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 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
rev,
‘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.’
Thanks, rev. I guess I won’t be welcome at your church, then.
I don’t know why telling the truth becomes any of these things though. It’s not as if you have a perfect handle on scripture yourself.
I suppose, according to your theory, Jesus won’t accept me just as I am, because I think His Father would like to bless His children, and maybe, just maybe He’s made the way for us to enter into that blessing, and was talking about people as they were before they were saved, under law, and not yet in the kingdom, where they learn responsibility and accountablity with resources that come their way, when he spoke about the unsaved rich being hard pressed to enter the kingdom because they place such a high store on their wealth, so why would you accept me as I am, flaws and all?
I’d like to apologise for being defensive. I am under the impression that people I most often associate with, love and know to be genuine Christians with generous hearts, and strong focus on Jesus, are severely under the coshes here for being either pentecostals, or, even worse, WoF. There hasn’t been one kind word about these people uttered here, part from maybe Janet, who at least wanted dialogue. Your church is closed off and exclusive. No door open for being different. You bombard us wit a continual association with your bad experiences, or the worse things that are spoken by the preachers you despise.
As I say, I’d like to apologise, but I won’t, simply because I know you’re wrong about the people I know and love and serve Jesus with as pentecostals. I don’t aspire to a $10,000 Rolex. I don’t know that BH or anyone has one, wears one or would like one. I am not under Hillsong, or Joyce Meyer. I am under Christ. I don’t follow BH or JM. I follow Chrst, I read my Bible and study it and do my best to live it out, but not in your church.
If someone even gave me a $10,000 Rolex I’d find a way to make it more profitable for the kingdom, as would most of the people I know.
I take Jesus very seriously. He is my Saviour, and my Lord.
I give thanks to Im for being my Shepherd, and for bringing me and my family to green pastures and still waters, where my cups runs over, for protecting us and guiding us through dark times, even the valley of the shadow of death, and for bringing us, always, to a new life, and that more abundant.
God bless you in all you do. I hope you are a good shepherd too.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Facelift:
“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.”
Just half a glass of wine makes me go all giggly! LOL
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Facelift, you would be most welcome at my church, as would anyone. You don’t have to agree with me to be a part of our community. The problem is that the good people, and I include you in that, keep defending a teaching that is used very very wrongly, and hurts others and encourages poor discipleship. The body is supposed to critique things like this. The body sure gets its knickers in a knot when people say it is okay to have a gay pastor, but not when people say its okay to have an oppulently wealthy pastor that continues to profit from the flock. We must critique these things, it is not CHristian living, or teaching, and I am not being legalistic, I am stating the truth.
I am sorry if I offended you, I think you are very wrong to make excuses for others teachings and oppulence. It is the “standard” pentecostal teaching that God wants you to be blessed monetarily. This is simple not true scripturally, or historically.
rev
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
‘The body is supposed to critique things like this.’
Amen to that, as long as both sides have a say.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Amen to that, as long as both sides have a say.
Exactly. So what are you going to do at your church to make sure that those who are not in positions of power get their say?
August 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Well, first of all, we don’t have ‘positions of power’, but of empowerment and service, so that is a non-issue.
The old priesthood and laity mix has to be removed from church culture. It is a dark ages concept introduced to control the church.
A local church is a community of believers. Whilst there needs to be pastoral care, and comes through the offices gifted by Christ, the shepherd is the chief server, not the chief usurper.
Leadership isn’t about control, but training and equipping of the saints for the work of the minstry.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Just to clarify Facelift, do you go to Hillsong, or another AOG church?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
No.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
No to both?
Sorry if the questions are intrusive - I’m just trying to establish some kind of context for your comments.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Godman versus the evil Prosperitor A super hero worth worshipping!
August 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
No to both.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Godman and the evil Properitor I always seem to not close the html!
August 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Hey Lionfish,
If you like this you can use it.
.,,.·´¯`·.. ¸>¸. .·´¯`·.. ¸>¸. .·´¯`·.. ¸>¸.
.>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·…¸> .,,.·´¯`·.. ¸>¸.
…..,,.>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·…¸> .·´¯`·.. ¸>¸.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Now I feel like a right wally - it had fish in it made out of brackets but wordpress took them out.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Impressive cartoon Greg, did you draw it??
