Hillsong on ACA
For those who may have missed it—Hillsong was named as a cult amongst others including Scientology and exclusive Brethren in this video:
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?g=ad204a6d-3a51-47f0-af65-24f5b5986f4b&f=&fg=email
What do you think? Is it fair to lump Hillsong alongside the exclusive Bretheran and Scientology?
(Hurry up not much time left to lodge your final comments!)
August 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
‘Therefore when we buy into the monetary system we are in league with the rebellion of man.’
I suppose you think Paul was in league, then, when he was engaged in tent ministry, supplying to his own needs. And Jesus paying his taxes with a coin was a nod towards this rebellion.
‘Give me a coin, who’s image is it on that coin?’ Presently, the Queen’s head, a Christian woman, and ‘defender of the faith’. The reason Israel had to tithe the first crops of the harvest they reaped in the Promisd land wa sthat it had been sown by uncircumcised heathens, and probably included offerings to other gods. The tithe,or, rather first fruit offering, rendered the whole crop holy, sine the first fruit offerng was made holy, rendering the ‘lump’ holy. maybe you need to tithe your finance afteral to chane it to a ‘holy’ lump rather than te spoils of the demonish world.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
WE ARE THE PLACE WHERE HEAVEN AND EARTH INTERSECT!!!
Gold Rev, pure gold - straight to the pool room with that one.
Give me neither riches nor poverty - that seems to me to be the biblical perspective, however we in the west have a pretty outlandish idea as to what constitutes poverty!
August 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
The queen is the defender of the faith? Are you on drugs?
Paul provided for himself and others, he did what I said, he redeemed the evil by giving it away. And the tithe has nothing to do with money, it is crops, and animals, and only if it was impossible to transport was it converted to money.
Thanks Greg, and yes David, Jaques Ellul is one of my primary influences.
rev
August 20th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
‘redeemed the evil’
Pure superstition, and bad exegesis. People are redeemed, not money. God didn’t send His Son to redeem anything as insignificant, earthly and temporal as money. He was sent to redeem the world - souls - people.
How can giving money to someone else redeem it? On the basis of your claim, it would be redeemed when they recieved it, or would it then be polluted and wicked again, and have to be re-redeemed, and how many times would it have to be givena way before it was totally redeemed? Evil money - given away -redeemed - received - polluted - given away - redeemed - received - polluted! Nonesense!
August 21st, 2007 at 9:45 am
none are as blind as those that will not see.
rev
August 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
…or those who can’t see the wood for the trees!
August 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
so you are really trying to make sense of the mountain of scripture Jesus gives us that says to give away our money, and to trust God, and to not store up treasures ect.? No, you are taking everything I say and trying to figure out how it isn’t true, maybe you should try being honest with the word, and yourself and do some prayer and searching, because if you take it literal when Paul says not to sleep with people of the same sex, then you have a hundred times as much scripture from Jesus, the fellow you are called to follow, that says money is to be dealt with as I am talking about.
rev
August 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Perhaps you should do away with your pentecostal scholarship that is in fact nothing of the sort, and look into people that are doing real biblical exegesis, like NT Wright, Jaques Ellul, and Wendell Berry.
rev
August 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Just out of interest, what does NT Wright say on the subject - haven’t heard his perspective.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Well, I have already said I basically agree with you about rich people, and also about giving all away, but I can’t get past what Jesus says in Luke 6:38, which kind of puts giving into perspective, and gives the reason for giving it all away - to make what we possess everyone’s possession, and to cause all possessions to move around in a great and wonderful supply system called giving.
I think you confuse pente doctrine with some kind of hoarding mentality. It is generally about creating a supply system rather than bloated individuals.
And we might note the previous verse which also contextualises it somewhat.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
but facelift what is the practice? The practice is one for the poor, a couple hundred for me, two for the poor, a couple more hundred for me. Don’t believe me? Well start looking at the cars, and houses, and suits and watches that the pente heroes wear. Start looking at the custom home complex Joyce meyers lives in. Or the ten thousand dollar watch on Brian Houston, or the first class air flights. And they justify their behaviour by siting old testament references that are not even close to being kingdom of God talk.
