Christian Liberty, Pragmatism & the Passive Endorsement of False Gospels in Corporate Worship

"--the other one's conscience, I mean, not your own." - 1 Corinthians 10:29a

(In this article, I will not be addressing the actual false doctrine propagated by the churches referenced as it is now widely known and easily researched. Rather, working off the assumption that they are the largest entities spreading a false gospel, I will be addressing the consequences of utilizing the resources produced by them in corporate worship. If you disagree or have questions regarding the doctrine of these churches, please do your due diligence in researching before presenting arguments for or against the inclusion of their music in local church bodies. It is also assumed that the lyrics of the music in question are biblically sound—it does not include lyrics that clearly teach error.)

There is a frustrating experience common to many doctrinally conservative Christians today. It’s become widely known in recent years that Bethel Church of Redding California (as the primary example) preaches a false gospel of works-based dominionism, word of faith theology and false signs and wonders. Many churches have followed their example while other megachurches like Hillsong and Elevation have grown up alongside them preaching similar false doctrines.

The modern worship industry is dominated by a man-centered easy-believeism. Christians are increasingly becoming aware of the false belief systems producing the most popular worship music today. Desiring greater degrees of separation from false doctrine, many have gone to church leaders requesting that the church no longer include their music in corporate worship; yet, many pastors have dismissed their concerns. 

A Nuanced Debate

Typically, the discussion goes something like this: 

Pastor, I’ve discovered that churches like Bethel, Hillsong and Elevation are teaching bad doctrine that is leading people astray. Why are we using their music in our worship services?

A popular response:

We look at each song on a case-by-case basis and as long as the lyrics are biblically sound, we believe we can use the music.

Then ensues many nuances: 

We shouldn’t use the music because it’s going to lead people in our congregation to the churches, which will lead them into false doctrine.
We shouldn’t support them financially through licensing and royalties.
Well, if it’s just about lyrics and not doctrine would you agree it’s okay to use Mormon hymns in our services? 

These protests answered with justifications like: 

If we started examining the source of every song we would have no music.
God uses sinners.
All truth is God’s truth. 

Both sides produce scriptural support, both sides desire unity in the church, yet division has been consistently produced over the issue of using music from Bethel, Hillsong, and Elevation in worship services.  

Principles to discern permissibility

You can find plenty of articles online that attest to the doctrinal dangers and deceptions of Bethel and company. (I linked 3 in the introduction of this article.) I won’t be addressing that; I’m assuming the reader is already aware of the problem. Instead, I want to approach this topic systematically by exploring 3 biblical principles to help us discern the permissibility of including their music in our corporate worship services. The principles are:

1. Clean vs. unclean things

2. Created elements vs. manmade philosophies

3. Personal liberty vs. collective purity

1. Clean vs. unclean things

Old Testament uncleanness as a physical picture of sin

Under the old covenant, the laws of cleanness and uncleanness were regulations having to do with certain elemental—or, created—things being unclean (Leviticus 11-15). The Israelites were constantly coming into contact with objects or experiencing situations that were deemed “unclean” and had to observe specific rituals to become “clean” again in the sight of God. 

In an article titled Clean & Unclean, Ligonier expounds on the topic:

“The [Israelites] as a whole were holy. That is, they had been set apart by God for Himself and for His glory. However, in approaching Him, they were to maintain that holiness by coming to Him only when they were in a state of cleanness. But that was a difficult state to maintain, as almost anything, at any time, could plunge them into a state of uncleanness. They might touch a dead body. They might eat the wrong kind of food. A woman might be having her menstrual period. A man might have a bodily discharge. A person might have some sort of skin disease. A family’s house or garments might be infested with mold or mildew. Some of these uncleannesses were, so to speak, natural, and required only washing and waiting until the end of the day for cleanness to be restored. Others, such as bleeding beyond the time of the normal menstrual period, or some sort of skin disease, required the offering of sacrifice for purification, as well as the washing with water. By these means, the people maintained, or rather, regularly restored their cleanness before God through the ordinary course of life… As it was almost impossible to get through a day in ancient Israel without contracting some sort of uncleanness, the Lord by these laws was showing how thoroughly sin had corrupted human life. There was really no escaping it. In reality, their hope was not to avoid uncleanness. Instead, their hope was to be delivered from it.”

