Phil Pringle, Unapologetic Towards God In His Error

From http://www.c3churchglobal.com/video/c3-church-oxford-falls-leaders-2?xg_source=activity:

C3 Church Oxford Falls Leaders Meeting May 02 2010 with Phil Pringle

At 36:20 Phil Pringle says the following:

Sylvia Jarry! My GOD! I heard her take- I was at Prime the other night with Kris. We did a little interview and here’s Sylvia giving the offering. My Lord! She just slapped everybody around the face. That must have been a huge offering that night. I don’t know what came in but uh… She just got up there and made no bones about it. Slap! Slap! Slap! And uh… I even gave something! Amen! You gotta be good to get me to give something. (Phil laughs) Not really.

This is what Phil Pringle said 38 minutes in:

38:00:
“Under number eight: Passionate Spirituality. Passionate Spirituality. This is measured in tithing. There are several measurements they give for these. It’s unusual the measurements that they actually put on – on these ah – how they – how they said “We can tell if a church is spiritually passionate not by the fact they go ‘Oooooooo!’ (Phil imitates a Holy Ghost shaker) like this. But by how much they actually give.” Ok?

Now as leaders, let me tell you this: you got no chance of getting your people to be tithers and blessed and prospering if you’re not. And it’s the same with the building fund and everywhere else. And I make no apologies in this meeting for saying, before the Lord: that you and I are leading a group of people and we have got a responsibility to show them the way and be able to speak without any compromise in our conviction at all. That ‘Yes!’, we gotta bring that tithe into the house of God because that guarantees us an open window over our church life and over our movement. … (fumbles with his words)

I came across a leader who I knew who’d – you know – sort of looked like doing the right thing with giving to – building the building. But you know – we can check those records actually. In America you can check everybody’s tithing records. And Paul would base his – when he was in Los Angeles – you could base your pastoring on that couldn’t you, really. Just check it all out and weekly go around and see them and say ‘things aren’t working out for you?’.
‘Yeah! How did you know?’
‘Oh! You know…’ (laughs)

And uh… we can’t do that here. But what we can do is check is look on the ‘Rise and Build’ records and that tells us where, you know, the passionate spirituality (if you like) of our people and that’s an indicator. It’s not the amount, it’s just the sacrifice and the heart to be involved is actually there. And uh…

You know I’m talking like this because we’re a mature crowd here aren’t we? We can cope with this. And if it’s a little challenging, that’s great. Amen. We gotta smile when a thing challenges us saying ‘Yeah! This is good for me! It’s going to move me on ‘n get me up on the feet’. And so … when we did, I just asked Wayne, (cos I don’t actually go through those records and check them), I just said to Wayne ‘Did that guy umm… was he involved?’. And he came back with a number that was just – you know – (Phil shows he’s upset) that just boggled my mind, how that over such a long time that was it.

And it revealed a lot to me. It just told me everything as to why his situation was like it was.”

C3 Church Oxford Falls Leaders Meeting May 02 2010 with Phil Pringle from Smash Ashby on Vimeo.

If for some reason this video is taken down, I managed to get a copy from HS’s work. Thanks HS.
They were also the one who put the link up of Dave Sumrall’s C3 video.


326 thoughts on “Phil Pringle, Unapologetic Towards God In His Error

  1. I couldn’t resist using that image Chirpy! 🙂
    Couldn’t stop laughing. I believe the appropriate internet word is lol?

  2. Oh My God – reading this makes me want to puke! No wonder he left Christchurch, along with Brian Houston and Darryl Reeves and a host of others…they went out from us because they were not of us…the Empire still sends its Crims to OZ. 0(:->)

  3. “… I MAKE NO APOLOGIES … FOR SAYING, BEFORE THE LORD: “… That ‘Yes!’, we gotta bring that tithe into the house of God because that guarantees us an open window over our church life and over our movement.”

  4. Actually, it’s more common than some of you might imagine for Pastors to check the tithing records to ascertain how well people are going “spiritually”.

    But, it’s only a Pastor or the head of a “movement” who thinks like that.

    The whole video is interesting to watch. Now we know that PP wants all the christians in his church to give even more money so he can make a TV show, now for non-Christians, but for Christians to like so they can say to their non-CHristian friends “hey watch this”.

    Maybe a cheaper way would be for them to make some youtube videos that Christians will like and the the Christians can send an email link and say “hey watch this”.

    It’s really disturbing isn’t it. A person may be a great Godly mother, love people, give up time sacrificially, give to the poor, pray for the saints, but a man like Pringle will think she is not doing so well if he deems she isn’t giving as much as he deems she could to some building fund.

    This is the basic problem. A Christian’s devotion of God, their seeking of the Kingdom of God, their reverence for the Body of Christ, is all judged on how they give financially to the latest local church “project”.

  5. I would like to see PP become even more extreme, if that is possible, as it would only make his terrible teaching on money even more obvious.

    His talk above was very similar in nature to the Lester Sumrall one that S&P put up. You can see why PP has no problem with Sumrall, and not even Steve Munsey – what could possibly be wrong with encouraging people to give more money all the time? After all, it is only encouraging them to be more ‘spiritually passionate’!

    You can see as churchman pointed out, that the way PP judges Christian maturity appears to be based on the quantity of their financial giving, and other aspects of character don’t get a look in unless this first one is right up there.

    Well, we are by his standards very immature, because we don’t like this message, which was only preached openly to leaders – those ‘mature’ enough to hear it. Or those who are compliant, submissive and obedient enough not to ever question it by comparing their own reading of scripture to it.

    I have never heard of Phil Pringle showing great trappings of wealth though, personally. In 20 years, I’ve heard zero rumours of that nature.

    This implies to me that perhaps PP actually completely believes everything he is teaching – which would make him that much more effective at doing it. And because of his position, and beliefs about positive speaking and thinking, and rejection of ‘criticism’, there is nothing that will wake him up to himself except God Himself visiting in person!

  6. I think this ‘power of conviction’ Pringle preaches with is enough for people to go, “If he believes it that passionately, it must be true”.

    Very good observations RP.

    At 36 minutes in, I quoted this because it actually made me wonder if Pringle tithed at all in his services. I though it was rather a revealing comment.

  7. Did anyone else pick up on the hierarchy scheme at the beginning?

    At the beginning, Phil Pringle actually opens with blatant misconception and error in what the church is. I would say this division teaching of kingdom and church already reveals his foundations on gnostic teaching.

    He actually separates and divides ‘Church’ from the ‘Kingdom’. This really reveals his theology and why he can’t break from his religious mindset. If the church is exterior and the kingdom is interior, then the beginning of error will manifest through his teachings and religious practices.

    This explains why their is such confusion and blurred lines between church the building and church the people. Combine that with other doctrines, for instance the tithe, a correct formula must be found by the ‘church’ to unlock the Kingdom within to manifest Kingdom blessing. If it’s not tithing, it’s being committed to the vision, or repentance, or obedience and submission to God or the pastor. A formula is trying to be discovered to bring this Kingdom blessing (spiritually) outwardly through us (physically).

    There has been some odd focus in his teachings on ‘Kingdom Reality’ that is activated when the church is gathered or when the church moves together. Particularly where Pringle refers to the physical church building or gathering to be the gateway or stargate to heaven. We’ve done old posts on this.

  8. Phil Pringle, 2:11-51:

    Here we have the kingdom… which is kind of like… slightly invisible; below the surface. Here we have church and this is an organisation which means we get organised. And that means we have order, which is ranking (one, two, three), and sequence, (one, two, three). That’s what order is and it’s time and place. If you want to get organised in your life, if you undertsand those things, that’s pretty much what it is all about.

    To begin with, the church and kingdom was never an organisation – it is an organism! Jesus is the head of not something dead, but living. We are His Kingdom, His citizens waiting for the New Creation. The Kingdom and the church are one and the same thing.

    So Phil Pringle is in serious error if he thinks the church is an organisation. Naturally, we should be applying discipline to order our lives for our health, relationships, family and business.

    He then applies the ranking (one, two and three), and sequence (whatever he means by that). Phil Pringle has hugely reduced what the kingdom and church is to his own church governance. This ‘ranking theology’ of his will always have him at the top. What he says following this worrying:

    “That’s what order is and it’s time and place. If you want to get organised in your life, if you understand those things, that’s pretty much what it is all about.”

    Phil Pringle has defined the order where he is at the top of this order. He then blurs this order with the individual’s approach to living or ministry. If they understand the things that he’s saying, they would now know that they need to live in this order of paradigm: ‘this is my place, this is my time, this is my position’. Phil is at the top, they know their place. Phil finishes this by saying ‘that’s pretty much what it is all about’.

    What a complete disregard of the called out assembly of God! This is a very belittling view of God’s kingdom if that is it.

    Now that Phil Pringle has set the faulty foundations of his talk, it is no wonder some really dodgy things are expressed in this meeting.

  9. FL as a CCC Pastor, do you check records of parishioner’s giving in order to gauge their level of “passionate spirituality”, or to find out why some things may be going wrong in their lives?

  10. Silent on this thread, and the Lester Sumrall thread. Interesting.

    I speculate that he doesn’t agree with what is happening here, doctrinally, but can’t bring himself to say so where it concerns PP. Or is having trouble finding the scriptural back up to support this highly dodgy teaching. Or knows that in this environment it would be a losing game to defend what is taught in both those articles.

    Fishing, fishing, fishing…

  11. @ FL – As you were already pastoring a church, why did you align your congregation with the C3 movement?

    I’m asking not to have a go at you, just interested. Did the congregation have the opportunity to “cast a vote”?

    Has this added anything to the ongoing spiritual maturity of your church?

  12. I know you have a history of not answering some questions, but I find it interesting how some leave and some join C3.

    Were you aware of any of the issues raised here by ex C3’ers before you became part of the organisation?

  13. ” And uh… I even gave something! Amen! You gotta be good to get me to give something. (Phil laughs) Not really.“

    The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart, and many a true word has been spoken in jest.

    But even if one accepted that tithing and giving was related to parisioners spirituality and things going right in their lives (which I dont), it still wouldnt be ethical for Pastors to go browsing through the giving records. Phil seems to imply that they do it as a matter of course as part of Pastoring. It is supposed to be a private matter between the person and God.

  14. “…it still wouldnt be ethical for Pastors to go browsing through the giving records. Phil seems to imply that they do it as a matter of course as part of Pastoring. It is supposed to be a private matter between the person and God.” – wazza2

    Exactly. But while most people would initially be disturbed by this, I think they would then justify it by saying, ‘Oh, but so-and-so wouldn’t be influenced by that’, or something along those lines. Unless they’ve been physically present at one of these leaders’ talks!

    What about all those people who put cash in an envelope? I remember people doing that. For a while I used to tithe by cheque, but probably the majority of the time I used cash.

    Actually, its harder using cash, because you get to see what you are giving! Much easier just to enter a number you can’t touch on a credit card or cheque. Same with going shopping. Perhaps that’s another reason for the adoption of these methods by churches etc. (And regular direct debit, where people don’t even have to think about it anymore.) It would be interesting to know if giving levels rose when the means of giving changed.

