In reply to 'Judy'

I received the following comment, and thought I'd reply.

Just wondering what qualifies you to make judgements about the motives and workings of Hillsong?

Well Judy, I'm glad you asked.

I Corinthians 6:1-4 mentions that believers should judge other believers (even men of 'little account') As does Matthew 18:15-17; "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (please note some manuscripts include "against you" after the 3rd word)

1 CORINTHIANS 4:11-13; But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

In the above verse, I would classify Hillsong as a swindler.

So you see, believers are called to aid their brothers and sisters in the never-ending plight of being Christ-like. How can we help each other if we do not let our fellow Christians know when what they are doing is wrong? Therefore we must do what we can to highlight the errors in the ways of our churches, and in the case of an organisation as large as Hillsong; maybe more than just private words are needed.

If that comes across as me assuming I am perfection personified...it wasn't my intention, for I do not feel that way at all.

What I think it means is; as Christians, we are told to constantly strive to be Christ-like in every way. That's fine, but we're still faulty beings at heart...so of course we're going to stumble, of course we're going to give in to temptation sometimes...

So, it would be kind of useful for us to have some level of accountability. What's worse, having your fellow Parishioners whispering about your failings behind your back, or openly offering a shoulder to lean on and an ear to talk to? I know which one I'd choose.

Have you ever met a Christian who appears perfect to those around them, but is really struggling? I'll bet you have, you probably just don't know it.

No one can be expected to shoulder all the hurt and problems in their lives alone. We all need someone. Sometimes, that someone may have to take responsibility for the unpleasant task of helping to set us right on the path. The best part about that is, those who are best at helping us with such things usually got that way by having similar struggles themselves. So we know that we're not alone in our struggles. Others have been there.

Hillsong...phase #2

Hillsong. Church. Christian music. Multiple charities and good causes including international aid.

Sounds wonderful doesn't it? I suppose some of it is. There is usually some good in almost everything.

That said, there is a lot of bad. To start with; their theology, the same theology used by most Pentecostal churches (of which Hillsong is one) Whoever declared prosperity gospel to be Christian is either very stupid, or very smart. Either way I assume he is very rich. That's because prosperity gospel basically preaches, prosperity! Wealth, riches, money, the best cars nicest houses, and so on. What have those things got to do with the man who walked miles in sandals and owned little more than the clothes on his back? A lot, according to those who subscribe to prosperity gospel. God wants you to succeed, they will tell you. God wants you to be prosperous and successful (meaning of course in monetary terms)

It's pretty obvious that the Houston clan (the family behind Hillsong) are well into the theology of prosperity. Brian Houston even wrote a book titled; 'You Need More Money!' Err...for what Brian?

Most people are aware of how Hillsong makes their mega bucks. Music. Wow...Christian worship, Noughties style! Praise & Worship for the born-again generation of Christians....So simple! Yet so undeveloped in Australia. So Hillsong capitalize on this. Good for them, you think. How can Praise & Worship music possibly be bad for the youth of today? It isn't. Musically, Hillsong do it well. Actually, they do everything well, just not necessarily Christ-like in nature...You see, every cent they make is tax-free. Every building, every CD, every flash car driven by a pastor or other church worker. Unless you are a volunteer of course. They have heaps of those, most of them are kind of forced to be there as part of their course as the Hillsong Bible College.

Charisma! Electrifying! Crowd-pleaser! All terms used to describe Brian Houston. He is the guy who keeps the crowd interested in between the music and the Tithes & Offerings (well, he does the spiel to encourage people to give) Hillsong is all about getting people in the door. Bringing people to God. Empowering them with the knowledge that yes, God does exist and yes, He loves YOU! Hillsong is GREAT at that. The thing they aren't so great at, is keeping people.

The National Church Life Survey (an Australian survey) suggests that Pentecostal churches have the highest attendance rates, but also the highest turnover of members. Basically I think they burn out. I hope some of them come to their senses, but I assume they just plain need a break! From all the clapping, jumping, singing, speaking in tongues, it must get tiring.