Being “unclean” under Old Testament law was not sinful, but being unclean was a physical picture of the effects of sin. By being physically unclean, the Israelites were not able to come near to holy God.

New Testament uncleanness as a spiritual reality

Jesus also referenced these laws in Mark 7:

“There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him… Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?… What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” - Mark 7:15-23

Jesus explained that the spiritual reality behind the laws of cleanness and uncleanness was that it is the person who is defiled by the intents of his own heart and not by the things which the person consumes. Under this paradigm, no person could be clean before God no matter how strictly they maintained the Old Covenant physical laws of cleanness. “For all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). 

Under the new covenant, all elemental things were made clean and, now, what makes an object or activity “unclean” is the conscience or motivation behind its use. All Christians are made clean by the blood of Christ and can enter the presence of God, though their feet will become unclean as they walk through this world and must be washed. But those who live according to sinful flesh are wholly unclean and cannot draw near.

In Romans 14, Paul used the language of clean and unclean to teach the church about Christian liberty under the new covenant. He says, 

“I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.” - Romans 14:14a

Taken in isolation, this verse seems to say that anything can be appropriated for the Christian. Nothing is unclean! But here we factor in a second biblical principle.

2. Created elements vs. manmade philosophies

God’s created elements

In Romans 14, Paul is teaching about Christian liberty regarding neutral or elemental things that belong to God’s original creation. Not included are the philosophies invented by men. Under the new covenant, all things in God’s creation are clean, while sin is, by definition, unclean. Things that can be described as clean OR unclean (depending on each Christian’s individual conscience) denote their inherent neutrality—that is, they are not inherently sinful objects or activities. They are elemental things.

Some examples of elemental things that may be clean or unclean depending on their use:

-plants
-meat
-days & holidays
-vessels
-alcohol
-types of clothing

When Paul speaks of all things belonging to the Lord and nothing being unclean in itself, he is pronouncing that men under the new covenant are now free from the laws of certain created elements being unclean. In Colossians 2, Paul writes:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings?” - Colossians 2:20-22

All elemental things are clean, or, as Paul puts it, nothing elemental is unclean in itself for the Christian. The only thing that makes a neutral object or activity unclean for a Christian is if the thing is defiled in their own conscience. Then, for them, it is sin. 

Is music an elemental thing? Yes. It is a neutral element that is not inherently sinful but can be used to the glory of God or perverted by manmade philosophies. 

The philosophies of man

What is meant by philosophies? While nothing elemental is unclean for the Christian (so long as his conscience is clear before God) the philosophies of man are unclean for the Christian. Christians are not free to take part in doctrine or ideas that are contrary to the doctrine of scripture; they are also commanded not to take part with people who bear false witness about God whether in word or deed. Anything produced from the heart of man that perverts the image of God is inherently unclean. It is not certain birds, body fluids or giving birth that are the unclean things—sin is the unclean thing.

We aren’t left in the dark about what these unclean philosophies of mankind entail. Paul warns the Colossians not to fall prey to the wisdom of men, saying:

“See that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” - Colossians 2:8

And Paul writes to Timothy expounding on the fruit of man’s philosophies:

“Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world and we cannot take anything out of the world… O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.”
- 1 Timothy 6:2b-7,20-21

John, Peter, Jude, and Jesus himself issue similar warnings about false brethren who claim the name of Christ yet teach doctrine contrary to the apostles. 

Because the philosophies of the world are at odds with Christ, they are unclean. They are the ideas of men whose minds have been darkened by sin. They are ideas that create a false god imagined by the hearts of sinful man. Or, as Paul says to the Philippians:

“For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.”
- Philippians 3:18-19

According to Paul, a person who is an enemy of the cross worships their own desires, glories in things that should bring them shame, and looks for worldly gain. This is the fundamental meaning of idolatry. And this includes not only the lost but many who claim the name of Christ.

Christians have liberty in elemental matters, but do not have liberty to partake with the philosophies of men, which are idolatry. Paul tells us not to have fellowship with unbelievers who live by these philosophies.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.’”

