Neocons and Theocons at GAFCON?

GAFCON is the “Global Anglican Futures” Conference in Jerusalem, a break-away group which has almost completed the splitting of Anglican communion, mostly over the issue of homosexuality.  With leadership from Peter Jensen and a host of other conservative US Episcopalians, this group has succeeded in mobilising third-world Anglicans to break away from the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“The Religion Report” on ABC Radio National this week contained a report on one of the characters seen at GAFCON, who is thought to be a source of funding for these groups.  Howard F Ahmanson Jr (pictured above with wife Roberta)  funds the “Discovery Institute” - home of Intelligent Design, and is a member of  the “Council for National Policy” with many prominent neo-cons and theo-cons.  Ahmanson belongs to a parish which has put itself under the authority of a Ugandan Bishop.

Ahmanson subscribes to a theology which advocates bringing back Old-Testament law as the law of the land and hence  he advocated stoning of homosexuals,  whipping recalcitrant children etc.

Are the liberals the ones who are causing the schism, as Peter Jensen claims, or are there political and financial forces at work here playing out power-agendas?  And if so, is it fair for these rich first-world Christians to be using poor third-world churches, and oppressed homosexuals to further their ends?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2292216.htm

From Teddy…

I guess I never saw it in this light before. Teddy passed onto me these interesting sites:

http://wordnverse.com/2008/06/30/hillsong-says-reformers-fought-for-nothing/

http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1023

Hillsong Says: Reformers Fought for Nothing

Posted by Symphony of Scripture on Tuesday, July 1, 2008

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

For many years now, Christians throughout the world have spoken out against the unbiblical gospel that is presented by Australia’s Hillsong church. However, time and time again, the popular organization has refused to reform their ways. Their apathy for truth and right doctrine has lead many to suspect that the leadership of Hillsong know very little of biblical doctrine and the historic faith. Well, it is now safe to say our suspicions have, unfortunately, been confirmed.

Hillsong church are promoting and uniting with the gospel of the Roman Catholic religion. On a poster advertising World Youth Day, Hillsong worship leader Darlene Zschech says:

“We see WYD08 as a great opportunity to serve the Catholic Church in its vision to present the gospel and reach out to our city, our nation and our world in unity.” (Source)

The gospel, Darlene? Which gospel would that be?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
(Galatians 1:8-10)

… What’s your say in Hillsong’s involvement?

Meet Betty

Hmm… Who do we have to thank for this? I laughed at some and cringed at other bits…

http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/

I knew some people were going to do this one day.

I got her website from this site.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

What is the role of the Pastor?

In Pentecostal churches, I’ve been used to the role of the (senior) Pastor to be:

• overall leader
• ultimate authority
• setting the vision
• administrative head
• shepherd over the flock - protecting from wolves, feeding, caring
• teaching and preaching
• evangelist at outreach services

There are probably more.

• What do these really mean?
• Are they scriptural or just convenient?
• Can one person really have all those giftings - is it the norm?
• Should congregations expect so much of one person and is it fair to be critical if a quality is absent or weak?

Some of these functions are pretty common in evangelical churches generally, although the emphasis may be different, or particular functions are not performed by the pastor. For example, the pastor may be hired to fill an administrative, teaching, evangelistic and caring role, but not set the vision or be overall head.

It’s ‘Bout’a Bible-Belt Bootin’ Book!

Another article from Lances blog:

===============
Grand Theft Jesus

The Clarion-Ledger reports…

“Most of Robert McElvaine’s nine books have focused on the Great Depression. But the historian’s latest work delves into what he considers a more recent dark period in American life: contemporary Christianity.

Titled Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America (Crown Publishers, $23.95), McElvaine’s book argues that televangelists and megachurch leaders have corrupted the Christianity that Jesus represented.

The Clarion-Ledger recently talked with the Millsaps College history department chair about his new book.

Q: You’re a historian. Why did you write a book about religion?

A: Over the last two decades I’ve been increasingly upset at what I’ve seen being done in the name of Christianity. I consider myself a Christian. But what I’ve seen being accepting in mainstream media as people who are speaking in the name of Christianity, those people are essentially standing Jesus on his head and really preaching the opposite of what he preached.

Q: What impact do you hope your book will have?