Coming to their senses, you'd think it would happen pretty often, like every time a person opened their Bible and actually read it, not just the highlighted verses in Malachi. You see, the Bible doesn't say to get involved in politics, or to dominate the music charts, or even to driver a Beemer and play golf with minor celebrities on the weekend. No, the Bible actually says to be IN this world, not OF it. Hillsong is definitely OF it, or trying to be. They have achieved one of the most difficult tasks for any Christian organization; they have made Christianity politically correct! Acceptable! Nice and easy! What could possibly be wrong with that? Well I personally feel that once you start to water down Christianity, take Bible verses out of context, force people into various trance-like states with your loud music (not that there is anything wrong with loud music!) you take God from the centre, and put the dollar sign there. Stuff like 'Jesus loves you' and 'faith can move mountains' become little more than cute catch-phrases that look nice on the t-shirts sold in the shop in the Hillsong church building. While you are waiting for church service to begin, why not buy a hot cappuccino from Gloria Jeans on the other side of the church?

Hillsong attendees would never throw the shop tables out of the church, as Jesus did. Why would they? After all, the CDs and t-shirts are 'Christian resources'. I don't have a problem with that as such, only when it encroaches on a person's experience in a church to the extent it does in many church these days.

Don't kid yourself, you can't dilute Christianity. Well you can, it just isn't really Christian any longer. It's Diet Christian. Christianity, in the year 2007, for the more politically-correct generation.

No talking (unless it's in tongues) no dancing (unless the music is on) and definitely no original thoughts.

More to come

Hillsong...phase #1

I have a lot to say on the subject of the corporation known as the Hillsong Church. I won't say it all in one post, lest it take several hours to scroll through.

Basically, Hillsong is a business. It claims to be a church, and it was (once upon a time) now however, it is very much a tax-exempt business. The man at the top of it all is Brian Houston. Now the Houstons intrigue me. I have read that their taxable income is usually around $60k annually. Combined (Brian + his wife Bobbie) despite this, they live in the lap of luxury on Sydney's North Shore, with multiple cars and the ability to travel at a moments notice. Hence the intrigue.

Then there's the whole Indigenous funds debacle, misused welfare and manipulation of the Government. You can read more about that at this location (article was originally posted in the Australian, but that particular website has a lot of other interesting information on Hillsong) This page also has a bit.

I will be back to write more about the 'church' with a $50million annual turnover. In the meantime I recommend each and every person read the book titled 'People in Glass Houses' by Tanya Levin, it's an interesting read.

Is the Bible Infallible?

Do you believe the Bible is 100% as God intended, word-for-word perfection and exactly now as it was originally written?

Also, what is the best way to read the Bible?

The books in the Bible vary depending on what denomination you are/your Bible is. Isn't that ridiculous? Shouldn't we all have 100% of it? Hmm well see this is where it gets interesting. Over the centuries, various groups of men have decided which bits you should/shouldn't read (Canonization) It greatly depended on the denomination of the people making the decision...as they of course would want the Word of God to reflect their particular beliefs or desires.

I have had some interesting reactions when i have asked this questioning the past. I assume this is because; when you start questioning the validity of the Bible, you start questioning God. At least that's how a lot of people seem to see it. I honestly think differently; I have faith in God, not a book. Sure; I read bits of the Bible, and I have used it to make decisions...but that comes in behind whatever I feel God is leading me towards. I do believe there is an overarching message in the Bible, which is what we should remember.


Remember; The Bible was written by men. We must recognize that men are imperfect mortals. For my example, I will use Paul. The apostle Paul (not one of the 12 Apostles) never even met Jesus (before anyone says "I've never met him either, am I not a Christian?" That's not my point, you aren't writing a chapter of the Bible) He didn't even write most of what is attributed to him, himself. He employed Amanuensis (basically human typewriters, except they wrote by hand)

I suppose most notorious of Paul's writing is the bit about women.