  15. The ‘don’t go here’ sign?

    If that’s it I get it, but doesn’t really resonate with me.

    May mean more to others.

  16. It doesn’t work on my browser (Safari) – I woudn’t have known it was there if you hadn’t said something. Some of the youtube links don’t work for me either. If I use Firefox, most things seem to work. But I like Safari.

  17. Going through some more of his books. There are some unbelievable quotes. Also another shonky C3 vimeo.

    I might put these up soon and then leave C3 alone for a good while. Facelift wants proofs to my claim, which is why I am very C3 and Pringle focused at the moment.

    Whatever new vimeo, youtube video, transcript or quote I gain from Phil Pringle, I will simply update the article or post a comment, like I do with Matt Ford and his Fire It Up International ministry.

    I am fairly over it. After this, I am keen to talk about other things. So everyone can cheer.

    I might look at putting their material not on a Signposts02 thread but a Signpost02 page instead.

  18. Snigger. Just another religious debate.

    By the way, re hand signals (see recent thread) – I just watched a little video on hand signals in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (a stock market trading floor that uses real people to signal trades). Merrill Lynch’s hand signal is – you guessed it – the bull horns, since their logo is a bull.

  19. FL as a CCC Pastor, do you check records of parisioner’s giving in order to gauge their level of “passionate spirituality”, or to find out why some things may be going wrong in their lives?

  20. OK, you should have let this go, as I had, although I was unavailable for a couple of days, anyway, but…I will submit my case, on this conversation, to mn and Bull, for assessment, who I believe will respond fairly, as witnesses here in regard to this line of questioning:

    First: I comment here as an individual, not a spokesperson for any church or movement.

    Second: I will not discuss internal issues concerning a local church eldership on a blog.

    Judge me on that if you like, but God is my judge, not man.

    I have been accused of making things ‘about FL’. The form of questioning aimed at me here by wazza2, RP & teddy, makes it difficult to avoid it being ‘about me’, and should be noted. It is a common thing for wazza2 to make it personal, and then hit me for responding by saying I made it all ‘about me’. Catch 22, which is why I often ignore him these days. Again, though, he thrice makes it personal.

    I am happy to discuss doctrinal and scriptural issues and general aspects of ministry, but I refuse to submit myself to any bloggers who have shown themselves to be inconsiderate with personal information.

    Teddy, whilst I like discussing issues with you, and have no personal problems with you, I do remind you of the hostile way in which you treated me on Joel O’Bell’s site, and put it to you that, as a result, I have no reason to trust you with the personal information you are requesting. Accordingly, I hesitate, wisely, I think, to give you the information you seek.

    I remind you that you still haven’t retracted the direct accusation you made, on Joel’s site, that I preach that ‘Jesus went down into hell where he took on Satan’s nature, until he was born again, and re-emerged to start the church’, which I not only refuted, but also made it clear that I have never taught this, nor have I ever believed it.

    So, folks, I am not evading anything. I have decided to avoid controversial remarks or certain lines of questioning, totally, from blah-blah, who is openly rude, and, on occasion, from wazza2, both of whom I consider to be attack dogs for Lance.

    Although, having said that, I will add that I do consider wazza2 to have the ability to make some interesting and wise comments and observations from time to time which I respect and may comment on.

    RP, I did, actually make a comment in regard to Dave Sumrall, which was noted by mn, albeit elsewhere on the blog.

    I do not access any person’s personal financial records, in regards to tithes and offerings, nor do I have to, since I am not the accounts person for our local church, nor am I interested in any person’s personal giving but my own, except to encourage all Christians to develop a cheerful, hilarious, purposed giving regime. God is our Source, not man. Buildings are bricks and mortar, that is all. The Church is the people. We can meet anywhere if we have a mind and heart to. Giving is subject to the giver. I’d rather not know details.

    I will not comment further, and no further comment should be made. Wazza2 can say what he likes. I personally consider his line of questioning to be out of order on a blog, and he is not unaware of this. I have never told anyone but Bull my vocation or my position in our local church. I have given reasons, and he has supported my position, and for this he has my respect.

    Speculation is close second only to deliberate deception if used unwisely. Selah!

    I am surprised, if you are going to take this kind of personal tack in regard to commenters here, that no one has pulled up s&p for his regrettable antics on Groupsects of promising his beloved mentor, like some lap dog, to furnish details of C3 Bible School rules, to be subsequently published on Groupsects, a known site fervently hostile to all C3 stands for. This is disloyalty, for a C3 member, of the highest order. Publish it here, where fair comment can, at least, be made, for I am sure it is basic Bible School directive, as churchman has pointed out about Hillsong College’s guidelines. But to acquire it specifically to pass it on to Groupsects. That is the work of a Judas.

  21. FL, I missed any comment you made re Dave Sumrall. I haven’t read every thread, actually. If you tell me where it is, I will read it with interest.

    It did seem like you were avoiding the particular topic of how giving is taught at C3, based on your absence from this and that other thread, (while still appearing present on other threads) but now that you have answered, speculation about that can be quashed.

    There’s always the possibility that some of us are on holidays, travelling or for some other reason, too busy or not desiring to read this blog at any given time.

    Yes, this thread was not about you. Nonetheless, as you are someone who normally defends what we criticise PP and other related preachers for doing, it was easy to wonder how you would justify what we see PP preaching in the post above, and how you would justify what Sumrall was teaching. Their teaching above is so blatantly full of pressure and manipulation that it was hard to imagine how anyone could justify it unless they actually agreed with it.

    Above, you distance yourself from their teaching by saying that you yourself would not do or wish to do what PP is talking about – ie: check up on what individuals are giving to a church fund. So I take it that you don’t agree with PP or others doing this.

    You don’t say whether you agree or not with blaming people’s personal financial difficulties on their level of giving. Clearly PP does – he did this in the last paragraph.

    We wonder about your position here because you are usually so quick to jump to the defence of these ministries, that the absence of comment was almost like a comment itself. Even though you have now partially clarified, your restraint from saying that you disagree with what is being taught suggests that you might agree with it. Either that, or you have just been too busy to comment, or that you will simply not ever disagree with PP’s teachings in a public forum. PP’s teachings have to be taken as standard C3 doctrine, since he is the founder and head of the denomination.

    These kinds of teachings are one of the reasons I left the denomination.

  22. Actually, I think Faithlift is just being really true to his convictions.
    I may be wrong, but my guess is that he actually doesn’t like what he saw in the video, and in his heart of hearts doesn’t think it’s right. If he holds to the principles to which I think he does, he is probably showing loyalty as he sees PP as his covering. So, you will probably find him defending what he can, and then choosing to not comment on what he has trouble with.

    So I wouldn’t hold my breath for him to criticize anything about PP even if he did disagree. (It’s textbook leadership principles in action as taught in churches these days).

    The analogy always given is that of officers and their relationships to generals etc.

    I’ve heard it over and over again. I just don’t personally think it applies in the Kingdom of God. And if we all lived like that in corporate and public life, nothing would ever change, but bad things would get worse.

    For what it’s worth, I think Faithlift is a good man.

  23. I was not trying to get particularly personal, I was challenging FL as to whether he supported the ideas taught by PP in this video.

    In any debate on religion or the Christian life, many arguments or questions do tend to challenge us personally. For example if I am arguing against a certain form of church organisation, an opponent may suggest that I am doing so because of unresolved issues in myself about authority. Or because of sin, or some other fault. I think that is acceptable in this forum, and I think even our gentle friend FL may have advanced this form of argument in the past.

    On the “gnostic” thread, FL asked me whether I supported the claims that S&P was making. Why shouldn’t I now ask FL whether he supports the claims and teachings of PP?

    Also as RP points out, FL has been a staunch advocate and defender of the C3 way. Yet on this and the Sumrall thread he is silent. On other threads he has demanded proof, or a retraction of the claims. Why can we not ask him to answer now for something that his leaders have clearly said? You cannot be an attack dog on the issues you pick, and then cry “personal” when asked about other issues.

  24. I think the word dog, with whatever the chosen adjective preceding it has been used far too much in recent posts.

    I like dogs.

    And I don’t think anyone is anyone’s attack dog, lap dog etc etc here or on group sects.

    FL – for mine, all you needed to put was the fourth last para in your comment. The rest was superfluous, and draws unwanted attention.

    I certainly remember you commenting on the the Sumrall thread that that was something you wouldn’t do.

    I don’t think it is fair to pidgeon hole you as a C3 pastor if you are not. If you are you should own it, but I also see how if you are it would be virtually impossible not to follow the party line with the structures that are in place. I am not asking by the way if you are, but I do wonder from time to time.

    But if you are then you either accept why people on this and other blogs have axes to grind about C3, HS et al and what goes with that, or get off.

    And I can say I certainly don’t want the latter – you have driven me to distraction at various times, but we would unquestionably be much poorer for not having you here.

    I understand you defending the teaching that you hold dear, but some honesty about the damage that a lot of the gunk that seems to be entrenched in the bigger pente churches would go a long way to mitigating some of the extremes that may be on here.

    Your comments about Sumrall and your statement that you wouldn’t check individual giving should be respected by the rest of us.

    But generally if you don’t want to be a lightning rod, then don’t act like one.

    So much of the stuff around tithing and giving from these big churches, their leadership structures which clearly exclude members of the body from being involved where they should, but rather uses them is a travesty. It is the papacy reinvented on a smaller scale.

    That stuff deserves what it gets, because it not biblical and it damages the body of Christ. Cut the cancer out someone please…

    While I respect and support people’s right to have a go at things that have and continue to damage the church, at the end of the day I am not sure what the endless railing against it on this blog or Group Sects achieves.

    Are we building the body…or just bitching…either about C3, HS etc….or are we bitching about those who have a reason to bitch?

  25. Had I commented on this or the other thread I would have invited an argument I saw as pointless to be involved in. It’s my prerogative to not comment if I don’t want to.

    I don’t criticise anyone here for choosing not to comment where they don’t feel it’s appropriate. Why would you single anyone out for this treatment, and why make judgements based on whether or not a person comments?

    Judge me on what I do say, not on what I don’t say.

  26. From my perspective all that needed to be said was what you said in the fourth last para.

    If someone is not there they can’t comment.

    Sorry if I sounded harsh, but I stand by the general thrust of my comments.

    I forgot to say as well that if you are in a pastoral position it would be wrong to discuss the internal issues of your church.

    Anyway enough of that.

  27. FL: “So, folks, I am not evading anything. I have decided to avoid controversial remarks or certain lines of questioning, totally, from blah-blah, who is openly rude, and, on occasion, from wazza2, both of whom I consider to be attack dogs for Lance.”

    Ok. You’re not evading but avoiding. Right.

    FL: “Buildings are bricks and mortar, that is all. The Church is the people. We can meet anywhere if we have a mind and heart to.”

    Yeah. Heard that before. The church is the people which is the gathering which is the place which is the House of God which is the building. It’s a typical C3 response:

    C3 Church Sydney Vision Builders 2010 from C3 Church Sydney on Vimeo.