- 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (emphasis added)

Here we factor in the final biblical principle.

3. Personal Liberty vs. Collective Purity

Asceticism & pragmatism

Let’s revisit Romans 14 for a moment. Paul writes about Christian liberties in terms of not passing judgment on brothers who have different convictions regarding elemental things. He also says not to abuse Christian liberty by causing your weaker brother to stumble. In this case, the one who abstains from certain elements is the weaker brother—he believes the element in question is inherently defiled because of pagan affiliations. Who is the weaker brother when we are speaking about the element of music?

If we were to speak strictly about a certain style of music, different Christians may have different convictions. One Christian may find one style more acceptable than another and that is fine because we are speaking about a created element. The weaker brother would be the one who finds the greater number of musical styles to be a problem for his conscience.

Some Christians still disagree on the style of music that is permissible in church services—preferences over hymns vs. modern arrangements, electric guitars, drums, etc.

Instead of operating by the regulative principle, many churches make the mistake of incorporating issues of Christian liberty into corporate worship. This inevitably leads the church into one of two pitfalls.

Pitfall #1: Defiling elemental things in others’ consciences results in asceticism 

If church leaders take their personal convictions about certain elements as gospel, and begin to preach them as such, the church body can be lead into a sort of legalistic asceticism which requires its members to abstain from certain elemental things to qualify their faith. (It can be argued that men with weaker consciences like this should not be in positions of church leadership at all.) Christian liberty is all but done away with in these cases and is one expression of the manmade traditions and philosophies Paul warned the Colossians about. This attempt to defile elements that God has pronounced clean in the consciences of other Christians is wrong, to be sure. We can refer to it as the tyranny of the weaker brother, as R.C. Sproul eloquently phrased it.

However, this is not the case when we are speaking about the use of music from churches that portray God falsely. Why? Because neutral elements are not what is at stake—it is not a matter of “musical style,” but a matter of manmade philosophies. 

Pitfall #2: Adopting practices that fall under Christian liberty in the corporate gathering results in pragmatism

Many in leadership will ignore the possibility of bad doctrine in the church in order to preserve Christian liberty—a noble intention, but misguided. In reality, this kind of oversight is a mislabeling of pragmatism with the term “Christian liberty.” Pragmatism in the corporate gathering amounts to the use of anything at our disposal (that is not directly a sin) if it has proven successful at increasing church attendance—and this is often at the expense of not only biblical teaching, but individual conscience. This is where the mindset of “all truth being God’s truth” can go wrong and why the regulative principle is paramount for corporate worship.

“If pastors grow their church through pragmatism rather than the gospel of Jesus, they will be forced to keep the people happy by continuing to provide them with a constant array of pragmatic offerings or they will simply go to another church that will offer what they want. You can never expect people who have been lured into the front doors of the church through a ministry philosophy of pragmatism to have a high view of church membership. That’s like a man expecting his wife that he stole away from another man through adultery to remain faithful to him and to embrace a high view of marriage.” - Josh Buice, Do Not Become a Slave to Pragmatism

While songs with biblically sound lyrics from generally heretical sources may be permissible for private use, the same cannot be said for the church gathering. Inevitably, the pragmatic approach cannot account for individual consciences and leads to the church being shaped after the world rather than the church being set apart from the world. And this always fosters manmade idolatrous philosophies.

Speaking to this neglect of the regulative principle in favor of pragmatism, Ligonier agrees:

“What is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the important role of conscience. Without the regulative principle, we are at the mercy of “worship leaders” and bullying pastors who charge noncompliant worshipers with displeasing God unless they participate according to a certain pattern and manner.”

Although they seem to reside on opposite ends of the spectrum, asceticism and pragmatism share a common error. Leaders from both extremes are operating their churches in terms of personal liberty when they should be operating for the purity of the collective.

Clean meat sacrificed to idols/biblically sound lyrics written by idolators

Now I want to bring all three of these principles together. In summary, we’ve determined the following:

1. All created physical elements have been made clean and are permissible for Christians in the new covenant, so long as an individual’s conscience is clean before God.

2. Manmade philosophies, which pervert the image of God, are idolatry and are not permissible for Christians.

3. Asceticism and pragmatism both make the mistake of allowing issues of Christian liberty into the corporate worship gathering.