37″Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
obviously not talking about money when a few verses before Jesus says blessed are the poor and woe unto the rich. Jesus is saying that we aer to forgive, to give grace, and God’s good grace will shower upon us. You are the one taking a scripture out of its context and making it justify a doctrine that says we should have lots of stuff. The apostles all were murdered and poor, all of them, so were almost all of the first century Christians. John Wesley said if he died with more than 10 lbs to his name he was a liar and a fraud, the church all over the world is preaching GOd wants you to be wealthy, while Jesus is hungry, naked, in prison, and sick. It is an embarassment.
rev
August 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I think Rev has the better argument here and is the one showing hismelf to be doing the gutsier of the two options.
Church history includes massive swinging on this issue…from legions of monks and ascetics living in absolute poverty, swearing never to own a thing except what they needed to live, and then the mighty treasures of the cathederals hoarded away, with clergy living in opulence.
So I agree with the Rev…the essential question is..what did Jesus say,a nd what did Jesus do? Or indeed the apostles, if they were in fact living epistles?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
‘Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”’
Sorry, rev, if you teach that this verse is not talking about material giving, I think you doctrine is falling short, and you ae manipulating peple into poverty thinking as a doctrineof works, so that if you’re not poor you’re not holy. How can that be liberty?
Notice that it says that MEN will pour the measure back into YOUR LAP, into your bossom, or more correct to the Greek into your coat. In those days they would lift up the skirts of their long shirt and it could be filled with grain. It was a way of carrying it. Jesus is clearly talking about the giving of seed, that is grain, which will be measured back abundantly. This is no allegory or parable.
This is a literal teaching on the blessings of giving. If you teach it otherwise you are in error and leading people astray.
Your doctrine is more works, control and legalism that the tithing by law doctrine which you’re arguing against.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 am
Actually, rev, I notice that the version you used doesn’t mention MEN pouring into our lap (NIV?). Check the Greek, and the the NKJV for the reality of this verse. It doesn’t say that God will pour it out, but men, or people. The Greek has doosousin, ‘they will give’, plural.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
they will give what? What will be given, poured out? Forgiveness, read the passage. There is no legalism in what I am talking about, your salvation is not tied to anything that I am saying. But if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven, just like Jesus says in the lords prayer. I am not talking about legalism, I am not prescribing percentages and laws, I am talking about principles, and obedience to Christ. Or is it legalism to follow Christ?
You are the one that is making deals with your flesh, you are twisting scriptures to justify a lifestyle that Jesus says to shun. Read the parable of the sheep and the goats again. Is it legalism Jesus is preaching? He says your eternal fate is based on your care for others not on your faith. Is Jesus a legalist? Jesus says to the rich young ruler sell everything give it to the poor and follow me, is that legalism? The Lord tells us that riches choke out the word of GOd and make it unfruitful, is that legalism? And you know the greatest secret of all, you guys are actually right, the more I give away the more God blesses me…
But He blesses me not with filthy lucre, but with the fruits of the Spirit far more valuable if you ask me. Jesus should have taught the disciples that they needed more money to start the church, instead he taught them that if everyone lives simply and gives everything superfluous they would trust in God, and end poverty in their midst, and guess what, acts says there were no needy among them.
rev
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ding ding ding. KO from the Rev! Facelift’s on the floor, will he get up on time? 1…2…3…4….
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Hello this is my first post so forgive me for being brief. Yes, I believe Hillsong is on a par with the other “cults” mentioned. I actually enjoy some of their music but the place does look like a black hole for cash.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
But He blesses me not with filthy lucre, but with the fruits of the Spirit far more valuable if you ask me.
Yes, this is so, so true. Amen.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
So we GIVE not judgement? Doesn’t make sense. We give forgiveness? Well forgiveness is already given, FOR-GIVE, why repeat it? I don’t say to you. “I give you forgive.” I say, “I forgive you.” I can give mercy, but it would probably be better to say I was merciful towards you.
These are four separate admonitions:
Be merciful
Don’t judge
Forgive
Give
Which amount to love, grace and gerousity, or liberality of spirit, soul and body. Demonstrate your love mercy and grace by giving what you have to those who are in need. How can I be merciful to a poor person? By giving of my substance.