    This video reveals the way how many C3 Christians don’t actually know what they are talking about. If this was a script, the logic and doctrine of it will not make sense.

    churchman: “I may be wrong, but my guess is that he actually doesn’t like what he saw in the video, and in his heart of hearts doesn’t think it’s right.”

    I would love Facelift to look at what he believes and analyse the teachings of C3 soberly. For both him and his congregation. While I am unfortunately trying to prove to Facelift after his comments to me that I am wrong with my allegations towards C3, I can’t help but what I posting up is enough to make him think twice about a few things.

    This can be good, but also a painful process.

    mn: “Are we building the body…or just bitching…either about C3, HS etc….or are we bitching about those who have a reason to bitch?”

    I’ve commented on this before. I am someone very active in ministry and often find myself picking up the pieces of those who are dismantled by the teachings and practices of the C3 leaders and their environments.

    The sooner these doctrines change, the more we’ll see healing begin. The sooner these doctrines change, the more united the church will become. I am sick of the ‘us vs them’ game these churches play.

    There is also a fine line in love. I’ve had to watch my head and heart a number of times as I felt God prompt me in tough seasons not delight in wrong-doing, (as He directed me to 1Cor 13). I cried and had to repent. If Phil Pringle ever falls terribly in ministry, I know in my heart I will cry for him. He is a son of God who is most deceived. If this changes, I’ll be so happy for him.

    If ever anyone wants to know where I stand on issues, just read the Signposts02 welcome page. I’m sure I’ve explained myself better there. Otherwise I am always repeating myself.

  28. FL: “I don’t criticise anyone here for choosing not to comment where they don’t feel it’s appropriate. Why would you single anyone out for this treatment, and why make judgements based on whether or not a person comments?”

    I made a claim a few articles ago about C3 which you rejected to strongly. I singled out C3 and you singled me out.

    Since then I’ve posted up Sumrall and a few other confronting teachings of C3. I will make sure you reply in the appropriate place then Facelift.

  29. It was a general comment S&P, not a specific one.

    Probably shouldn’t have written it.

    I do wish people would own there stuff though.

    Seems the world is full of people defending why the things they have done is right, especially compared to the other guys.

    That also is a general comment!

  30. s&p,
    ‘I am sick of the ‘us vs them’ game these churches play.’

    I think you’ve set up the forum for an ‘us vs them culture’ right here. Besides which, there is nothing more divisive than to be actively attempting to pull down C3 from within, as you are doing.

    s&p,
    ‘I am unfortunately trying to prove to Facelift after his comments to me that I am wrong with my allegations towards C3’

    No, that is not correct. I have asked you specifically to demonstrate that C3 is a gnostic cult, as you have claimed, and hitherto been unable to show, either by doctrine or by their teaching.

    I have never asked to prove that they teach controversial doctrines, or that they teach doctrines you do not support. You have taken what I have asked for and stretched it to fit your own agenda.

    It is correct for me to ask you to demonstrate that C3 is a gnostic cult, since you made the claim without providing evidence.

    Secondly, you have since sai you would go off and attempt to find proof, which indicates that you had none when you made the allegations.

    s&p,
    ‘Ok. You’re not evading but avoiding. Right.’

    Not at all. How do you work that out? I answered wazza2’s question directly and succinctly, as pointed out by mn.

    I added some comments about why it wasn’t relevant for anyone here to ask questions related to any alleged vocation I might personally have, unless I specifically indicated that I would relate to commenters here in an official capacity. That is a reasonable request.

    It would be a serious error of judgement to defraud you into thinking I was in any way an official spokesperson for any organisation or local church, when I have clearly indicated that I am not here in that capacity, and that I would not discuss the internal affairs of my local church, or movement in a public forum without their express permission. What is hard to understand about that?

    Just because you feel it is OK to be in a local church and avoid any level of accountability to that church, and continue to undermine and criticise both the congregation and the leaders of that congregation, doesn’t give you the license to expect that of others.

    Do you think, given the level of your antagonism towards your own church family, that anyone would furnish you with information you are liable to take out of context and use as a weapon to attack your own?

    s&p,
    ‘I will make sure you reply in the appropriate place then Facelift.’

    Are you now advocating a hierarchal, authoritative approach?

    mn,
    I disagree with your fundamental understanding of how a local church can or should operate, and be run. I do not criticise the congregational model you espouse, but I have reservations about its level of effectiveness, and Biblical relevance.

    Respectfully, I think, as I have said before, that your view is coloured by this understanding of how a church is set up and led, and you have said nothing to change my mind on this, and rather confirmed it with your strong words to me about what you perceive to be my take on how churches are run in Pentecostal circles.

    In fact, there are many different models amongst Pentecostals, and very few are the same.

    I can tell you that our church is autonomous, has its own constitution, has a working eldership board, is not dictated to by the movement we are affiliated with, which provides accountability without any level of control, and has never been told what to do or how to do it by any governing body, or oversight, but has, rather, been assisted in its functionality and served to high degree in encouragement, care and training in how to develop a strong, worshipping community in our field of influence, which gives us a high degree of freedom as a local church serving a local community.

  31. It is true that C3 churches are autonomous, and where the senior pastor has come from outside of the C3 mothership, not necessarily the same doctrinally as PP’s church. Depends how much the incumbent senior pastor then picks up from those pastors gatherings. My ex pastor was fine, until he started to bring that stuff back into our local congregation.

    Whatever its denomination, its usually the senior minister or pastor who defines the culture/teaching in their church. Particularly if the leadership model is pretty pyramidal.

  32. If you have to press for a pyramidal structure, then it has to be inverted, so that the senior leadership is primary server.

    Jesus made it clear that whoever sought to be in leadership would, above all, have to be a servant of all, thus he, the Son became the Chief Servant, as well as the Chief Shepherd. That is the model presented to us, and that is the Biblical model aspired to.

    I don’t claim that we always achieve this, but, at least it is a work on progress.

    Personally, I think the pyramidal structure isn’t the real shape of things, and it is far more fluid and organic than a rigid framework, and is, by necessity, flexible without being formless, and dynamic within boundaries defined by the Word and Spirit, not being continued to one particular local or city-wide church, denomination or movement, even – being part of God’s universal Body, which is beyond the control of any individual.

  33. Churches like Hillsong and C3 are very much organised on a corporate model which is hierarchical, pyrimidal. That’s just a fact, lets not obfuscate and waffle and spiritualise things.

    Churches in the C3i movement may not be under the same corporate structure and control, but they are “accountable” to the leadership. It is quite a flexible arrangement because they can point to large numbers when things are going well as evidence of God’s favor on the movement. When things go wrong, of course, they were just a whole bunch of independent churches that never knew anything about each other.

  34. FL:I disagree with your fundamental understanding of how a local church can or should operate, and be run. I do not criticise the congregational model you espouse, but I have reservations about its level of effectiveness, and Biblical relevance.

    MN: I know you disagree. So what. Your comments about effectiveness smack of ‘the end justifies the means’. On to Biblical relevance later.

    FL: Respectfully, I think, as I have said before, that your view is coloured by this understanding of how a church is set up and led, and you have said nothing to change my mind on this, and rather confirmed it with your strong words to me about what you perceive to be my take on how churches are run in Pentecostal circles.

    MN: Well what is your take?

    FL: In fact, there are many different models amongst Pentecostals, and very few are the same.

    MN: Undoubtedly, but I was talking about the big mega churches in particular. Do they have different models? If so what are the variations and differences?

    FL: I can tell you that our church is autonomous, has its own constitution, has a working eldership board, is not dictated to by the movement we are affiliated with, which provides accountability without any level of control, and has never been told what to do or how to do it by any governing body, or oversight, but has, rather, been assisted in its functionality and served to high degree in encouragement, care and training in how to develop a strong, worshipping community in our field of influence, which gives us a high degree of freedom as a local church serving a local community.

    MN: That sounds terrific. I am glad you told me (us), but as you say not all churches are the same, and I think you would realise firstly I don’t which church you go to, and my comments were not directed at your church.

    Now for my own comments.

    FL, what is biblically relevant then?

    You don’t seem to impressed by the congregational ‘model’.

    I accept that there are different ways to structure things; all of them can be abused and misused. But I am quite happy to mount an argument from Scripture if the broader church is excluded from the decision making process – this is probably the wrong term, but I’ll leave it as that – then it is not biblical.

    Our Heavenly Father was never in favour of kings – the children of Israel ended up with kings against what His best advice was.

    And yet that is where we tend to naturally gravitate no matter what the model name is – call it kingship, chief prophet/visionary, pope – it always means there is a big banana who puts out the view implicitly/explicitly that he/she knows what God wants for that church to the exclusion of the body of that church.

    In saying that I am not also saying that where a church has a regular say that they will get it right, or honour God in the way they go about things….all of us are tainted by sin, and still carry that baggage with us.

    But God speaks to the whole body of Christ, and yet we have manifestations of church such as HS and C3 which from I can see leave no place for this.

    I don’t what church we are talking about baptist, congregational, catholic, anglican, purple with pink polkadots…any church leadership which functionally and systematically cuts out the view that God can speak to, lead or convict anyone, or the collective with implications for the congregation/church/body is denying the new birth right of those believers.

    In the Old Testament we have numerous records of the people of Israel being intentionally being brought together to give them an opportunity to acknowledge God and go with Him or against Him.

    Joshua gave them this opportunity, both stating what they should do but also giving them the choice – twice:

    “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

    One of the things the NT is about is that with the Advent of Christ we no longer need intermediaries. We are all have the Spirit residing with us and are individually responsible to work out our faith.

    How is it then that this seemingly equates in practice to being excluded by some churches from being asked and encouraged to see whether what is being proposed is of the Lord or not?

    This is exclusive behaviour which operates against the body of Christ.

    Am I suggesting that there should not be a leadership, or leaders? Absolutely not.

    What I am saying though is that there is a certain form of leadership, which in my view is not of God and should gotten rid of.

    Having skipped through Scripture reading around I am absolutely certain that far from being concerned about being divisive Paul would have none of a number of the practices regularly discussed, but rather have the leading proponent’s guts for garters.

    I understand the call for us to be united in the Spirit, but Scripture does not tell us be quiet, subservient and obsequious when our leaders have got it wrong… does it?

  35. mn,
    ‘Your comments about effectiveness smack of ‘the end justifies the means’.’

    How so? That is your bias coming through.

    Effectiveness is derived from correct modelling. Of course we plan with an end in mind, but the means have to be as just as the end.

    I don’t see Jesus, the Chief Shepherd, and the example for all shepherds, having a vote amongst his twelve for the Great Commission he gives them. “OK, Peter, what do you think we should do?” “Well, Lord, I don’t think you should go to the cross for a start, and leave us here without a leader!” “Get thee behind me Satan!” Sons of Thunder – “We should call down fire on them all!” Jesus – “You don’t know what spirit you are of!”

    I don’t see the Apostles being told what to do by the Church at Jerusalem. they give directive to choose faithful, Spirit-filled men to wait at tables, but they themselves remain in prayer and study of the Word. Why? So they have the directive for the Church form the Lord.