A: We need a sort of new reformation, but we need more than that, a revolution in the literal sense of the word. That is to go full circle back to what Jesus taught and make that the basis of Christianity.

Q: When you were writing the book, Jerry Falwell died and Ted Haggard had his fall from grace. Do you think the influence of some of the old guard evangelicals is waning?

A: I think there’s a good deal of truth in that. But on the other hand some of the most powerful people like (Pat) Robertson still have a big following. James Dobson is still one of the old guard and quite often is preaching the opposite of what Jesus did. Then you’ve got Joel Osteen. He’s not for the most part doing the sort of Falwell/Robertson hate-people-who-aren’t-like-you kind of thing, but what he is preaching is basically this gospel of prosperity, that if you believe in Jesus it will make you rich. I think Osteen is a perfect example of what I refer to as Christianity Lite. The sort of religion that’s the equivalent of a program to lose weight without diet and exercise. Be saved without sacrifice or good works.

Q: What’s your faith background?

A: I’m a convert to Catholicism. Though unlike many converts I’m not fanatical about it at all. It would be safe to describe me as a what they call a “cafeteria Catholic” because I reject a number of things that seem to be wrong. Most center around in the Catholic church questions concerning women and sex and so forth.

Q: What’s been the reaction so far to your book?

A: Reaction has been very good so far. It’s not as widespread as I would like it to be. Part of the reason it has been overwhelming good is in part because it hasn’t yet come to the attention of the sort of people I’m criticizing and who won’t like it at all.

Q: Are you concerned that some people you are trying to reach will think your book is attacking Christianity?

A: That’s a possibility. I say early in the book I don’t expect the people whose minds I would hope to change to agree with everything I’m saying. But to at least give it a chance and read the book and compare what I’m saying with the red words in the Bible. See whether what I’m saying matches better with the teaching of Jesus than with the prosperity gospel and Christianity Lite.”

From:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080621/FEAT04/806210316/1022/feat04

A House Dispute In The City

This article is from Lances blog.
We have permission to post up some of his articles up here so we can talk about some of the things he finds. As long as he gets the credit and doesn’t Pentecostals going to his website, he doesn’t mind us doing this.

========================================

If You Can’t Build A Verandah, BBQ & Shadecloth on Top of the Sydney Opera House,
What Made Hill$ong Think it Could Plonk A Megachurch in Quiet Established Suburban Roseberry?

The City of Sydney reports…

“An independent planning assessment of a $78M proposal by the Hillsong Church to build a seven-level office building and a 2,700 seat church with 679 car parking spaces in Rosebery recommends the application be refused.

The Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC), which determines development applications in the City of Sydney valued at more than $50M, will meet on Thursday 3 July at 6pm in the Wesley Conference Centre to consider the matter.

The meeting is open to the public and people are invited to attend and register to speak.

The independent assessment by Angelini Planning Services - commissioned by the City of Sydney - found the proposal exceeded height, parking and floor space limits and would exacerbate traffic problems in the surrounding residential streets.

“The proposed development is one of medium intensity commercial development of a height and scale that does not match the predominant building form in the locality,” the report says.

“A high intensity Church use will generate significant traffic movements and demand for parking during periods (weekends in particular) that are generally associated with a reduction in traffic movements and parking demand.

“It is not considered acceptable on planning grounds to effectively duplicate week day peak traffic volumes for significant periods of the weekend in close proximity to residential land uses.”

The report found that both the proposed 33.3 metre tall office block and 17.9 metre tall auditorium exceed the maximum building height of 12 metres. Although an existing former RTA office on the site currently exceeds the height limit, the report said that replacing one anomaly with a similar anomaly on the same block of land is questionable from an urban design point of view.

The report also found the floor space ratio for the development of 1.62:1 exceeded the maximum allowable ratio of 1.5:1.

The independent planner examined six different traffic management assessments commissioned by Hillsong, City of Sydney and Rosebery residents.

A report by MWT in May 2008 commissioned by City of Sydney found the traffic generation for the site will be 428 vehicles per hour during the weekday AM peak, 530 vehicles during the PM peak and 1350 per hour for the Sunday services peak.

“It is generally accepted by all [six separate] reports that: The use of the auditorium component of the proposed development will generate additional traffic on the local and wider road systems when used for church services,” the planning report says.

