state seperation (which is still very partial in most of europe) basically took away their roles in these capacities.
In europe, these churches were (and still are) recipients of tax/public funds (whether direct, formal or indirect) and providers of public services.
Churches often ran the health systems, school systems, orphanages, mother-infant homes, poorhouses and such. They also had/have much more formal, power wielding roles as community leaders, representatives.
However, the comparison I was making was specifically about the USA.
Even without tax/public funds (or preferential tax treatment), American christian churches did engage in all of the things you list.
There are hundreds of private, non-tax-funded middle schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries in the USA.
Many of our hospital systems (that have long sense become beasts unto themselves) were started as religious charities without state funding.
Almost all non-state-owned orphanages and homeless shelters were religiously affiliated charities that did not receive state funds.
And many of these things were done by home-grown congregations.
In an American context, the fact that the church did fill these roles even without preferential state support -- in fact, in a country where preferential state support was explicitly forbidden -- just makes the "then vs. now" comparison that much more concerning.
I was suggesting that cultural origins play a role. The catholic church's culture in the US is heavily influenced by the catholic church globally and its history globally. So, they see those schools & hospitals as a part of what the church is, what it does and its role in society.
Anyway... personally, I'm more worried about secular/non-religious bodies inability to perform functions historically provided by churches.
For-profit, non-profit & public bodies can do hospitals & schools, and do. They don't do pastoral care very well. They don't build communities very well. .. That, IMO is where the crack is, that separation of church and state has left.
(corrections welcome, and I know there's a succinct summary for this contrast that I'm blanking on)
There has been great controversy over this between varying denominations, both in terminology and in belief -- it's not a universal belief among the varying faith traditions and hasn't been universal at any time in the past to now.
I think it depends on which branches of Christianity you care about.
I'm not Mormon, but I get Salt Lake City television where I live, and have some Mormon neighbors, and the things that the LDS does to change lives around the world are incredible. It is truly a world-changing organization. But unless you're in or adjacent to that sphere, most people don't know about it.
Similarly, the Roman Catholic church is almost exclusively known by the general public in recent years for scandal. But I saw a report a few years ago that the Church had already spent a trillion (yes, with a T) dollars fighting human trafficking and helping the victims of human trafficking around the world.
Again, if you're not tuned in to Catholic media, or only consume media from the usual North America and European sources, you wouldn't know about these sorts of things.
If you're going to reach the kids and young adults of the 21st century, your church can't act like it's still the 19th.
If all you care about is your existing congregation of late-stage adults and senior citizens, then perhaps organ music and "the unadulterated truth" are just fine. But it means your church has an expiration date.
My comment focuses on a general disinterest in caring for the congregation and its surrounding community. In other words, churches that "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" but which do NOT "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you".
I think scripture makes it abundantly clear which of those is the more important commandment. In fact, on multiple occasions, Jesus and his apostles specifically call out churches that do the former without doing the latter.
Christianity can thrive with contemporary worship styles, and arguments to the contrary are silly. That's why I didn't make a single comment about worship style.
However, if the kids and young adults of the 21st century are disinterested in obeying commandments to care for their follow congregants, to care for the downtrodden in their communities, to care for their clergy, etc., then the Christian church is atrophied. Regardless of how many people show up to Sunday worship or how many counseling sessions/MP3 downloads/lattes are sold.
In other words, the "thing" that churches should be "making happen" is the following of God's teachings. Success in more secular terms is irrelevant to the measure of a church, even if it is interesting to aspiring entrepreneurs.
From 2015 article: "The Hillsong empire they founded (she, too, is a senior pastor) pulled in tax-free revenues of nearly $80 million in Australia last year and more than $100 million internationally."
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/inside-the-hillsong-churchs...
Morever, in the UK at least, depending on where you look, around 5-10% of the population attend church[1][2] - that's about 3.3-6.02 million people. Of these, one third attend churches with a congregation of at least 350 people[3]. There are churches with thousands, which would traditionally be referred to as megachurches, but these are a small proportion of the whole. Anyway, that's somewhere between 1 and 2 million people attending larger churches (including megachurches), which puts them solidly in the minority - definitely not "the many".
I don't have accurate figures for churches >1000 people primarily because the third source doesn't include figures for the Catholic church. Still, the 23 protestant churches listed account for <100k people, so not even "the many" as compared to the number of people attending larger churches.
The perspective that might support what you're suggesting here is that Jesus often seems to be comparing with those who are conspicuously religious, who one would suppose are often figures of authority (although there's plenty of content on how we're to deal with those much closer to us as well). Seen in that context the leaders of megachurches are certainly conspicuously religious, but they are far from the majority of church leaders, and the third source suggests that the vast majority of leaders in the ~37,500 churches in the UK labour substantially in obscurity regardless of their character.
[1] https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html
[2] https://www.compassionuk.org/02-million-people-attending-chu...
[3] http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives-php/1109/03-2...
Girl Scouts, a non-profit, bring in 700 million from selling their cookies. United Way Worldwide, another non-profit, has a revenue of 3.9 Billion.