    I don’t see Paul asking the Corinthians to vote to tell him how to correct the man sleeping with his father’s wife, or how to conduct their meetings, or the way to utilise the gifts of the Spirit, or take communion, or present their offerings.

    Nor do I see Paul admonishing Timothy to allow a voting system amongst the congregation members at Ephesus. He goes to great lengths to tell Timothy how he should run that church, and to be intimidated, even by the elders.

    Of course, congregations should have a say in the every day running of the local church, and be involved in its development, even have a consultative group for certain issues, but the local church is set apart to be run by a God-appointed presbytery, including a Pastoral oversight.

    And leaders should be accountable, but great care should be taken that it is the Pastor who pastors the sheep, not the sheep who pastor the Pastor.

  36. And there you have it – a leadership who refuse to trust that their own God can speak through the congregation.

    I said nothing about voting. While a ‘vote’ is often a part of that, it is nothing to do with a political system of governance. As for the apostles in once instance they certainly didn’t vote, rather casting lots. As to voting as a general means to direct a pastor’s teaching I’ve never said any such thing or even hinted at it – don’t twist my words.

    Again you miss the point. What I am on about is about giving ourselves as much opportunity as we can to hear what the Spirit is saying to all His people, not just a few. You have said nothing which addresses this very central issue.

    Who has the mind of Christ FL?

    We do.

    There is not a limitation to that.

    As to your last statement about accountability, there is no such proscription. There is an injunction to be very careful in terms of issues where a rebuke or worse is required: “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.”

    Your language is that of someone who doesn’t want to lose control.

  37. And just as a final comment, I have not been in any church where the leadership/eldership didn’t lead. That is what they are expected to do.

    The issue is how they exercise that leadership.

  38. Interesting article from Sweden about Benny Hinn and “gnosticism”, amazingly addressed by Ulf Ekman, pastor and colleague of PP (who preaches at Ulf’s church on a regular basis).

    Perhaps a warning about opening the pulpit to high-profile personalities like Benny Hinn….”His teachings, and he is not alone in those, seem to be more developed and worked through by him more than by any other person, went way beyond that which I believe to be classical Christian faith and healthy teaching. It had not only Gnostic influences; it had unfortunately intersections with pure Gnosticism.”

    http://www.johnvandinther.org/leadership-and-truth-benny-hinn-questioned-in-sweden-and-the-word-of-life-church-after-his-sermon-livets-ord

  39. “I don’t see the Apostles being told what to do by the Church at Jerusalem. they give directive to choose faithful, Spirit-filled men to wait at tables, but they themselves remain in prayer and study of the Word. Why? So they have the directive for the Church form the Lord.”

    And yet, 21century apostles and megachurch pastors don’t seem to spend that much time in prayer and the word. And was it really so they would get “directives”? What do you mean? Like directives for the latest building fund? TV station? Christian resort?

    Given that the first century apostles didn’t build buildings and TV stations etc, I wonder what they did with themselves.
    Oh that’s right, they were getting down and dirty preaching in the streets or anywhere, and getting beaten and flogged, and killed.
    But different to the modern day Apostles.
    But of course, the 21 century apostles have more power ….
    And they are definitely prospering more.

    “I don’t see Paul asking the Corinthians to vote to tell him how to correct the man sleeping with his father’s wife”

    Faithlift, what I find really the most interesting about Paul’s letters that you speak of is that they were written to churches. And for Timothy, it was widely later circulated. This is so different to today. Now they would all be private and addressed to the Senior Minister who MIGHT share them with senior leadership. IF the leadership structures that we have in pentecostalism existed in the Corinthian church, why would Paul have written all that stuff so openly. What on earth would the “people” think of the “leadership”? Wouldn’t they have questioned their authority? Lost respect?

    I think if modern day church leaders want the early church authority like you think they had, then they should also act more like Paul & co. Instead of taking people’s money, living lavishly and telling the PEOPLE to go out and not be lazy and bring the people into the “house”, they went out and did the hard preaching and asked the people to pray for them. It’s all backwards now. Doesn’t anyone get that?

    Can you imagine an Apostle Paul running a mega church today?
    Imagine a megachurch pentecostal Pastor working like others and then preaching at nights, and spending time actually preaching and finding people to talk to OUTSIDE. ANd then begging his congregation to pray for him.
    Or not working but actually praying and studying the word (not just being a CEO and writing vision statements).

    The church has been turned upside down. In the old days, the Apostles ACTUALLY went out and sweated and got dirty and ricked getting jeered at and assaulted, and asked people to pray for them.
    Now the Apostles say their job is to tell the church to go out there are do it all – plus work – plus give more money.
    Bizarre!

  40. I think you’re talking about a completely different issue, mn.

    You are hanging on to your erroneous concept of PP, BH and others hearing from the Holy Ghost on behalf of every member. An issue which I dismissed long ago on another thread as utterly ridiculous. You either did not read that, or did not accept it, because you are still going on about PP or BH being the pope. When will you move on from this idea? It is not true. I have clearly and concisely refuted it.

    I’ll say it again for you: Each believer is responsible for hearing from God for their own lives and ministry. Each has been subject to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. Each can prophesy. Each can know from God what he has freely given them, because each is filled with the Holy Spirit, who knows the mind of God, and can relate directly to them.

    No one needs a prophet, as in the OT. No one needs to have their lives directed by another. Each can hear from God for themselves.

    it would be better for the church as a whole if more people did take control of their livs and take more responsibility for the depth of understanding they have of the Word and Spirit, and not rely on others, including their leadership, to mollycoddle them through life.

    But people are sheep, and they will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine if strong leadership is not available to them. If you have missed the passages of scripture which outline the clear concepts of how local churches are led by graced people then I recommend you revise your understanding, starting with Ephesians 4.

    However, it is still a truth that each believer should take responsibility for their walk in God, and to never forsake the gathering together of the saints, so that they can encourage other members of the flock..

    But…

    In the context of the direction of the local church, or of a movement, there are those wh are set apart to lead the local church, or a group of churches, in their mandate to reach a community with the gospel.

    They are directly accountable to God for the flocks they oversee, therefore they, by this necessity, need to be before the Father, hearing from him how to best lead, nurture, teach and admonish the flocks.

    churchman,
    you are saying things which have no bearing on what is being said, and upping the ante to include TV evangelists. The context here is whether a church is democratically run, or pastorally overseen. Perhaps, in view of the post, it should be given a separate thread.

    I take it, though, that you, in essence, agree that Jesus did not apply congregational discussions or a consensus driven mode to his leadership model, and neither did Paul.

    Of course, I’ll reiterate, I see no problem with members of the congregation being involved in the everyday workings of the local church, and adding their gifts, abilities and ideas to the pot, so that there is a consensus agreement about how to move the church on in its mandate to the demographic it is in. But when it comes to situations where a decision has to be made which may or may not exclude the opinion or ideas of some elements of the flock, then it requires a leadership model which is not consensus driven, but able to lead boldly from the front.

    I still think that people draw conclusions from what is being said according their own perspective of what a local church model is, beit congregationally run, or pastorally overseen.

  41. “But people are sheep, and they will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine if strong leadership is not available to them.”

    Another classic quote. You’d make a great dictator. There might be an opening in North Korea soon.

    Misguided strong leadership is the problem in the church today.
    I won’t elaborate.

  42. Okay I will elaborate. The problem in the church today is PRECISELY that the “strong leadership” are the ones tossing the sheep to and fro, and fleecing them at the same time.

  43. And telling the sheep that if they are not ‘obedient’ and ‘submissive’, they might not really be sheep at all!

  44. Then you consider Paul to be a dictator, churchman, for it was he who brought the revelation that God graced ministers to train and equip the saints, including helping them grow up, so that they are not tossed to and fro.

    I don’t know why you have to take things to such extremes. Now I am a dictator because I believe the Word! Gosh!

    You probably think it’s OK to avoid being pastored, and be an independent sheep, out of the flock!

    You probably resent being called a sheep!

  45. If the implication of being called a ‘sheep’ is that I will be tossed to and fro by every gust of wind, then yes, I object, because it is a demeaning term in that context. Also in that context, the leader ceases to be a sheep.

    I am a sheep with Jesus as my shepherd, and I am a part of His flock, very much inside it, not outside. Not only that, I have access to gifts and pastoral guidance if I need it, through people I am connected to relationally, whom I respect. This includes people with a recognised pastoral gifting. With these relationships intact, I am connected to the wider flock.

    The people who don’t recognise that connection don’t recognise the church in its most basic form.

  46. Also, I would argue, that Jesus, as my Shepherd, led me out of a part of His flock, where the shepherding was most unhelpful to me. To say that I don’t have access to shepherding would be saying ultimately that I don’t have access to Christ. In saying this, I still recognise the gifts he distributes amongst His body, which I referred to above. The Holy Spirit draws us into relationship and connects us with joints that aren’t dependent upon an organisation. I am not saying that He does not use organisations – just that He is not dependent upon them to build His church.

  47. So, if Jesus, as your Shepherd, appoints men to serve in a pastoral capacity amongst the flocks, you will be happy to follow his directive, presumably.

    Otherwise, why don’t we all just leave the flocks and allow Jesus to personally pastor us. This would then negate the necessity for gatherings, and places to gather. No more risk of dodgy doctrine. Or is that a foolish assumption, because, wehere, then do we find trusted doctrine? On the internet? And so, then, does the internet provide pastoral nurture, care and fellowship? I’m not talking about some kind of discussion with faceless names on a blog. I’m talking about genuine fellowship as with a flock.

    I wonder, with this idea of independence from other sheep, what the idea of serving the flock entails. You’d have to re-examine the pastoral etters to understand why the writers were addressing flocks of sheep, and their overseers. How would they have read the letters out to each sheep individually if they all stayed in their separate hidey-holes, and without the assistance of the internet?

    Why would Paul call together the Ephesian overseers to warn them to ‘take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood’?

    How would you take heed to the flock, if the flock never gathered? How would you be accountable for sheep you never saw?

    My questions were addressed to churchman, incidentally, not you, but the concept of shepherds and sheep did not originate with me. It is Biblical.

    It is no stigma to being considered a sheep, nor to be cared for by a shepherd. If there are false shepherds, then we need to run, yes, but there are more good shepherds than bad, and more good flocks that evil, and more caring folds than uncaring.

    And we are all sheep. Shepherds are sheep, hence their need to be overseen in their own right.

    But, I digress from churchman’s premis that shepherds who care enough about their sheep to guard them from false doctrine are really dictators.

  48. I think as usual FL you refuse to deal with the core issues, and latch onto something else as a way of avoiding the issue. No matter.

    A hypothetical (not so hypothetical actually) for you – it is rather extreme (probably too extreme), but I just thought I would throw it out there.

    A small independent church with a focus on tithing (don’t get diverted by that one). Most of the congregation are very serious and committed about their faith and their church life, and give sacrificially.

    The pastor takes himself, his wife, kids and brother and his wife on a holiday to the USA.

    It costs $25000 and is funded from the church offering.

    The elders may have been consulted but that is unlikely, and the members who put that money were certainly not appraised.

    The elders don’t call him to account, but it is public knowledge.

    One of the members bravely asks at a members meeting if this is was an appropriate use of church money.