Turning to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, who had a very similar issue going on in their church, we can apply these principles.

“But not everyone has this knowledge…”

“Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the one who loves God is known by God. So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist. But not everyone has this knowledge.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:1-7a

It is correct to say things like “all truth is God’s truth.” There is only one God and idols are nothing, of course! But not all consciences in a church body have necessarily come to recognize this about all created elements.

The passage continues:

“Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you who are well informed eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged to eat food sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:7b-13

As previously stated, under circumstances dealing with elemental things, the weaker brother is the one who believes he cannot partake. Were he to impose this issue of conscience on others, he would be exercising a special form of tyranny, namely, asceticism, which Paul warned about in, again, Colossians 2:

“Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” - Colossians 2:23

On the other hand, pragmatics may speak rightly about the liberty we have as Christians just as the Corinthians spoke to Paul a couple of chapters later in 1 Corinthians 10:

“Everything is permissible!” 

Yes, all things belong to God. But making the same point that he did in chapter 8, Paul answered them: 

“but not everything is beneficial… but not everything is edifying. No one should seek his own good, but the good of others.” - 1 Corinthians 10:23-24

Herein lies the issue of the pragmatic approach. It isn’t that biblically sound songs from doctrinally poor sources aren’t permissible under any circumstance. Any Christian can listen to music that lyrically glorifies God in a private setting so long as his conscience is clean before God. But he is not free to impose this Christian liberty issue on the church!

You may say, but Paul said it was okay for the Corinthians to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Is that not a clean element derived from an unclean source?

For one thing, the meat did not verbally convey a message about God (whether true or false), but let’s continue reading the passage to answer the question.

“The other one’s conscience, not your own”

Continuing in 1 Corinthians 10:

“Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience—the other one’s conscience, I mean, not your own.” - 1 Corinthians 10:25-29a

The sad reality is that music has become such a huge part of our modern church services that this sensitivity of conscience cannot be exercised in most cases. The effort to promote unity through pragmatism tends to breeds the opposite.

True that another’s conviction on music should not determine our freedom on the issue, just as Paul said, but neither should our freedom become a stumbling block.

“For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God. Do not become a stumbling block, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God—as I also try to please everyone in all I do. For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, that they may be saved.”
- 1 Corinthians 10:29b-33

Paul put this another way in chapter 9 when he said:

“To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” - 1 Corinthians 9:22

And it isn’t just the people of the immediate congregation we must have in mind, but also the universal church. And, even still, there is a larger audience at stake.

The world is watching

Some commentators say that the one who informs that the meat has been sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10 may be a fellow Christian and a weaker brother. In this instance, one should abstain from the meat so as not to become a stumbling block to his brother’s sanctification. This is why Paul says it is for the other’s conscience and not your own.

Others say the one who informs in Paul’s hypothetical situation may be the unbeliever. What are the implications of that? 

Thinking Collectively

Although it came down to a matter of conscience for each person, Paul would not have endorsed the partaking of meat sacrificed to idols in the corporate church setting. In fact, Paul was present at the Council of Jerusalem when it was decided that one of the few restrictions the Gentile believers of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia should observe was abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15). Was this in opposition to what Paul wrote to the Corinthians? No.

Paul thought collectively. Even though the meat was not actually tainted, it was in the minds of weaker brothers. Who were the weaker brothers? In many cases it would have been gentile believers who formerly did sacrifice the meat to idols. The meat also would have been affiliated with their own pagan religion in the eyes of the unbelievers. This is arguably the reason the Council advised the gentile churches to abstain from the same meat that Paul informed the Corinthians was fine to eat. It was a means of separation from the world.

Replace the meat offered as a sacrifice to idols with music offered as a sacrifice to the idol of a false works-based gospel. 

In the eyes of a watching world, churches that are (or should be) sound in their doctrine are equating the the true God of scripture with a false god, as if they were one and the same. 

Some of the population is being drawn into a false Christianity because places like Bethel are validated by other churches who “don’t agree with their practices” but still endorse their brand of “Christianity” through the use of their music. Another group is scoffing at the worldly god imagined by places like Elevation. Still others have defected from the Christian faith altogether because they have experienced a false version through places like Hillsong thinking it was true Christianity.