‘But whoso has this world’s good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels from him, how dwells the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word. neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.’ 1 John 3:17-18
So, then, it’s OK for a Christian to have this world’s good, but he must be willing to use it for the good of others in need.
Paul uses the same method of grouping different admonitions to finish a letter to the Thessalonians:
Rejoice evermore
Pray without ceasing
In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Quench not the Spirit.
Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1Thes.5)
Are you basing holness or righteousness ona person’s social standing? Are, as paul said, all things now lawful, or not? Is the law finished, or do we still have laws governing a person’s finacial standing.
The sermon on the mount was based on the Law, and actually compounded it seriously, so that if you were to attemt to live it you would have the same outcome as Israel did under the Mosaic Law. It would continually condemn them. That’s the point of what Jesus is saying. He was making it abundantly clear that it was impossible for anyone to live by law or works. The only way we can walk with God is in the Spirit by faith, having been washed in the blood of Jesus. We cannot earn or buy salvation. It comes by grace through faith.
Telling people that there is some kind of law about riches is the same as forcing them to tithe. Jesus came to fulfil the law. He took care of the rich man’s problem of not being able to enter the kingdom through application of the law. That was the rich young ruler’s problem. He couldn’t give it away because he was so attached to it. He followed every other aspect of the Mosaic Law but that one. When we come to Christ we have to be prepared to let everything go. To take up our cross daily and follow him. So there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, and you could add slave nor master, rich nor poor, we are all part of the same Body, we all have what we have in common, and everything we have belongs to us all, what is yours is mine, and what is mine is yours.
‘Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.’ 1 Cor.3:21-23
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Are, as paul said, all things now lawful, or not?
You forgot the next part, which says that not all things are beneficial. Pretty critical, that part.
The sermon on the mount was based on the Law, and actually compounded it seriously, so that if you were to attemt to live it you would have the same outcome as Israel did under the Mosaic Law. It would continually condemn them. That’s the point of what Jesus is saying. He was making it abundantly clear that it was impossible for anyone to live by law or works. The only way we can walk with God is in the Spirit by faith, having been washed in the blood of Jesus. We cannot earn or buy salvation. It comes by grace through faith.
Actually, I think that’s a convoluted Paulinised reading of the text. Jesus doesn’t give the Sermon on the Mount simply to show us our dependence on God, although one might suggest that this is part of the point. At the end of the address, Jesus talks about the wise man putting his words into practice. This impressed upon me strongly that we are meant to strive towards the ideals Jesus preaches in the Sermon on the Mount. Not that we necessarily attain these ideals in their entirety, or not that we can do it in our own strength, but they are very much practical teachings by Jesus.
Telling people that there is some kind of law about riches is the same as forcing them to tithe.
Replace “riches” with “murder” or “rape” or “theft”. Of course we are no longer under any law apart from the “law” of love. But this doesn’t mean that we are free to disregard the teachings of Christ and refuse to carrying our cross in emulation of Him.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
You have made a critical error in your interpretation of the sermon on the mount. Jesus tells us the law, tells us the problems that are not dealt with even when we keep the law, and then tells us the proper way to deal with that.
LAW: do not murder
Caveat: but even if you do not murder you still have anger, and aggression in your heart which is still worthy of hellfire
SOLUTION: be reconciled with your brother
LAW: do not commit adultery
Caveat: but if you do not commit adultery, but are lusting, you are guilty of a heart sin
SOLUTION: remove the temptation from you
The entire sermon is done in that fashion and is perfectly, ethically practical.
Perhaps you should go back and read that whole chapter again, how does Jesus get from blessed are the poor, and woe unto the rich, to your interpretation in two paragraphs? He doesn’t Forgive others, be merciful, don’t judge, give and forgiveness, mercy, non judgement and generosity will be given back to you in great measure. To take that statement to mean you will get lots of money and stuff, is absolute crap.
rev
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Well, I have never said you would get lots of money and stuff. That is your assumption. I am saying thtat the text and the context says you will receive according to your giving, which could, presumably, include attitudinal as well as material giving.
On the other hand, you are attempting to demonise increase, harvest and reaping, when it is clear throughout scripture that God is interested in the wellbeing of his people in every way, spiritually, morally, emotionally, physically and materially, but not to the extent that they either worship or idolise anything or anyone but Him, or that they do not attach more importance to any of these things than their eternal wellbeing with Him.