    The elders say nothing.

    The pastor strips paint from the walls in his response stating that the congregation has no right to question how he uses his money.

    The questioning member’s wife later on receives a visit from the elders to receive advice on how she ‘deal with her husband’.

    Getting rid of probably the best response on an individual level which is leave, rather what should the CONGREGATION do?

    1. Nothing – the guy is a pastor there, and appointed by God.

    2. Send another parishioner the pastor to represent their views (blood sacrifice – sorry can’t help myself)

    3. Send a member to an elder (who will do nothing).

    4. Convene a members meeting to discuss the matter, and then finalise on a course of action after some thought and prayer with a view to:

    a) spelling out to the pastor what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour (in my view any opportunity to do this nicely has long gone); or

    b) sack him.

    3. Sack him

  49. FL: “Of course, I’ll reiterate, I see no problem with members of the congregation being involved in the everyday workings of the local church, and adding their gifts, abilities and ideas to the pot, so that there is a consensus agreement about how to move the church on in its mandate to the demographic it is in. But when it comes to situations where a decision has to be made which may or may not exclude the opinion or ideas of some elements of the flock, then it requires a leadership model which is not consensus driven, but able to lead boldly from the front.”

    These are your words FL, and they are so patronising.

    FL: “If you have missed the passages of scripture which outline the clear concepts of how local churches are led by graced people then I recommend you revise your understanding, starting with Ephesians 4.”

    I have checked every passage I can find mentioning elders or overseers, and I can find nothing that says sets out how they are to be appointed.

    The issue is not one about ‘strong’ leadership, it is one of mutual submission and accountability.

    Accountability is a two-way street, and you simply can’t abide the concept of the leadership being accountable to the body.

    In saying that I am in no way saying that accountability over rides that to our Heavenly Father.

    Rather you deny even the remote possibility that accountability to the Heavenly Father can be worked out through the body of Christ.

    At this point this no agreement between us FL.

    The desire for control is a pressure point in all churches, because it is fundamental to our sin nature. It is pretty obvious to all but you on this blog how it comes thru in pente churches.

    I suppose if we were balanced we’d look at they way it works itself out in non-pente churches.

  50. That’s just second guessing what I actually believe, putting your own interpretation, based on your own world-view, into play.

    Where did I say there wasn’t a mutual submission in the Body. Before all things we are called to submit one to the other in the fear of the Lord.

    What role, then, do the grace ministries of apostle, prophet, evangelist pastor ad teacher have in the Body? Or are you like many evangelicals who say these grace ministries ended with the coming of the cannon of scripture, so we no longer require them?

    There is nothing patronising about what I say. Who determines, in a consensus run church, the direction of the church? Wasn’t Jesus critical of the leaders who refused to enter in first, thus preventing the flock form entering in? He called this a woe! He called it a the key to knowledge for leaders to enter first so that the flocks could enter.

    If Jesus had wanted a consensus riven church, why didn’t he tarin his disciples this way? Why did he set the precedent for a pastor led flock right form the beginning? Why did Paul gather elders and overseers to warn them about looking after the flocks of God? Why did he tell them what to do? Why didn’t ask them what they thought they should do? Why didn’t he call for the congregation members to give a consensus opinion about what to do when he had moved on? Why didn’t they have an AGM to decide their future?

    What do you call the role of a Pastor. Is it complete subservience to the leadership of the church board? Or is it as the servant to all in the local church. ensuring that everyone enters the kingdom, is nurtured in the kingdom, and is led and directed towards salvation, and eternal life? Is it to ensure that correct doctrine is received by all. Is it to ensure that all walkm in love, and to encourage peace in the flock? Is it to identify and ward off wolves, thieves and liars? Is it to protect the flock from deceivers? Is it to build foundational truths into new converts? Is it to train and equip the congregation to win souls and make disciples?

    Or does everyone just get on with these things without the counsel and leadership of a pastoral oversight? It is not patronising to relate to a Pastor. It is Biblical. Why this aversion to the truth?

    You seem to claim that each person is completely immune to being deceived, and yet the scriptural accounts in both the Old and New Testaments refute this notion. God places gifts in the Body exactly to assist with avoiding deception. How many sheep actually know how to detect a wolf in their midst? Wolves tend to arrive in sheep’s clothing. They are not always detected by sheep. That is a act. They create havoc n a flock if they are not dealt with. Who does paul warn to beware of them? The sheep? Or the shepherds? The grace on a pastor is given to see them and deal with them. Would you honestly expect a sheep to tackle a wolf? Or a shepherd with his rod and staff?

    Why does the shepherd leave the 99 to find the lost one? Because he has, first of all, the 99 safely tucked up in the sheepfold. Then he is equipped to locate and retrieve the lost one. Who does Jesus send to retrieve the lost sheep? Another sheep? Or a shepherd?

    I know churchman makes the claim that it is the pastors who deceive, but I think that, while there may be some who are out of order, the general truth is that most pastors indeed protect their flocks well. te other claim is that megachurch leaders are particularly deceptive, but this isn’t borne out by fact. Most have megachurches because their protective systems are so well constructed, and they have created a very safe environment of nurture and care which draws sheep, not repel them.

  51. By the way, the hypothetical you gave was of a hireling, not a pastor. No genuine pastor would do this to his flock.

  52. FL: “It is no stigma to being considered a sheep, nor to be cared for by a shepherd. If there are false shepherds, then we need to run, yes, but there are more good shepherds than bad, and more good flocks that evil, and more caring folds than uncaring.”

    In talking to C3 students, I obtained a list of various subjects they study. The list of compulsary readings is hilarious.

    I was also given a list of the most important books for college students (which can only be taken out for three days or else your fined) from the library. I was shocked to know they had one.

    One of these books that is considered an important read is called ‘Your Pastor, Your Shepherd – Understanding the Balanced, Biblical Role of the Local Pastor‘ by James Lee Beall. I will be obtaining a photocopy of these materials soon.

    What I was told was Chapter 20 is entitled ‘The Joy of Sheep-sheering Time‘.

    The opening line of this chapter is this:
    Sheep provide several forms of wealth.

    Upcoming C3 ministers are asked to read this to fleece the sheep from C3! This is C3 endorsed material from the church and colleges!

    Run Facelift! RUN!!!

  53. You are a master FL.

    So now we are forced to decide who is a genuine pastor and who is not a genuine pastor.

    The one who isn’t gets the bullet and the one who gets to show strong leadership.

    You are a master, and in a league of your own.

    When teflon was invented it was given the wrong name, although the central letters are fl.

    That was a sign if there ever was one surely.

    My hero Sir Humphrey now has a new rival.

    I doffs my cap to you gov.

    I have met no other as good as thee.

    Hail the great and unparalleled FL.

  54. S&P stop it! You’re cracking me up. That’s too much for me at this time of night.

    HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH….ha….

    It’ startinn all over again. Stoopp it!!

  55. I stick by this. And acknowledge that God has provided the gift of shepherds amongst us – wherever and however we gather.

    Psalm 23

    A psalm of David.

    1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
    2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
    he leads me beside quiet waters,

    3 he restores my soul.
    He guides me in paths of righteousness
    for his name’s sake.

    4 Even though I walk
    through the valley of the shadow of death, [a]
    I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.

    5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
    You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.

    6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
    and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
    forever.

    The Lord is my Shepherd. I do not want. I am blessed to be in His house, wherever I am, wherever I walk, whatever it looks like to others. Thank you Lord.

    Amen.

  56. Actually. I think I’ll buy C3’s books over the web. That can be my ‘tithe’ to C3 Facelift.

    Some of Phil Pringle’s material is priceless. I think Paul describes this type of person quite well:

    1 Timothy 4:2
    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

    You will be shocked what this C3 ‘Shepherd’ teaches in his books and sermons Facelift. After browsing one of his books online on Amazon, I realised he argues and sounds quite like you.

  57. FL: “Where did I say there wasn’t a mutual submission in the Body.”

    MN: in relation to leadership where have you ever acknowledged there is?

    FL: What role, then, do the grace ministries of apostle, prophet, evangelist pastor ad teacher have in the Body? Or are you like many evangelicals who say these grace ministries ended with the coming of the cannon of scripture, so we no longer require them?’

    MN: I’ve never commented about the five fold ministry one way or the other, and I have said before I don’t go along with the cessationist view.

    What the hell is a grace ministry? More Christian jargon I guess.

    FL: “Who determines, in a consensus run church, the direction of the church? Wasn’t Jesus critical of the leaders who refused to enter in first, thus preventing the flock form entering in? He called this a woe! He called it a the key to knowledge for leaders to enter first so that the flocks could enter.”

    MN: I never mentioned consensus – that is your word. Which passage of scripture are you referring to because I couldn’t find it.

    As for the rest you are just confusing the issue as usual. And as far as I am concerned you are very much patronising on this issue. You have been totally trivalised the congregational model of doing things, as evidenced by the belittling nature of your question:

    Is it complete subservience to the leadership of the church board?

    to contrast that with

    Or is it as the servant to all in the local church. ensuring that everyone enters the kingdom, is nurtured in the kingdom, and is led and directed towards salvation, and eternal life? etc etc

    You have pitted these things against each other to the effect that if a pastor routinely and as part of the governance of the church brings major issues and decisions about the general life of the church to the church and says “do you think God is in this?”

    as though it is weakness, against the tenets of your five fold ministry, and lapsed into secular democracy where it is not possible for the Holy Spirit to speak through His Church.

    You then make this statement followed by a question: It is not patronising to relate to a Pastor. It is Biblical. Why this aversion to the truth?

    Where did I say it was patronising to relate to a pastor? What alternative universe do you occupy? How can I have an aversion to the truth of something I didn’t say??

    Followed by this distortion: You seem to claim that each person is completely immune to being deceived…..

    Just where did I say this?

    What I said was, as you would expect that you would expect the people of God – those in relationship with Jesus – who have the Spirit indwelling them – would hear from Him in matters relating to the conduct of their church (not the pastor’s church).

    Why would not pastor’s of a healthy church be open to that. Yes we are all sheep including the pastors and we all screw up and get mislead.

    Why are you so tight fisted about this? I see it as a huge lack of trust in the God who you serve.

    You don’t trust that God can speak through church, or you unable to conceive of what I am talking about – forget the voting, consensus and earthly mechanisms.

    You just don’t trust God can do this.

    Then you go onto talk about wolves, while having made an art form of defending the indefensible.

    Enough. Enough time has been wasted.

    Good luck with it FL. You have cut yourself off from a very precious and valuable to achieve and experience unity in the Spirit, to work with God.

    It is not the only way, and we all stuff up, and things go awry from time to time, and it is bloody hard work. But we’re aiming for the best not the worst.

  58. I’ll take it then that the general consensus here is that Pastors are pointless! What must God have been thinking of?

    I guess there’s no point in continuing in favour of pastors with you guys, eh! So we’ll move on I guess!

    We don’t need them, apparently, Jesus! What would you say to this, I wonder?

    And it’s all about fleecing the flock now! Oh wicked Pastors all!