The City of Sydney notified more than 3,400 nearby properties about the development proposal, advertised the application widely and held a public meeting on February 14.

More than 1092 individual submissions were received including 276 objections and 816 letters and emails of support. Petitions for and against the proposal were also received.

Objectors were concerned about traffic and parking issues, noise and amenity loss while submissions in support said Hillsong would create social benefits for the area and the proposal included a large 5,667 square metre publicly accessible park.

Members of the CSPC will listen to comments from members of the public for and against the proposal before discussing the matter.

The CSPC was established by the State Government in 1988 and is made up of seven members including three City of Sydney representatives, two senior State Government employees and independent experts appointed by the Planning Minister. The Lord Mayor Clover Moore MP is the chairperson of the Committee.

CSPC MEETING DETAILS

Thursday 3 July 2008
6 pm - 8.30 pm (doors open 5.30 pm)
Wesley Centre, 220 Pitt St, Sydney

Speakers: Members of the public who wish to address the meeting are required to register their name by phoning the City’s Secretariat office on 9265-9190 from 9am on Monday 30 June. It is likely a maximum of 20 supporters and 20 objectors will be heard on the night and limited to two minutes each.

Transport: The City of Sydney has organised community buses for residents who need assistance to get to the meeting and home again. The buses will depart between 5pm and 5.15 pm at the corner of Queen St/Rothschild Ave, Rosebery and Dalmeny Ave/Hayes Rd, Rosebery.

Media: Media are asked to register their interest in attending by phone Josh Mackenzie on 9265-9082

Media Contact: Josh MacKenzie (02) 92659082 or 0402 351 459″

http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/html/3636-hillsong-development-proposal-to-be-determined-by-cspc-.asp?orig=Home

Hill$ong’s General Manager George Aghajanian replies…..

“Whilst we believe that this Development Application process has been highly politicised, we are open to working with Council and the community to find a way forward.

We have been serving the people in the South Sydney area for over 30 years and are part of the fabric of this community.”

http://www2.hillsong.com/church/default.asp?pid=2332

Why Love Offerings Irritate Me

I can’t stand the term ‘love offering’. Let me be clear. I don’t mind giving money and supporting ministries or appeals that seem to me to be worthy of support. But the term ‘love offering’, apart from seeming twee, seems to obligate people to give. The term ‘love offering’ is emotive, and conveys an expectation that everyone will give since we are all to love one another. It can be a manipulative name for an offering. How can one say no to the ‘love’ offering? Perhaps the love offering becomes for some a ‘guilt’ offering. What does it imply if we do not give?

Why not just call it a free will offering? After all, that is how we are supposed to give - freely. There is no guilt attached if we think the teaching is off and can’t bring ourselves to support it financially. There is less implied expectation of people - they can give as they are able, or not at all. People won’t feel guilty of ‘loving’ any less by not giving.

Assuming that an offering is taken, if a less emotive term were used, visiting preachers may find they need to preach freely too, with the possibility of reward, but not the same expectation of it. Preaching may then become an expression of their love - freely given, regardless of reaction. The potential appearance of peddling the gospel is reduced.

Sometimes it is more loving not to give - not to support harmful teaching. How can it be loving to support the propogation of things which hurt people?

A free will offering won’t prevent people giving when they do desire from their heart to support a ministry or when they do want to express love to someone by donating money. For example, a member of the congregation being sent out may in fact be the recipient of money as a genuine token of affection and support from their brethren, or it may be a genuine token of compassion and support for another church experiencing hard times.

The term ‘love offering’ equates the giving of money with the giving of love. It may also equate the measurement of affection with the amount of money. The more money you give, the more you love. They may sometimes correlate, but there are many other ways of showing love that do not have to do with money at all.

Is it just me that finds the term ‘love offering’ a source of irritation?

The Line in the Sand

As the teachers of the Law threw the woman before Jesus’ feet to see what He’d do, I always imagined Jesus going back to the ground and drawing a line in front of himself, separating the pharisees from himself and the woman. Then I’d picture Him saying the classic one liner: “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Essentially we were called to judge her actions.

