hillsongs - the next installment
As the comments in two weeks have gone beyond 500 comments - here is the new thread..
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
February 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
FYI,
It appears that the New Covenant International University has links with a bible college in NZ !!!!!!! http://www.spabc.com.au/colleges/new_covenant_bible_college.htm
The CCC Creative Arts web site http://www.ccc.org.au/sca/default.asp?section=staff&page=scaCore is the only reference I have found w.r.t Phil theses.
DB
February 8th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
For the benefit of some of the latecomers/newcomers to Signposts, here is a page of the ‘best of’ some of the dodgy stuff being taught at Hill$ong/CCC.
http://hillsong.bigblog.com.au/index.do
February 9th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Thanks for your research efforts ADHD and others.
Do you think they’d respond to a request for an abstract? It’s hard to imagine any university that won’t at least supply an abstract.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Hill$ong* ‘priests’ as ‘kings’.
“I was talking to a very close friend of mine over the weekend about the phrase “because we can” - it lives in the core of my church: Hillsong London. I was explaining to him that it simply means: I will, because I can. If there’s a need and I can - I will!
I told my friend though, that I had to take a journey from: “because we can - should I?” to “because we can - I will”. The difference is now I don’t think about whether or not I will, if I can - I just do. I know my role. In these moments someone has provided a vision and I am able to provide provision. If neither one understood the role; vision would never see the light of day.
I want to challenge and encourage you today. God never intended for everyone in His church to be a priest and because we have been taught that way for many years, we now lack the kings we need for long-range planning and long-range provision. We are a bit like a 3-legged stool with one really short leg - we’re not very balanced right now.
The kings in the Kingdom are severely underdeveloped and priests tend to create vision much faster than they can create provision. A priest may hear or see the vision sooner than others but as everyone knows, provision is what makes the vision happen. If the priests spend too much time talking about the lack of provision instead of communicating what the vision is; the kings, already underdeveloped, become alienated, feel guilty and remove themselves from the equation, seeing the vision as “the priests” instead of as God’s. We must work together to get God’s will done, keeping it in our focus that we have to do our part not someone else’s.
If we can coexist as kings and priests - equal in importance and relationship, we can build the temple, destroy the enemy, take the spoils of war, provide for the people, care for the house of God and care for the stranger; ultimately hearing from God and showing God to those around us.”
From http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/lifefiles/Jamie_Anderson/The_King_And_The_Priest/25966/p1/
* not an authentic religion - for entertainment purposes only.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hill$ong* ‘priests’ as ‘kings’.
Jamie (*****)
Creative Director
Prayer for the Nations
The title explains his ‘creative’ theology … God help the nations if this guys is directing prayer intiatives.
Many still believe this sort of thing even though a correct rendering of scripture is “Kingdom of Priests” NOT ‘Kings’ and ‘Priests’. ‘Kingdom’ simply describes the ‘body’ of the redeemed collectively. ‘Priests’ indicates their individual position - priesthood of ALL believers.
It seems to me, that an over-emphasis on Church rather than Kingdom can result in ‘many kings’ (in the Church) whereas there is only ONE King in the kingdom.
Jack
February 10th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
true dat jack…word
February 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Tongues Greg??
February 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
jus showin my peeps I can get down wit da lingo - old skool!
February 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Roflmao!!
February 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“Priests & Kings” was the buzz message from a H$ conference many years back, originally delivered by Charles Neiman (part of the Rick Godwin, casey treat - H$ brothehood in the states)- which really reverberated out through the associated churches - looks like it’s being revived.
In essence, every priest - ie “the called man of God” - senior pastor etc, needs “kings” - ie business people to fund the vision God has given the priest.
Jack & Wayne, you may remember this stuff???
February 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Sadly … yes I do!
Let’s hope we have the sense to reject this apostacy this time around.
Jack
February 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
these don;t sound like the words of a man who has rejected the AOG - ‘we have the sense’ Jack, ‘we’? Still a part of the whore of babylon Jack?