1 Cor 14:34-35 The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 2:11-14 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Both the above verses, along with the others from Paul, seem to put women somewhat below men in the pecking order. What people fail to do, however, is dig deeper. In fact most people I have discussed This and other subjects with, seem to completely ignore 1 Cor 14:34-35 and those like it.

1Cor 7:3-4 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

Confused yet? I was a little. Then I found this page. Some things I found enlightening;


The prevailing consensus among scripture scholars regarding the letters whose authorship is attributed to St. Paul, is that only seven truly came from his pen - Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon. This scholarly conclusion has an important implication for the present discussion. The two positive pronouncements cited above both come from authentic letters of St. Paul. They reflect the Apostle's original attitude towards women. On the other hand, three of the four letters were written not by the Apostle himself, but by his disciples, who had to accommodate following the Apostle's death. Christianity's concern then was survival in the predominantly patriarchal milieu. St. Paul's disciples, without losing the essence of their master's message, had to make some compromises and tone down certain revolutionary elements, such as the view regarding women.

and then;

The only statement that needs to be clarified in order to exonerate the Apostle, is 1Cor 14:34-35. Coming from an authentic letter of St. Paul, it openly contradicts his pronouncements on the equality and mutuality between men and women in Gal 3:28 and 1Cor 7:3-4. How can this contradiction be accounted for?

Paul's style and approach in 1Corinthians can resolve the apparent ambivalence. One of Paul's sources of information regarding the problems in Corinth were letters written by the Corinthians themselves. Careful analysis of 1 Corinthians reveals that the Apostle was deliberately and liberally using "Corinthian slogans", that is, he was lifting verbatim expressions used by the members of the community in the letters they wrote to him. These slogans are situated just before Paul's response to the various problems, thus serving like some kind of an introduction. To one who reads 1 Corinthians without any background, the slogans would read as though they were Paul's actual words. The statement in 1 Cor 14:34-35, ordering women to keep silence in the assembly, is considered by many scholars as a Corinthian slogan. Paul's response follows immediately in verse 36.

We can thus safely say that the original Paul was far from being a male chauvinist and anti-feminist. He was, in fact, a champion of eschatological egalitarianism.

So you see, there is a lot to learn if you don't take the Bible literally, and dig a bit.

When I think about how the Bible came to be as it is now..I think of a big game of Chinese Whispers. Remember, they didn't have scanners and photocopiers when the Bible was written. In fact I don't think they even had paper. They had stone tablets. Then we must take into account how many times the books of the Bible have had to be translated from another language. For instance, The Old Testament is primarily sourced from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, which in itself has an interesting history) which was written mostly in an archaic form of Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic...a language very few people can understand...and the New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew bits were translated into Koine Greek at some stage (2nd or 3rd Century)

Then it was scribed. Now scribes did all sorts of things, such as writing bits in the margins if they forgot to write a particular word, or where emphasis should be places...and so on. Then when it was next scribed (once again, no photocopiers) how was the latest scribe to know which bits went whee, and whether to include what was in the margins or not? There are at least 3 styles of Greek that the scribes wrote in as well, just to add to the confusion. Welcome to textural criticism, ladies and gentlemen.

There is simply no way what everything that was written in Greek or Hebrew can be exactly translated to English. Especially when both languages have idioms and concepts that can't really be translated, not in a way we can understand anyway. Some things are literal, some are not. We do have English Bibles with both. For instance, KJV is traditionally 'literal' whereas NIV gives relevant parallel idioms. Apparently, anyway.

Lastly (as my fingers are cramping. but I will definitely come back with more later) there is individual interpretation. Anyone can twist whatever they read to suit whatever they want (within reason). As much as I hate to say it...A person's intelligence and level of education really come into play here.

Please remember, I am not talking about, or questioning God. I am talking about, and questioning the Bible. I believe it is possible to have deep faith and love for God, and still have an analytical approach to the Bible.