Well. (Being creative), that fine line is still drawn today. When does the bride become the harlot? More importantly, how do we know when a church becomes the harlot through their continual error or sin? The recent events of the Brisbane Christian Fellowship raises concern for all of us in the body of Christ. Whether we like it or not, the article on Four Corners last night would have indeed tarnished peoples views that the church is all about power and corruption (I’m stereotyping I know!).
I would like to think that the church has an ear for those individuals who have been abused , but this is too often not the case anymore. It seems like individuals don’t have power to be heard by powers that abuse.

Is there something, we, as believers can accomplish what definitely defines a harlot church and what defines the bride church?

A few articles ago, we discovered that no one agreed that the covering doctrine was biblical. Is this a safe way to determine a church is harlot or bride through ONE doctrinal issue or error? I’m not sure. But one would then have to ask how many false doctrines must need be preached before a specific church switches from it’s bride status to harlot status. Some controversial doctrines include the word/faith doctrine, prosperity doctrine, ‘ye are gods’ doctrine, covering doctrine, anointing doctrine, oneness doctrine, baptismal doctrine, tithing doctrine, etc.

Thinking bigger than life, should the universal church call together a global or online church meeting to judge what makes a ‘church ministry’ harlot or bride?

What would you call the limit in labeling a ministry a harlot ministry? How many false doctrines does it take to label and separate a harlot church from the true church. And which minor false doctrines should be ignored, (if any)… And what bold ministry is brave enough to throw the first stone at another man’s ministry?

Consider the speck. Consider the plank.

S&P

The Pastor as Surrogate Conscience

Some ex-Brisbane Christian Fellowship members have put up their own blog to assist others in the cult experiencing or recovering from spiritual abuse. The following is an extract from a very clear post on their blog which captures one of the factors leading to spiritual abuse:

The premise of absolute submission is predicated on the hypothesis that the spiritual leaders are in effect (though most Discipleship teaching adherents would emphatically deny the attribution) “spiritual mediators” between God and their followers, who assume the role of hearing from God on the behalf of their followers. According to the premise, the followers are spiritually deficient and inferior to the leaders, and thus basically incapable of seeking and hearing from God for themselves and cultivating on-going communion and fellowship with God, so they need a “mediator,” someone who supposedly has a more elite status with God, to be a priestly “go-between” between them and God. The hypothesis is that the leaders are much more spiritual than the people, and therefore more capable of receiving from God what is best for their followers

[...]

…every knowledgeable believer should be thoroughly disgusted and totally outraged at such an idiotic, outlandish, and even blasphemous notion. The Bible explicitly says: “There is one God, and ONE mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all….” (1 Tim. 2:5). There is never, ever to be any “spiritual mediators” between God and men, except the Christ — Jesus Himself.

Read rest of article here.

When we are taught in our churches that we should ‘do what the pastor tells you even if you think it is wrong’ - and I have heard those words preached myself - warning bells should ring. Ultimately this instruction reflects the view of the pastor as mediator between you and God, even in matters of conscience. In this way, the pastor can even become a surrogate conscience.

In matters of church administration its probably not an issue - unless obeying would mean participating in mistreatment of another brother or sister in the congregation. In any other matter, they are stepping beyond the bounds of their authority if they demand such a thing. John Bevere’s popular teaching on submission would seem to fall in this category, as it encourages this sort of obedience.

Besides, if people constantly rely on leaders as their spiritual guides and surrogate consciences without any question, how will they ever mature in their personal relationship with God?

Another Abusive Cult Exposed

Since we’ve just been discussing ‘covering’ and related authority, I thought it was relevant to point out this article in the Brisbane Times regarding the Brisbane Christian Fellowship:

Ex Cult Members Speak Out

In this church, apparently elders made all the decisions right down to personal decisions affecting families. Husbands ruled their wives and children, and members were ex-communicated if they didn’t obey.

Horrible as it is, it is worth trying to understand the false teaching that leads to these things, so it can be recognised well before things go to that extreme. It sounded to me as though some of the teachings in the course wazza referred to could lead to elements of this type of situation.

I believe the bible teaches that Jesus gave us freedom, and submission is always willing, where a leader or elder shows a true maturity in Christ. It also goes both ways. After all, Jesus washed the disciples feet, and died for us - he rejected the kind of power that satan tempted Him with. So should we. Leadership does not require domination. We should not give up the freedom that Jesus died to give us to follow these kind of awful abusive men.