February 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Greg you said:
“these don;t sound like the words of a man who has rejected the AOG - ‘we have the sense’ Jack, ‘we’? Still a part of the whore of babylon Jack”?
Firstly, I was responding … ‘off the cuff’. Secondly I remember teaching this stuff and that really saddened me.
If you think that the ‘whore of babylon’ resides wholly within the AOG, you give THEM too much credit!
As for the ‘we’ … I was simply referring to Christendom as a whole … again off the cuff.
And as to your last assertion/question, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you are calling my integrity into question on this.
Jack
February 10th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Whay would anyone outside of HS or the AOG need to reject the teaching - we are not being presented with it so “we’ don’t need to reject it.
I’m not calling your integrity into question - just stirring the pot - poking at the hornets nest, running the idea up the flag pole to see who salutes, putting the milk in a saucer to see if a cat licks it up, lick sip suck
February 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
You konw what - fuck it - you think that because youa re a former AOG pastor and that you’ve got your nice little network of likeminded churches that you konw all the answers well fuck you Jack you don;t - you are still what lance refers to as a wanker pentecostal pastor - your so fucking good that your even better than this newfangled emergent stuff - ooh I don;t konw if I like it - you can;t come ujp with your own argumetns so you cut and paste from other peoples web sites -
The IC is not rejected until you leavae it Jack - you can’t stay in it and still reject it.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I like it when you get angry, Greg.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
turn you on Sanders? I get wet when i type it out.,
February 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’m leaving now - good bye
February 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
forever
February 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Greg,
I’m simply trying to understand the EC not denouncing it. Trying to understand the culture and the language takes time.
We have positioned ourselves pretty close to an EC model (if there were such a thing) but … and this is the BIG but … I’m not about to jump into anything … now matter how GOOD it looks, just because I’ve left something else (abusive) behind and I have ‘felt’ needs.
I’m sure I inflicted my share of grief as an AOG Pastor … I’ve done my best to account for that where possible. But the abuse in the AOG cuts both ways … the ’system’ is corrupt … the senior leaders are corrupt and therefore it/they (eventually) corrupt those who remain in it!
I know many, many other AOG pastors who are out now with broken hearts … families and minds … and bodies … all because they believed and did as they were told! Naive - yes! Sinister - NO!
I thought we were allowed to bounce things off each other in attempt to allow ‘iron to sharpen iron’? If I cut too close mate it wasn’t intentional!
I thought you of all people would have understood that Greg.
Jack
February 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I said I was leaving forever so stop responding to my posts
February 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Greg yuo asked:
‘Whay would anyone outside of HS or the AOG need to reject the teaching - we are not being presented with it so “we’ don’t need to reject it’.
This teaching as per Lance’s original post (1714) is not being presented to H/S or AOG … that’s your assumption … but is online for all to believe or other wise - check the link.
I was simply remembering when that garbage was dished out in H/S and AOG circles etc (see Jane’s post directed to me and Wayne - 1720).
The ‘we’ therefore was to all who might see/read/hear and be tempted.
Jack
February 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
About #1714…..seriously what the? Anybody in their right mind would think this guy is out of his mind. I was not around in AOG circles then but having seen more than enough now I guess I can see how the theory works according to the AOG. But man… serious goobledy gook.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Re #1724 “Whay would anyone outside of HS or the AOG need to reject the teaching - we are not being presented with it so “we’ don’t need to reject it.”
You would be amazed at the enormous number of non AOG attendees at HS conferences + in the college, being influenced by such teaching. It is easy to discount when read on your own, but in a hyped, positive group environment (where the front row are all yelling “awesome”) where there is a certain amount of “truthiness” (thanks Lance) presented - one’s discernment can oftentimes, sadly, be faulty.
This is a major issue with HS - they have brought in dodgy word-of-faith doctine & “legitimised” it to the greater Australian/ NZ church through their large conferences & on the back of their music which has already opened the doors into the other denominations.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Jane, your post suggests that something is problematic in the churches being influenced by Hillsong. It’s like blaming the red lights or traffic conditions for making you late for a meeting.