However, he has made a promise to the descendants of Abraham through faith and through blood that multiplying He will multiply them, and blessing He will bless them, and that all the families of the EARTH will be blessed in Abraham.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
So now, David, we have to make a valued assesment of what is beneficial, or expedient and lawful as the KJV says. I don’t drink alcohol be cause I am of the opinion that it may stumble people I sometimes minister because have been involved in helping people with addictions or involved in substance abuse. Does this mean there is alaw against drinking alcohol? You’d be hard pressed trying to find anything against, say, a person having a glass of wine with a meal, making it lawful, as long the person didn’t go into excessive drinking which leads to intoxication, but drunkenness, which I take to mean a habitually drunken state, rather than the odd merry social evening, is definitely a problem for a saint.
So suppose a person were employed in a major company and was offered promotion which included a massive salary increase. Is that lawful for them, particularly if they determine that the increased income would answer their prayer to be able to support a friend who was just about to enter Missionary work oversees amongst a hitherto unevangelised people group? Is it lawful for them, if they deem it to be of God, to then support that missions enterprise, or is that salary increase wicked riches, and to be turned down as unlawful?
Who decides what is lawful? It seems ot me that God gives us the license to exercise our conscience on this matter.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
You are not reading what I have wrote, I am not concerned with how much money anyone makes, just what they keep. That is the problem and I have said that throughout the entire discussion. The way to deal with money is to give it away, when you keep it, its deceitful nature can corrupt. In fact it will corrupt. That is the issue, money is not nuetral, you can have fourteen hammers and it will never effect your life, but if you have too much money it will. The way you do not let money deceive you is by giving it away. So by all means make tons of money (not by selling your soul to work) and give away tons of money. But when the Pente heroes make tons of money, they give away a percentage, and with the rest they buy huge houses, and cars that not only destroy them, but our environment and culture as well. Riches are to be viewed as means in which we can bless others, not to bless ourselves.
rev
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
So now, David, we have to make a valued assesment of what is beneficial, or expedient and lawful as the KJV says. I don’t drink alcohol be cause I am of the opinion that it may stumble people I sometimes minister because have been involved in helping people with addictions or involved in substance abuse. Does this mean there is alaw against drinking alcohol? You’d be hard pressed trying to find anything against, say, a person having a glass of wine with a meal, making it lawful, as long the person didn’t go into excessive drinking which leads to intoxication, but drunkenness, which I take to mean a habitually drunken state, rather than the odd merry social evening, is definitely a problem for a saint.
And isn’t this the point? One should aim to live a life of simplicity which is not choked by the riches of this world, but based upon supplying one’s needs, not wants. However, if one becomes drunk on wealth, for instance, by owning a $10,000 Rolex, this is when wealth becomes anything but beneficial.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
So we’re agreed then!
I don’t have a $10,000 Rolex. I have a Citizen which cost $120 ten years ago and is still churning out the time.
I’d say there are more pente ‘heroes’ pastoring churches who are not in the Rolex bracket than are, but that’s just my opinion.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Facelift, I was making reference to this quote by Rev:
The practice is one for the poor, a couple hundred for me, two for the poor, a couple more hundred for me. Don’t believe me? Well start looking at the cars, and houses, and suits and watches that the pente heroes wear. Start looking at the custom home complex Joyce meyers lives in. Or the ten thousand dollar watch on Brian Houston, or the first class air flights.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 am
the problem is facelift that those that aren’t in the rolex bracket want to be, and are working towards getting there, and are encouraging others to get there, and defending those that are there. Which is why I speak up, and the reactions from people like yourself are always the same, defensiveness, accusations and a complete inability to take Jesus seriously whenever he talks about money.
rev
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
this is the poster for a group called The Consumer Goods who are a critical and absurdest project committed to creating delicious and addictive pop songs undermining everything for which contemporary liberal capitalism stands.
You can listen to some of there music at their myspace site. I especially liked their song Rovie Wade (get it - Roe v Wade!) - one of the lines suggests putting ovaries on George Bush and asks why killing is so bad cause in Iraq it’s the best!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
i like cpitalism. i prefer it over any other economic system….except possibly a benevolent form of feudalism.