While most non-profits don't simply exist to fund someone's lifestyle (some do) and do provide benefits to society they should have a greater level of scrutiny to receive tax free status. Same should go for churches - particularly ones who preach "give freely and you will receive back 10 fold". There's a weird crossover between Amway and other multilevel marketing organisations and the Pentecostals. Not just the mega concert style of their events but the language they use and the attitudes you come across.
Religious organizations are considered tax-exempt.
edit: In Canada, I meant to say.
Edit: Also the bit with the rocker's dad about the fifth commandment.
There are Christian artists I've really enjoyed. Iona spring immediately to mind, although I haven't listened to them regularly in years, but the relevant points are:
1) Their lyrics tend to have more substance to them.
2) Even if the style isn't your cup of tea, there's some real and undeniable musicianship on display.
Although way poppier, and with edgier lyrics, I'd probably put Switchfoot in the same category.
You would probably also appreciate Jon Foreman's (Switchfoot founder) solo work too.
Such great classics as "Dance of the Cucumber"[1], "Monkey or Ape"[2], and "Song of the Cebu"[3]...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13DvXLdr_H4 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--szrOHtR6U [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uv8Ej4CEoQ
Chris Tomlin is especially big in terms of writing songs that modern churches play. There's a reason we called it "Good Good Grief, We're Playing This Again?" on my worship team :-)
In the 80s we had lively songs and pensive songs. I enjoy the modern style of quiet songs which become epic anthems.
https://www.theringer.com/2017/11/8/16623902/pastor-carl-len...
Very happy to be a part of this community.
In the case of IHOP they have sexualized lyrics which they front as worship music by over emphasizing being the Bride of Christ. This leads sexually frustrated / confused (in a Christian viewpoint / sense) youths even more confused about Jesus and their relationship with Him. Its a lot to take all at once so research it and pray about it and take your time. I just personally avoid IHOP / Hillsong for multiple reasons. The other thing to remember is they are not all at fault some are just there genuinely or misled into being there.
> If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
It seems perfectly possible to me to be curious about worship music, and specifically how Hillsong got to be such a 900 pound gorilla in the field.
Speaking as a Christian who has very mixed feelings about Hillsong, I certainly am.
That said, the article had little substance, in my view. It recounted the church's history but didn't really touch on why they're so influential, which is really what I'm curious about.
tl;dr: Christian organization scams tax payers, recent conservative trends on Hacker News somehow makes this interesting?
I don’t think this is interesting because any conservative trend. It’s a cool business hack that allows you to make money without taxes.
By this logic, it's a cool business hack to run a megachurch and buy your own 737 without paying taxes, not a scam?
Moreover:
1) Hillsong runs substantially on donations and purchases of their merchandise (including music). Most of the people who give or buy their merchandise are taxpayers themselves.
2) Anyone paid as an employee by Hillsong will pay taxes, just like everyone else. I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not.
3) We know Hillsong earn a lot of money but we don't know that they keep very much of it[1]. If they're anything like HTB, they quite likely don't[2]: the vast majority will be spent on staffing, ministry, along with a chunk given to support other organisations and causes. Ministry means everything from what you see on a Sunday and special events through to social initiatives such as food banks, homeless shelters, childrens' work, soup kitchens, and educational initiatives (and more) that many churches either support or run.
Point (3) is important because it's the point that makes a church a net good within society (or not, in the absence of it). If they're not a net good then I'd be more inclined to agree that, yes, they should be taxed as businesses rather than not taxed as though they're charities. Quantifying that is obviously non-trivial.
[1] It's possible they do but I don't have any information to hand on this.
[2] At a pure numbers level this is something that distinguishes a charity from a (healthy) business: one does not generate a profit (which is not to say the money shouldn't be used carefully and beneficially: clearly it should), whilst the other does.
Sadly, if this article is accurate, it may be closer to the above than I'd thought: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-h...
They aren’t scammers, though, because most people want this. Of course it is unfair to you, but most countries have their laws originate in their dominant religious culture and consequently favour that culture.
For instance, the San Francisco MTA legalized parking along the median on the street for church services. It’s just the way that people want it to be, and in democracies, they will inevitably get their way so it’s best to take advantage of the laws they make. Being upset is less profitable than playing the game.
What do your tax dollars pay for in regards to Planned Parenthood? Things that Medicare should be paying for, but fails at, specifically, reproductive care for women, including obstetrics, which should go well with your pro-birth agenda (I'm not going to dignify it with the phrase "pro-life" because once the baby comes out, the "pro-lifers" seem to run for cover)
Meanwhile, when it comes to giving my tax dollars as welfare to your religion, your conservative agenda infringes upon my constitutional rights established under the 1st amendment to our constitution (in case of the USA).
we're sorry
- Australia
(well SOME of us are)
tobymac - 26M views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeBv9r92VQ0
Skillet - 242M views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mjlM_RnsVE
So, if aggresive/suicidal/depressive music is popular, why christian bands may be in underground?