What is going on when people are so easily misled by dodgy teaching? Isn’t the adult individual solely responsible for her own state of mind (in normal circumstances, e.g. ignoring brain injuries, etc through accidents)?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Jane, your post suggests that something is problematic in the churches being influenced by Hillsong. It’s like blaming the red lights or traffic conditions for making you late for a meeting.
What is going on when people are so easily misled by dodgy teaching? Isn’t the adult individual solely responsible for her own state of mind (in normal circumstances, e.g. ignoring brain injuries, etc through accidents)?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“This is a major issue with HS - they have brought in dodgy word-of-faith doctine & “legitimised” it to the greater Australian/ NZ church through their large conferences & on the back of their music which has already opened the doors into the other denominations.”
Or what you have in Perth with Church of Christ and Baptists have been organising for people like Phil Pringle and Phil Baker to speak to their pastors.
What’s important to note..is not so much the influence that a HS or a CCC could wield over more balanced churches, but that it’s now clear that many people in more balanced churches do have unbalanced beliefs, which up to now were kept in check by their denomination, but have now been freed to roam wild by the ‘legitimacy’ being bestowed by some Baptist and Church of Christ leaders on aspects of the word-of-faith/pente movement (Allan Meyer being one good example).
I don’t think a HS or a CCC would ever win over a Baptist or a COC’er who has a clue, but what they’ve done is their existence has exposed how many people in Baptist and COC circles have a set of beliefs that are more aligned with word-of-faith (eg. greed is good, and God helps those who help themselves) but they stay where they are in Baptist and COC churches because they’re not into tongues and the arm-waving..
It’s these people who are the conduit for pente wank getting into mainstream churches.
They can be home group leaders, worship leaders, office administration staff who get their ‘conference fixes’ ..or it can even be the senior pastor http://marked35.blogspot.com .. but the only reason that HS and CCC are succeeding in corrupting the church, is that there are gobloads of people in regular churches falling all over themselves to be corrupted.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hi Sanders,
you said “Isn’t the adult individual solely responsible for her own state of mind (in normal circumstances, e.g. ignoring brain injuries, etc through accidents)?”
In theory, yes.
However, ( & I don’t presume to speak for everyone who might have been misled at some time of life) there are enough examples in history of people accepting error when it is presented in a “truthy” manner (look up Lance’s definition of that one), or when group dynamics come to play where the individual ignores their own critical thinking, feeling that as the minority, it must be they who have it wrong.
People are misled by media, advertising, politicians et al every day, & in the church, it is no different. Besides, when there is already an environment that has slowly been cultivated of “honour your leader” (ie don’t question), “be positive” (ie don’t question), “be loyal to God by serving in the house” (ie don’t question) etc etc…..it becomes easier to accept dodgy teaching - especially in a positive, exciting environment that is “saving the world”.
Ultimately, the responsiblity does lie with the individual for accepting the teaching (although I tend to think that those who actually teach this crap have alot to answer for!) - and unfortunately this is something that the said individual then beat themselves up over, as they go through the various emotions of leaving such a cultish group - ie how did they allow themselves to be sucked in, in the first place?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Lance … well said (#1734)
This phenomenon is far more pervasive than one might think. It’s tentacles have reached far and wide among even the more traditional evangelicals churches - as your link indicates.
One danger (and there are many) is that the more (percieved) success that AOG / Hill$ong have the sweeter the poison tastes to the unwary!
Jack
February 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I think a key factor in spiritual development is turning the theory of being solely responsible for your actions and emotional state into reality.
The more you achieve this, the more advanced along the path you are.
Your comments and Lances (1737) indicate that this type of teaching - i.e. self control - is absent from many churches. People seem to be looking for external guidance in their actions.
Well, I think the choice is becoming clearer. Thankyou jane and Lance.