Please note; I posted this topic elsewhere, but it was locked and binned within 24 hours (fundamentalists; what can we expect?)

Tithing

Most churches expect it to some degree, and all will accept it. It is Gospel, according to most, that 10% is what God requires us to give to our church.

But is it really? I found a verse used by those who believe tithing (as most modern churches use it) is required.

Genesis 14

Then Melchizadek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything (Genesis 14:18-20).

I can see why they use that one, it'd work if you give someone just that verse alone. Reading a bit more however...in verses 22-26 of Genesis, it is clear that Abram doesn't own any of what he just gave away.

There are other verses that mention tithing; such as Genesis 28:20-22, in which Jacob makes a very conditional promise to give 10%. Things like "If God feeds me, clothes me and return me safely to my father's house' My thought on that is; "God- give me a Maserati- then I shall give you 10% of my earnings..."

I can fully understand why tithing was necessary in the Old testament. They had to pay the Levites (like the Public Service in Israel) Tithing was more like a tax I suppose? Then the Levites paid the Priests too. There were other 'taxes' also called tithing.

This next bit (in purple) is from another website (that appears to have moved)

“Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows” (Malachi 3:10).

Here we have the tithing teachers’ favourite verse in the whole Bible. On this verse they hang most of their doctrine. But if we take a close look at the verse, we will find something very interesting.
Remember that there were four tithes in Israel under the Old Covenant. Which one is referred to here?

And the priest, the son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes, and the Levites shall bring up the tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the chambers of the storehouse (Nehemiah 10:38).

[ Note: The word ‘storehouse’ is translated as ‘treasure house’ in the KJV. The Hebrew is the same in both Nehemiah and Malachi, outsair, meaning a treasure or a store house. ]

Which of the four tithes is in view in Malachi?
The tithe payable by the Levites, not the tithes payable by the people. Malachi is not rebuking the people, he is rebuking the Levites.
When our modern day tithing teachers point this verse at the people, they are really pointing at themselves — except that most of them are too ignorant to recognize the fact.

If you want to understand the book of Malachi, read Malachi 4:4, “Remember the Law of Moses…” That is the whole thrust of Malachi.
But we do not live under the Law, we live under the grace provided in Jesus Christ. If you choose to submit yourself to even part of the Law of Moses, you have a problem.
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10).
If you choose to place yourself under the works of the Law, you are under a curse for the simple reason that you cannot keep the Law of Moses. Your fallen, sinful nature will see to that.
The purpose of the Law is to act as our tutor, or “school master”, to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

So basically, it was Moses' law at the time that required tithing. But...we don't live under that Law any longer. So we tithe because...?

Personally, I like this verse;

Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). So if you feel the need to give money to your church, give what you want, not what they want. Otherwise your gift is pretty much worthless in God's eyes.

That said, mightn't we be better serving to Christ by giving to a reputable charity? Rather than ensuring church leaders can afford things like; a new sound system for the Sanctuary, the entry fee for a sporting competition for church-members, or matching robes for the choir. Do those things actually matter? If so, do they matter as much as; starving children, natural disaster relief, or even contributing to research funds for a cancer cure...?

Thought to ponder.

Introduction

This won't be a long introduction...I hope.

The plan is; this blog is where I can vent and post everything that has been getting me flamed or banned on other forums of discussion. This isn't a new occurrence in my life. I frequently attempt discussing topics which seem to either get me banned or just basically piss people off. Subjects like Religion and politics will do that.

Some of the topics I will be posting include; Hillsong (and the AOG church in general), John Howard (and the rest of the candidates for our 2007 Federal Election) Expect a lot of Liberal bashing (verbal of course) I also tend to question the Bible (not faith, please note the difference) on things like...is the Bible infallible? Then there's other subjects within Xtian churches that irk me (tithing, baptism, hierarchy)

Basically; I have a lot to say, and I recently decided the best way to say it is on my own terms.

Right now though, I am off to listen to the CD I just bought (Switchfoot's 'New Way to be Human')

I shall return....