Would the gentile churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia have had similar experiences had they pragmatically mandated meat sacrificed to idols in corporate worship? (Or substitute the meat with any issue of Christian liberty!) Would it not have caused the weaker brothers to sin against their consciences? Would it not have caused some onlooking gentiles to falsely join their ranks thinking it was as easy as giving lip service to a new God while keeping old practices? Would it not have caused many to defect from the faith because of a lack of separation from the world?

Two thousand years ago, advising the gentile churches to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols was to preserve the purity of the church collective. It was a measure to create unity in the church and separation from the world. 

Today, advising modern churches in our culture to abstain from music sacrificed to the idol of a false gospel is also to preserve the purity of the church collective. It is a measure to create unity in the church and separation from the world. 

It is a measure meant to separate the people of God who live according to the doctrine of scripture from false teachers who pervert the gospel into the worship of their own desires, glorying in their shame, and looking for worldly gain. And it is precisely these things which characterize the groups who produce the most popular Christian music today.

Truth brings division, false unity brings confusion

We all want unity in the church, but do we want true unity according to scripture? Or false unity through pragmatism? Whose job is it to foster unity? All Christians are charged with striving for unity in the body, but in this particular area of music, the average churchgoer has no power to enact change in a local church body. The responsibility falls to the shepherds of the churches.

The problem is that more and more common Christians and the watching world are becoming aware of the false gospel “tainting” the music—of the idol “tainting” the meat. Their consciences can no longer abide the use of these songs in corporate worship. Since it has become widely known, the excuse of ignorance can no longer be used like it was 15, 10, or even 5 years ago. 

Shining a light on false doctrine will always cause division—rightly so. Yet in many local bodies, false doctrine is allowed to stay in the dark.

Let’s replace tainted music with tainted meat once more to illustrate the confusion that would have ensued had Paul and the apostles allowed meat sacrificed to idols as a pragmatic practice in corporate worship:

Some Christians don’t know anything about the meat having been sacrificed to an idol, so they can eat with a clean conscience. Some know and are conflicted because the church has adopted its consumption during corporate worship. Some have brought their concerns to leadership wanting change but the leaders justify it saying, “Everything is permissible!” And the pagans observing from the sidelines may be thinking “I just sacrificed that meat to Dionysus and Paul the apostle of Christ went down to the market and bought it to use in corporate worship. I guess I can be a Christian and keep my idols.” 

No. Instead, Paul rejected pragmatism in the church and exercised his Christian liberty in a way that did not compromise the gospel or defile the consciences of others. Again, he said, 

“Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.” - 1 Corinthians 8:13

In fact, the entire point of Christian liberty, which Paul described, was the ability to take the gospel to all people, to the ends of the earth, and conform to their way of life; free from the constraints of the ceremonial laws which previously bound Israel to a life of endless cleansing rituals. In Christ, the focus has shifted from personal holiness through ritual to the building up of others’ holiness through sacrifice.

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.” - Romans 15:1-2

This act of self-sacrifice for the sake of brother, church, and world is virtually impossible when we refuse to break fellowship with those who teach falsely in the name of Christ.

As Christ did for the sheep

Must the sheep defend themselves while many shepherds deny there are wolves among the flock?

Many churches are still generally faithful to the regulative principle, but somehow a pragmatic approach to music from churches who are not faithful has infiltrated our corporate worship.

Paul told the Corinthians:

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” - 1 Corinthians 5:11

The biggest producers of Christian music today are actively teaching others to worship a god of their own imaginations—to practice idolatry—while bearing the name of brother. If Paul instructed the Corinthians not even to eat with such a one, how can we continue to associate with them through the use of their music in our local churches? To expose the wolves is to love the sheep.

It is my hope that more of our shepherds will reject pragmatism, as Christ did out of love for us; that more would expose the darkness of false teaching so that men may not be lead astray, as Christ did out of love for us; that more would be willing to lead us into greater acts of self-sacrifice for the sake of our brothers and for the sake of a dying world, as Christ did out of love for us.

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” - John 13:34-35