    All jesting aside, though, it’s an interesting thing, when you think seriously about wool, in fact, what a precious commodity it has been to the Antipodes over the years, and how we have prospered as a result.

    It’s known amongst shepherds that if you do not sheer the sheep, chances are it will suffer, although some breeds do not require shearing. Shearing usually takes place just before lambing, which is also an important time for sheep, of course.

    It has been said that Australia, at various times, grew off the backs of sheep. Wool is one of the most important industries to Australia and New Zealand still, with the Merino one of the best breeds for shearing. I knew some precious Merino farmers in the Mid-West of WA a few years back, who helped us in our early walk with God. Wonderful Christian brothers, who would thoroughly disagree with your assessment of shepherds, knowing the land, and its benefits, hardships and challenges.

    So shearing, for the national interest is important to our prosperity and well-being. There is a vast difference between fleecing and producing wool, although it all makes for a good yarn, I suppose!

  59. MN, ‘What the hell is a grace ministry? More Christian jargon I guess.’

    I’m very sorry to appal you with strange language. It seems I can’t get anything right for you, mn.

    The five-fold is gifted, or graced, from Christ, and is ministry, or service to the Body.

    Paul talked often about the grace in which he stood, and that his ministry was by grace.

    Ephesians 4
    8 Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave GIFTS to men.”
    9 (Now this, “He ascended” –what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
    10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
    11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
    12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
    13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
    14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
    15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head–Christ–
    16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

    Ephesians 3
    8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this GRACE was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
    9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
    10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,
    11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,
    12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.

    All we have in Christ comes through grace, and is freely given to freely be given in ministry to all.

    Anyway. I love Pastors. I think they do a tremendous job, and serve tirelessly in the Body, and it would be nice occasionally for people here to encourage them rather than pull them down.

    Thank you Jesus for your precious gifts to the Body!

  60. FROM THE OTHER THREAD, MR CHIRPY SAID:

    ‘The whole point is obvious however I will spell it out anyway. It is not the hand signs in and of themselves which mark Phil Pringle as a Satanist. It is all of the false teaching that Pringle spews out which is designed to get as much money as possible from the church members IN CONJUNCTION with his Satanic hand signs which marks Phil Pringle as a Satanist.

    The whole point is that Phil Pringle is already teaching unbiblical things. His Satanic hand signs show why he is teaching unbiblical things. It’s because he is a Satanist.

    What do you want as proof? For God to write it in the sky? It’s there in front of your own eyes.

    Why do you think that the slogan for Oxford Falls Grammar School which Pringle founded is “For greatness, for excellence, for Christ”. It’s because, in Pringle’s book, Jesus Christ comes last. To Pringle, Jesus Christ is the platform under his feet that he uses to make money. He is a Satanist.’

    To which I reply:

    Chirpy all you have done is say that you will now give other proof, then say, the proof you’ve already given is adequate, and why doesn’t everyone wake up to it, then give some silly argument about a slogan!

    We have already dismissed your photo evidence as insufficient. What people are waiting for is spoken evidence backed up by the Word which shows him to be satanic.

    You are not alone in this. I am still waiting for s&p to come up with similar evidence for his claim that C3 is a gnostic cult.

    Perhaps you can pool your resources and come up with some concrete Biblical proof!

  61. Pastors are pointless Facelift, UNLESS they are doing their job, which is to defend the flock. Many so-called pastors don’t know this is their job, so disqualify themselves of this role.

    Houston and Pringle would disqualify themselves because they do not play this role for the church. The people that do defend the church from wolves and thieves deserve the title as ‘Pastor’ – these people have a point int the body of Christ.

  62. Facelift, which part of ‘gnostic cult’ do you disagree with the most?

    The ‘gnostic’ part or the ‘cult’ part?

  63. I don’t remember giving you the option of splitting the phrase, s&p, which was entirely yours. I am asking you demonstrate your claim that C3 is a gnostic cult.

    If that is all you think Pastors do, then I despair for you.

    How would you have a clue which wolves these ‘many’ pastors have dealt with?

  64. Are you wanting to retract the ‘gnostic’ claim and focus on a separate ‘cult’ claim, s&p?

  65. FL: “Are you wanting to retract the ‘gnostic’ claim and focus on a separate ‘cult’ claim, s&p?”

    No. Victim’s still stand by their allegations.
    And so will I.

  66. Chirpy: “The whole point is obvious however I will spell it out anyway. It is not the hand signs in and of themselves which mark Phil Pringle as a Satanist. It is all of the false teaching that Pringle spews out which is designed to get as much money as possible from the church members IN CONJUNCTION with his Satanic hand signs which marks Phil Pringle as a Satanist.”

    MN: Firstly there is no evidence that someone who makes the horns sign is by definition a Satanist. It is the same thing as saying that everyone who makes the sign of the cross is a good catholic.

    Both are unsupported assumptions.

    Second, who cares if he is? The point that Jesus made was:

    “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

    In the greater scheme of things there are the major is whether a person’s name is in the Book of Life on that day or not. And satanist or not, if your name is not is, what’s the difference?

    Most would agree with you that preaching/teaching with a major focus on money is wrong, dangerous and exploitative. If you have been watching this site for a while you will the majority disagree with the tithe robbers as you call them, the use of modern managements techniques and 10 steps to whatever as a substitute and intermediate path to please God whether before or after salvation. Most of us agree with you there. But say bad teaching plus horn sign = satanist.
    Without additional real evidence – not crappy unsupported assertions you call evidence – you can’t sustain the argument. If you can’t sustain it, don’t make it. And don’t expect any fellow believers who have some grounding in the faith to support you either.

    It is quite possible to be a Christian do Satan’s work, hence Jesus in addressing Peter to “get behind thee Satan”.

    Also I don’t know whether PP’s name is in the book, as yours or mine. Not ours to know. Those who disagree with some of the things he teaches, and have sat under his ministry but walked away wouldn’t support your conclusion. Certainly I think we can judge actions as you have. But you don’t have any evidence to support it. The thing is though we have done things that will get burnt up in the last judgement – the dross gets destroyed and we are left with the bits that Christ is happy with. None of us are pure in this respect. So unless you have something that is real, why don’t you leave to God what is His to do?

    The other thing is if PP is a Satanist he’s not been very smart about it. I’ve no doubt that there probably are satanists masquerading as believers somewhere. But I bet they would do a much better job of covering it up and not get cocky about it. It just stack up.

    Lastly my belief is that Satan gets more credit than He deserves – greater is He within us than he that is in the world. His influence is clearly strong, but the real question is why does he have to do anything at all when men and women are quite capable of screwing up on a cosmic scale without any assistance? Satan probably just sits back and laughs half the time. Since he knows his time is coming it is probably the only fun gets.

    Chirpy: What do you want as proof? For God to write it in the sky? It’s there in front of your own eyes.

    MN: As discussed – no its not, and you need to be a hell of lot more careful about throwing baseless accusations around the place, especially if as you are a Christian, so PP may also be etc

    Chirpy: Why do you think that the slogan for Oxford Falls Grammar School which Pringle founded is “For greatness, for excellence, for Christ”. It’s because, in Pringle’s book, Jesus Christ comes last. To Pringle, Jesus Christ is the platform under his feet that he uses to make money. He is a Satanist.

    MN: you think I’m kidding about your sort of accusation being the same as those levelled by believers that saw tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. Well I’m not. As far as I’m concerned it is the same which resulted in the murder of thousands of people by others with good, band and uninformed intentions.

    My wife has a birth mark which would have seen her burnt at the stake as witch in the middle ages because some dickwit priests wrote the definitive book on how identify witches and warlocks. So do yourself a favor and grow up. Because yours is the same attitude. Lose it.

    As for going round and round over PP with FL?

    Yeah well. PP is in another state, but regardless I would never darken his door. My argument with FL is about anyone in the church who:

    a) assume a role of authority that puts them outside that of their own church, because only they can know what the Lord wishes for that church; and

    b) as a direct function of that not avail themselves of the opportunity for the whole church to test the spirits, and/or give an amen.

    May be I don’t express it very well, but FL won’t hear of giving up that control.

    FL an I will not agree over this – it is that simple.

    But despite that and the intense frustration I feel with this he is still a brother.

  67. I don’t know where you derive the control aspect, mn. That is your conclusion, not mine. I have never said this.

    It is God’s church. Jesus is building his church. It is neither dependent on any man, nor controlled by any man. I have never said anything you claim.

    Neither do I know where you derived the authority aspect. All authority has been given to Jesus. No man has ultimate authority over a church. Men are expendable. It is Jesus who runs the church.

    Again you imply that congregation members are dependent on pastors for guidance. Again I refute this idea. They are responsible for their own lives under God. They need to be led of the Spirit, and in he Word. It is not the pastor’s responsibility to run their lives for them.

    However there is oversight and eldership. There is pastoral work, whereby pastors are accountable before God for the flocks.

    This will always go round in circles as long as you refuse to understand this.

    You have not yet given your understanding of the function of the five-fold ministry.

  68. FL I know you don’t get it.

    One of the great problems with Christianity across the board is men and women wanting to take control over things they have no business in doing so.

    This is one of the central themes of the fall and nothing has changed. As a consequence it becomes an issue that anyone who is in authority needs to watch, hence mutual submission which is two way not top down.

    Again I know you don’t get it, and I can’t be bothered arguing with you about it. It is not in your DNA.

    As for your comment about eldership, overseers and their accountability towards God. Knock yourself out finding where I have said that there isn’t such accountability. You won’t find it.

    I can’t refuse to understand something that I already understand.

    As for my understanding of the five fold ministry. This is a pente thing and not a huge focus in my neck of the woods. Yes we know about Eph 4 and all the rest of it, and there are people with apostolic ministries etc. As far as I am concerned people just get on with it.

    Perhaps you should explain what you see as its significance.

  69. I probably meant down top.

    Never mind….that is a good descriptor of my state of mind at the moment….

  70. FL: “Jesus is building his church.”

    That’s not true Facelift. C3 is building the church for Jesus.

    This is how the common brainwashed C3ite argues:

    C3ite: “God builds the church, not us. Jesus is completely in control. He is love. And His love is in us because God is in us. He wants us involved! He wants us to take responsibility. The labourers are few! We need to be carriers of His Spirit! We need to love Sydney!

    We need leaders to rise up and inspire this generation!

    We need to build His church! We need to get in line with the vision! We need to get in line with our leadership to do the will of God! As a movement we are building his church! We are unstoppable! We are making a difference for God. His faith is in us to bring light into dark places.”

    Commentator: “BUT YOUR CONTROLLING!”

    C3ite: “How can we? God builds the church, not us.”

  71. Is that quote a genuine C3 quote, s&p, or did you make it up? It’s hard to tell with you these days. If it is a quote can attribute it to someone in particular? Who is the commenter?

    I would like to establish a few things with you, s&p.

    1) You are holding on to the accusation that C3 is a gnostic cult. You have stated this at least three times now. I have yet to see your evidence of gnosticism, but it’s clear you are still levelling the accusation.

    2) Wasn’t it you who claimed that Chris Pringle was a witch or engaged in witchcraft or sorcery? I could be wrong about your involvement, but I can recall a discussion about this some time ago. Did you ever, or do you still claim that Chris Pringle is engaged in witchcraft or sorcery?