August 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Na…wish i was that good! I came across it while over at Wee Beautifl Pict
August 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
So Facelift you have an anarchical leadership structure, and do not believe in accumulating wealth, what are you argueing with me about? Why are you defending the prosperity doctrine? You clearly do not support either the hierarchy or their money addiction. Is it the statement that money is not nuetral? if that is all it is? If so, I would encourage you to do some reading on the subject by people outside of the mainstream, and challenge your position, but over all, your praxis is not far off of my own.
rev
August 25th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I think I already said that, rev.
Random thoughts, but, I do think inanimate objects are subject to our influence, so money, that is the metal itself, is neither holy or corrupt, although, having said that, what they are used for obviously can be either holy or orrupt, and riches can be corrupting as an influence because they amount to more than than the mere metal or paper they are printed on, and have a value, measured against commodities and influence, so the value system becomes either the corrupting or sanctifying influence, hence Mammon vs the Kingdom of God, bearing in mind that, though the Kingdom of God is essentially heavenly, it is also in the earth as long as the earth remains, and the Church, the Body of Christ, or Gods Kingdom people, are here, and have access to the financial system which produces wealth or poverty. Here I have to be careful, becuase I am not suggesting we enter Mammon to access the systme, but that we create a sepaarte sanctified system which channels finance from darkness into light, through giving, or dispensing, resources in a godly manner through Kingdom principles.
This is why many people teach that first fruits giving is still relevant, not as a law, but as a way of honouring God and sanctifying what we have by giving a portion, since the first fruit leavens the whole lump, making it holy, which means that honouring God with the first fruits of all our increase can sanctify the whole measure, and cause it to be redeemed from corruption.
I know that is basically talking about Israel, but the principle remains the same, since it is a given that we should honour the Lord with the first fruits of all our increase, and then he will cause us to enjoy blessing, ‘you barns wil be filled with plenty’ (By the way, that is from the book of Wisdom, not Brian Houston. We have to take note of the scriptures which are contrary to our thinking as well as those that support it.).
Therefore, provided the cause is sanctified, and sanctioned fom on high, even wealth can be made to work for the Kingdom, provided it is made holy, and correctly dispersed, since it can have no value outside of the earth, which is why it was said that the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just. It is the fact that the just is sanctified that the wealth can be sanctified and put to godly use.
I believe there is a balanced prosperity which can be taught, so I am not wholly against the concept of Christians prospering, a long as prosperity is taught alongside suffering, because we are clearly told that suffering is also part of the Kingdom as long as we are in the earth.
If we leave out the powerful passages of the Bible which discuss God’s intent to bless and prosper his people, even while we’re in the earth, we are doing ourselves and the Kingdom a disservice. Prosperity is part of the covenant God made with Abraham, and we are the descendants and recipients of those promises, not to hoard and covet money, God forbid, but to work with all sanctified resources to help bless all the families of the earth, as God prophesied we would.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:28 am
We do not bless anyone else by keeping God’s money to ourselves. I cannot be happy and feel blessed eating when others cannot. So we must seek our blessing in the blessing of others, our healing in the healing of others, and our justice in the healing of others. God asks not for a tenth, he wants it all.
As for your kingdom comment, the kingdom of God is now, and continues for eternity. But Jesus did not say the kingdom of God is coming soon, or someday, or will be in heaven, Jesus said the kingdom of God is here, repent and believe the good news.
rev
August 25th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Did I say we keep it or distribute it? Did I say the Kingdom is not now? That’s the whole point.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Where do all the monetary donations which are supposed to be for charity go. The donations are supposed to be for those worse off than us but for some reason in hillsong they don’t seem to go to them?
If the money does go to them i apologise but i just don’t see the money going to charity.
God bless.
Mark
August 25th, 2007 at 7:31 am
“that we create a sepaarte sanctified system which channels finance from darkness into light, through giving, or dispensing, resources in a godly manner through Kingdom principles.”
Sound like some reverse mafia money laundering process.