    3) On the other thread, you said to Chirpy, ‘I really like you on Signposts02. You really make it different and add a fresh air to the place’. Does this mean you support his accusation that PP is a Satanist? You seem to have championed his claims. Do you say that PP is a Satanist?

  72. mn,
    Would you say that when Paul, for instance, wrote to the Corinthians about getting the church to operate decently and in order he was controlling the church, or was he bringing order to the church through the grace of the apostolic gift of leadership?

    Are you saying he did not have the credentials or the authority to do so?

    Are you saying that he should have allowed the congregation at Corinth to deal with its own affairs, and not have interfered?

    Paul’s letters to Timothy are clearly giving guidelines for how to oversee the local church at Ephesus. Was Paul wrong to entrust this level of leadership to a single person, or should he have addressed the letter to the congregation at Ephesus rather than the appointed leader at Ephesus?

  73. Just to change the subject slightly…one of my favourite psalms (6):

    O LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your wrath.
    Be merciful to me, LORD, for I am faint; O LORD, heal me, for my bones are in agony.
    My soul is in anguish. How long, O LORD, how long?
    Turn, O LORD, and deliver me; save me because of your unfailing love.
    No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave?
    I am worn out from groaning; all night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears.
    My eyes grow weak with sorrow; they fail because of all my foes.
    Away from me, all you who do evil, for the LORD has heard my weeping.
    The LORD has heard my cry for mercy; the LORD accepts my prayer.
    All my enemies will be ashamed and dismayed; they will turn back in sudden disgrace.

  74. What is tiresome, mn, is that s&p is actively engaged in sowing discord in a local church which he publicly pillories, and in which he remains a congregant.

    Every other regular here as made it clear they do not support the notion of C3 being a gnostic cult, of Chris Pringle being engaged in witchcraft or sorcery, or Phil Pringle being an active or secret Satanist.

    These three are extremely serious accusations. They are also defamatory if not proven true. Not that I think C3 will do anything about it legally. Nor should they.

    But it is extremely tiresome to continue with an accusation without bringing proof.
    •••••••••••••••••••••

    If anyone here were to bring the accusation that C3 or Hillsong have cultish tendencies because of an overemphasis on finances and an incorrect understanding of legalistic tithing, I would actually say that this could be argued, depending on the perspective of the person bringing the charge.

    But to date, there is no evidence of gnosticism, no evidence of witchcraft or sorcery by the leadership, and no evidence of satanic practices by the leadership.

    I am seeking to clarify the position of the main contributor to the blog.

  75. It’s the fruit described throughout this website which has been written about at length. As if I am going to spend time re-describing it to you. And if you care to sit down and listen to Phil Pringle preach, you will find that he regularly contradicts himself or contradicts the Bible and then dismisses it as a joke by making a joke about it. This is just Pringle’s way of covering his tracks when he shows his true colours. Unfortunately, the church members are more responsive to humour than they are interested in comparing Pringle’s preaching to the Bible.

  76. A couple of regular contributors here, other than I, have asked for more precise evidence of satanic practices, Chirpy, which indicates than no one here has accused C3 of satanic fruit either in the present or in the past. Only you have done this.

    What is the evidence of satanic fruit?

  77. I am out of this. Don’t want to talk about it anymore.

    Will have a look at Specks humanist contribution this weekend.

    Cheers

  78. I’ll disengage also, and, in the absence of any evidence, call all three accusations mute.

  79. Actually, I don’t think C3 is a cult, to be clear. In my opinion, it does pressure people to give money and whatever else it takes to support the main vision, but it does not go to the extremes that something I would describe as a cult would do. I think in some areas, there are cult-like tendencies, or teachings that can be used to go in that direction. But really, although there are pressures introduced by various emphasis and doctrine, it is not controlling of every aspect of people’s lives, the way a cult frequently is, and I don’t think its leader, Phil Pringle, would actually want to have that amount of control. Basically, people have freedom, but know that if they want to get anywhere in the church organisation, or prosper in the rest of their lives, they need to give their time and money in sacrificial ways, and be positive about everything, including a bit of speaking scripture over things, etc. The expectations of people become higher if the people are in leadership or on staff. But still, while it might not be pleasant, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a cult. To me, a cult is something very controlling, which robs its members of freedom of choice (by more than just manipulative preaching – usually there is a rigid social order imposed), and wrong doctrines or pressure alone, don’t make a cult.

  80. FL: “What is tiresome, mn, is that s&p is actively engaged in sowing discord in a local church which he publicly pillories, and in which he remains a congregant.”

    These churches wouldn’t be tiresome if they weren’t draining the time, money and energy of students, families and widows (and even kids).

    My claims are strong. Unfortunately, because I have been involved with victims and the victimised of this movement, their symptoms and testimonies are my proof. So I will make those claims. The proof has been somewhat displayed already by the their inability to help those that have been hurt by them, the doctrines that they preach, the things that have been said and things practiced by what has been put up on Signposts02 and Groupsects in the past.

    The biggest witness is my own personal experience for the last few decades.

    I would never have considered C3 to be a gnostic cult. In fact, it would have been the last thing I would have liked to consider. A gnostic cult will never say ‘We are a gnostic cult’. It will always be subtle. C3’s teachings, not only in it’s church services but colleges as well, have demonstrated these attributes terribly.

    I am sad for C3, but I will in no way take my claim back. It’s pretty hard too when members start emailing you youtube videos how cults and brainwashing techniques work with comments like ‘Oh my! This is what happened to me!’.

    It’s also pretty hard for me to take comments back when I get personal emails every now and then from persons who have left the C3 movement, thanking me and others for highlighting these errors to them. It’s also hard when people cry in front of you or have young people describe their experience as being ‘spiritually raped’. Some there feel completely violated and exploited when they finally wake up with what’s happening their. Is that me really sowing discord or is that me actually being there for people who really need help?

    You don’t hear the number of bad sermons that continually reinforce erroneous doctrines every Sunday. People are being encouraged, suggested too and prayed over under false pretenses that what they receive is truth (Dave Sumrall style). The error is more exalted and taught then the gospel. This is tragic. All teachings are leading to Phil and his movement.

    What cult EVER forces it’s members? The powers of hypnotic suggestion, fear, contradiction, confusion, hype, crowd control techniques, flattery, guilt and enticement is enough for anyone to lose themselves to a movement that wants their time, money and energy.

    My concern is more greater with C3 than Hillsong. The only person Phil Pringle says he is accountable to is Yonggi Cho. To his congregation- no one. I would prefer the media do a massive investigation in the way C3 is run then Hillsong. They have always been more extreme on their approaches than Hillsong.

    The fact he also preaches ‘prosperity’ is also hypcotritical since he also deals with personal depression. This makes me sad for him. You’d think if he’s got some issues, he might not preach the prosperity gospel as much.

    Most leaders and college students know of this, which surprises me. I thought they’d question a few of his teachings with this in mind.

    So I do not honestly think you can accuse me of causing discord when these false doctrines, crowd techniques and hypocrisies are breeding the discord in believers lives and then destroying them. It’s not just me that help those with this church problem. Other members of C3 faithfully expose this ‘discord’, Facelift. I will make these claims of C3 Facelift, since it’s OWN MEMBERS publically make this claim.

    I met another person who labelled C3OF a cult last week when they saw me in the street. They pulled up beside me and told me they left. They already believed that C3 was a cult (to which I did not know of) and was present there for a number of years also sharing their concern with the friends their too.

    But of course, you’ve dismissed others people’s personal testimonies on signposts in the past who have come out from C3 in the past. We’ve had few, but still you have not heeded their reasons but assume they are worse off because they were simply bitter.

    To see and read so much on Signposts02 about the negative influence C3 has had on many of it’s members, and to then JOIN the C3 movement Facelift is just (as I’ve said already) BLIND.

    To say I’m sowing discord in C3 is to condemn even some significant members in the congregation who also believe this to be the case as well. To others, it has crossed their mind on rather odd occasions.

    I’m over your mind games Facelift. You’ve affected so many people on here.
    There shall be more evidence to come.

  81. I am just reading your email back now. I honestly did not see it.

    I haven’t actually revealed anything new that others haven’t said already. When they did, that irked me. But when you didn’t batter an eyelid and others didn’t either, I thought most people figured out who you were anyways.

    I think we all figured out individually in different ways who you were. I did. I knew who you were two years ago. I didn’t have to tell anyone. Others hinted on SP02 that they already figured you out.

    Therefore my response above, which I am rereading as well, does not appear to be out of line at all. It’s already common knowledge, which is why the personal email to begin with.

    I am concerned that the name drop will be the end – which I am dreading to see happen if it ever does. But most of us know about you, as was felt with a few articles on C3 recently, where we wanted to hear your reply on issues that made us wonder how on earth you can defend the things said while attached to them. (Is this the right assumption?)

    I think I am right to assume that Wazza, RP, Teddy and myself are concerned for you and your church.

  82. Maybe this personal conversation should be deleted from this thread. It’s not in anyone’s interest.

  83. Agree with RP.

    Without knowing being that close it does confirm long held suspicions though.

    Keep your ID FL – knowledge of it is not necessary

  84. Been a while on this thread so I forgot what I had written, and realized I never got back to you Faithlift. (that is if you are still here – this has become rather heavy hasn’t it).

    FL, I don’t think all Pastors deceive. Most of my friends are Pastors or in ministry of some sort. I think the role of Pastor is a beautiful one. Really I do. We need more good ones. I also have a lot of affection for Pastor’s wives. They are under a lot of pressure. I’m sorry if I have given the impression that ALL pastors in the world are deliberately deceiving sheep. If I gave that impression it’s obvious that I have to watch my words.

    And I don’t think you are a dictator – but one of your quotes sounded like one!

    Unlike others I have know idea who you are. If you are a Pastor yourself, I wish you well. I hope my comments haven’t distracted you from the work that God has called you to.

    Once again – I think the world needs more genuine Pastors.
    (I also think there are many people who are pastors or doing great pastoral work who don’t have an official title or salary, and I also think there are people called Pastor who don’t fit the job description.

    For what it’s worth, in spite of some of the sparring and heavy words I use, I prayed for you the other day. Not much more than “Lord bless Faithlift!” though … I’m new to this place so I may not know all of the dynamics here. I need to remind myself sometimes that there are real people with real jobs and real families behind the comments. Sorry if I got too rough.

    Peace bro.

  85. A re-edited post for Facelift:

    I talked to another ex-C3 leader just the other day. They float around C3 quite a bit. I posed the question to them of C3 being a gnostic cult.

    They were not happy to say yes. But they said they were indeed a gnostic cult. They are aware of the gnostic influences in the teachings their and how this does bind and blind people their. You’ll probably dismiss this ex-leaders words too since I go to C3 and talk to people one-on-one and you don’t.