“I am not wholly against the concept of Christians prospering, a long as prosperity is taught alongside suffering”
Problem is most of these ‘contemperay’ churches that people here have problems with do not teach the suffering part of the Gospel, it is only ever about how you will be blessed, not how you will suffer as well.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:02 am
facelift you said this:
bearing in mind that, though the Kingdom of God is essentially heavenly,
and in the context I wasn’t completely sure what you were saying in regards to the kingdom. As to the other statement, it seems you are saying the same thing as me, just refusing to use the word redeem. The word redeem is used in the bible to talk about animals, and crops. It says that you must redeem the first born. The idea of the word redeem is that we take something and in the way we use it, or substitute something for it, we remove it or change it. Like when I redeem bottles in the old days, it meant that I take the bottles to the store and “change” them for money. So when you take money, which as far as I have seen always is image bearing, and is always promoting the nation state, it does have inherant meaning. Just like you wouldn’t have a pentagram on your wall, as it has meaning. Therefore, the way we redeem (change) this false concept of wealth that bears the image of the nation state (and to a Jew would by its image bearing be an idol all by itself) by using it in a way that co-ops the state. In other words we use it against the powers. We can not do that by consumerism, as we prop up the nation state by our consumption. Therefore, by taking the money and using it to bless others, to care for those that cannot care for themselves, we change the essential nature of that money in our lives. Now this money still bears the image of the nation state, and still weaves its magic of corrupting, but it has been redeemed in our lives, and we have used this idol to subvert all idolatry.
rev
August 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I thought this article was intresting in light of the current debate between facelift and rev
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/18.35.html
“Blessed are those who hunger? Hunger and thirst signal need. They are symptoms of emptiness and unfulfilled desire. How can they be a source of blessing?
The fact that Jesus says he is talking about hunger and thirst for righteousness clarifies little. He seems to have put the emphasis in the wrong place. Why not, “Blessed are the righteous?” Hunger implies a lack of righteousness. Jesus’ proposal is so radical, it turns our notions of God and righteousness and blessing on their heads. He blesses what most of us would curse.”
“The language of filling in Christ’s beatitude underscores another important aspect of the blessing. Righteousness works from the inside out. We usually go about it the other way around; we try to work on it from the outside in, as if it were a matter of externals. If we worship in the right building, perform the right rituals, wear the right clothes, and are seen with the right people, we are righteous. If we read our Bibles and pray in the morning, give a tithe of our earnings on Sunday, control our tempers and restrain our passions the rest of the week, we are righteous.”
August 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I don’t know whether HS is an actual cult, but my experience of AOG is very cult-ish. Withdrawal from others who don’t believe what you believe, being told there are only a few “select” people to whom you are supposed to listen to and obey, the over emphasis on submission and the complete lack of being told to think things through for yourself or question what you’re being told. In the words of one AOG pastor “I don’t like it if I think people are sitting in the congregation questioning what I’m saying”. Also, the extent of control placed on how you should use your finances and the fact that when you leave you are often cut off from the people who don’t agree with your decision to leave- eg being branded (sometimes from the pulpit) as “rebellious” etc. This is my experience, anyway, as well as the experience of many others I speak with.
Many pro-HSers and AOG-ers often come back at comments like mine with words like “it’s not all bad” “they do heaps of good” etc etc. I’m sure they do. I know people who have found Jesus through HS and the AOG, because God uses all of us in pour crappiness. But if the medium is the message, then I think what HS advertises is the wrong message. I think it is a shame to offer people such a watery version of Christianity.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
this is true but our very natures are corrupt so we will use it (i would say almost inevitably) for corrupt purposes given any more money than needed to cover our basic needs..
August 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
OOhh yes emma
the medium is definitely the message
do you read any neil postman?
August 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
no that was something I heard on sp’s, actually, and I feel like I finally get it. Should I read Neil?
August 25th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“This is true but our very natures are corrupt so we will use it (i would say almost inevitably) for corrupt purposes given any more money than needed to cover our basic needs…”
The difficulty is defining “basic needs” in a world where comparative living standards are progressively rising.
I live in a three bedroom, two bathroom house. The house I demolished to build this one had two bedrooms and one bathroom.
People who lived in this very same suburb lived in sea shacks 100 years ago.
The aboreiginals camped here and lived in basic temporary shelters.
What standard of housing should I live that would just cater formy basic needs.
The aborigines
August 25th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
$64 ooo.oo question LF
but while our neighbour is starving to death in africa i think the question has been answered for the time being
Emma
i am sure you would love Neil Postman.. non Christian critic of the wests acceptance of ‘technology as saviour’
Marchall McCluan (sp?) was the coiner of the phrase ‘the medium is the message’ but Postman gave it legs….
his titles
amusing ourselves to death and technopoly are must reads