    I actually wonder now how many people in his own ministry are actually going to hell because they’ve swallowed another gospel. I’m seeing people defend the name of C3 or Hillsong more then the name of Jesus. Too many look as though they will lay their life down to serve these institutes then rather then lay their life down for Christ. If not that, they will rather be slaves to these leaders rather Christ alone…

    People are being Baptised, Bastardised and Branded in this Christian City Cult run by the Pope Phil Pringle. His gnostic faith keeps him on top and people enslaved to his ‘godly’ vision.

    If you really knew the gospel Facelift, you would have nothing to do with Pope Phil Pringle’s cult. Sit down. Look at the bible. Focus on the gospel and return to your first love. You will see that Phil Pringle is not preaching the Jesus of the bible and is twisting and exchanging truth for a lie. (I now have proof of this!)

    You are probably furious at me for saying this. So let me ask you to do something before you start accusing me on things:

    1. Please ring up C3 Oxford Falls and please call them to post you footage of the C3 Presence Conference 2010 where Gordon Moore is preaching on the blasphemous ‘Miracle Offering’.

    That is evidence I can’t get my hands on but you can.

    2. Please also ask them to give you footage of Steve Munsey at the Presence Conference in 2009, and Phil Pringle talking on tithing the following weeks.

    That is also evidence I can’t get my hands on but you can.

    3. Please also ask them to give you footage on Phil Pringle giving a tithe talk this year when Kong Hee was speaking on a Sunday night around the ‘Presence 2010 Conference’.

    That is also evidence I can’t get my hands on but you can.

    If you truly love truth and love, and really want to be responsible to the flock God has given you, I beg you to get this evidence. It should be enough.

  86. This ‘personal information’ you said I leaked, Wazza and Teddy and others have already said on this thread and other articles, even on Groupsects. So you’re accusation against me leaking personal stuff is wrong. It’s been common knowledge for a few months now. Maybe even a year.

    When it has mentioned again this time, I was surprised you did not batter an eyelid. That was about the time I sent an email to you. I am not in control of another person, so I cannot know what they will do with your personal information, which is my concern.

    And you did threaten me. And I want people to know tihs because you have threatened people before. This is the third threat you’ve made on Signposts02.

    And these conversations were made personal when I started my accuations on C3 where you attacked me on my involvement there. This gave birth to our colourful exchange.

    It got personal because we were both right in our own eyes. I had to keep reminding you why I was there at C3. If I was to make claims, you’d be saying, “Where’s your evidence?”.

    When I started talking to people and helping people, your accusations started again of me being divisive and mole-like and you just insisted I get out. Only me. Not other leaders, connect group leaders, youth leaders, college students, musicians, etc that I’ve mentioned who also are aware of what’s going on in helping people get out of C3 or to fight unbiblical doctrines such as the tithe, house of God doctrines, etc.

    I’m the only mole in your eyes.

    So you wanted me to give evidence but get out of the place that can give evidence to my claims. Finally I got word of Dave Sumrall talking and had OTHERS from C3 emailing me information about dodgy things preached. I put them up – you go silent.

    I find your silence says too much about your character in how you respond to certain types of ‘evidence’.

    This is what is getting me angry. And while this may seem to getting personal again, I’m finding Facelift’s history fits Lances description of him: he plays mind games.

    Wazza and Teddy said:

    Wazza: “FL as a CCC Pastor, do you check records of parishioner’s giving in order to gauge their level of “passionate spirituality”, or to find out why some things may be going wrong in their lives?”

    “Faithlift? you there?”

    “FL as a CCC Pastor, do you check records of parisioner’s giving in order to gauge their level of “passionate spirituality”, or to find out why some things may be going wrong in their lives?”

    Teddy: “@ FL – As you were already pastoring a church, why did you align your congregation with the C3 movement?”

    “I’m asking not to have a go at you, just interested. Did the congregation have the opportunity to “cast a vote”?”

    “Has this added anything to the ongoing spiritual maturity of your church?”

    I have noted your thought out response: “I have been accused of making things ‘about FL’. The form of questioning aimed at me here by wazza2, RP & teddy, makes it difficult to avoid it being ‘about me’, and should be noted.”

    That wasn’t accusation FL. That’s a fact. While on this thread, we have no trouble having this topic evolve around you as Wazza said:

    “On the “gnostic” thread, FL asked me whether I supported the claims that S&P was making. Why shouldn’t I now ask FL whether he supports the claims and teachings of PP?

    Also as RP points out, FL has been a staunch advocate and defender of the C3 way. Yet on this and the Sumrall thread he is silent. On other threads he has demanded proof, or a retraction of the claims. Why can we not ask him to answer now for something that his leaders have clearly said? You cannot be an attack dog on the issues you pick, and then cry “personal” when asked about other issues.”

  87. For the record, my questions to FL were truly sincere.
    As a formerly very zealous C3 member, I understand FL’s position. I admire that commitment and trust in the movement – at least it’s sincere, we see it in family members attending.

    It’s lacking that committment and trust in the preaching of the GOSPEL as represented by C3 that caused us to leave.

    And FL has said he didn’t 100% agree with Sumrall, didn’t he? – though a more indepth critique would be appreciated.

  88. I’m sure they were Teddy. I’m pretty sure Wazza and RP’s was as well. I was genuinely keen to hear from Facelift too.

  89. Its best when working through difficult issues to be upfront and open about where you are from and what allegiances you have.

    Otherwise its like exchanging fire with a sniper who appears from behind a rock and then disappears again.

    Then goes AWOL for a week because he cant defend his position

    Then comes back and lobs a few hand-grenades into the middle of the camp.

  90. Wazza2, does this mean you will be holding to these standards also, because that comment would fit you well in regard to some issues you address.

    Why does anyone have to declare where they are from, or their allegiances?

    Mostly we would get an idea from conversations as we go along, but, for instance, I do not have a clue where you are from, or what your allegiances are, and I do not need to know. I do not know where you are, or which church you attend, which denomination you are part of, what position you hold in your church, if indeed you attend one, and have never asked, nor do I need to know.

    I am talking to you about things in the Body, not your church, nor your denomination.

    Neither do I have a clue about mn, which church he attends, which denomination he is part of, if any, what his background, foreground or middle ground is. He has said he has been a worship leader and treasurer at some time. He volunteered that information. I make nothing of it, nor do I need to, nor is it relevant to any conversation we might have. I address the person, not the persuasion.

    I know teddy is attending an Anglican church in Sydney, but not what kind. I know she is a Reformed theology believer. I respect that. There is everything from liberal to conservative, high church to low church, anti-gay/pro-gay, etc., in the Anglican communion, and I don’t know the specific church she attends, although I guess it is aligned with the Jensen/Moore College/Non-charismatic Evangelical ideology, which think is great, but what is it to me where she goes, or what her background is, or position, or influence?

    I address her as a commenter, not a representative of the Sydney Anglicans.

    I have never asked to state the position of Sydney Anglicans in regard to an issue. It may be relevant or her to have an opinion either for or against, but that is her opinion, not the prevailing sentiments of the Sydney Anglicans.

    I do not know which church Bull attends, or which denomination his church might be part of, if any, or his position in his church, and nor have I ever asked him, or need to know. I treat him at face value according to what he says. I am talking to Bull, not Bull’s church, or pastor, or denomination.

    I don not know churchman’s or Chirpy’s affiliations, position or background. I do not want to or need to.

    And I could say the same of everyone.

    The possible exception would be s&p, who has made a very loud noise about where he goes, and what his involvement is, and what he is doing about it. He volunteered this information. I did not ask for it, or demand it.

    I have advised him to go elsewhere, but mainly because it cannot do anyone any good to be that upset about the congregation they are part of, nor can it be anything but disruptive for the people he is connected to in that congregation. He doesn’t want to listen to that advice, and that is his prerogative. I mean no harm.

    You are expecting too much of people, frankly, and have persistently taken the line that a person has to declare their interests if they have a contrary or dissenting view to your own, but you can remain anonymous and faceless because your perspective is similar or in agreement with the consensus.

  91. “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. – Oscar Wilde

  92. A wonderful observation by Oscar Wilde, above. Interesting when applied to blogging. True of many of us. In a sense, for FL to disclose too much about himself might prevent him from telling the truth when he blogs. Many of us can speak more openly due to our anonymity. Most of us wouldn’t regard denomination and position as a threat to our anonymity though, unless it was somehow combined with our specific location. I think position and type of denomination are relevant to some of our conversations, and that’s why I’ve disclosed my own denominational background, but not my specific church, so as not to inadvertently drag anyone else in. I do think that if we have an vested interest in a topic – eg: our level of leadership with respect to our commenting on leadership roles, it is useful to disclose this. Nonetheless, if it is dangerous to, for some reason, then best not. I think disclosing something broad but not enough to identify, is OK.

    By the way, FL, I have been asked if you are my ex-pastor! I know you are not. But that’s the kind of guess I’ve had asked every so often.

  93. S&P,
    All you have done is remove the original comments, including my response, and put up an almost identical set of comments to your original attack.

    Now my response is gone, and your attack remains, only you have put it up in duplicate.

    Whatever our affiliations might be, and I have never declared them here, our church is run autonomously, as I have said many times, and is not told how to conduct its affairs, what ‘party line’ to toe, what doctrinal stance to follow, or any other such thing.

    In regards to declaring my interests, I have said, many times, that I attend a Pentecostal church, and I am in an eldership position. I also travel to missions areas. What more do you need to know?

    I HAVE NOT THREATENED ANYONE, EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What I said to s&p was that, it is obvious and logical to any sane thinker that, if I declared that I was in a senior position in a denomination he was bagging in a serious and public way, to a point of calling it a cult, and it’s leaders gnostics, and engaged in disrupting one of the churches, it would be expedient for me to pass this information on to someone in that church. If he forces me to be specific about who I am or what I do, then he places me in a compromise position if I am silent. He challenges my loyalties to either him, or to the leadership of the group he attacks. I am asking him to be wise about what he expects of me.

    That is not a threat. That is a fact. I am asking for people to be sensitive about my position, and let me comment in peace.

    If I comment as a non-aligned individual, I am able to address the issues in a one-on-one way with another commenter who also uses a pseudonym, and I am not compromised!

    Wisdom said, take down the offending conversation which formerly appeared above. I thank mn, RP and churchman for backing this, because I think they have understood. But, now the comments have been revived, and I am feeling compromised.

    And my name is FaithLift!!!!!!!

  94. RP, with respect, it was a person from this blog who revealed enough of my ID for people to know long ago who I might be. I never gave that information. I was very careful about it, for stated reasons, which were not respected, sadly. Only three people know who I was, through email conversations. Yourself, S&P and Bull.

    I don’t give a rip who knows who I am or what I do. I am holding to a principle here, that is all.

    I have nothing to hide, nor am I ashamed of what I do or who I am.

  95. FL, I was just looking for an excuse to use that quote somewhere, and here I saw my chance!

    Anyway, I agree – all of this conversation should be removed, and no further personal remarks made. The blog never gets anywhere when these kinds of conversations continue.

  96. Also, I don’t know this for sure, but it sometimes sounds as though wazza might know who you are, and I have wondered if the two of you have some kind of history. But that’s not based on anything except my own speculation.

  97. No, dont know who he is (but I’m sure if I took the time to google, I could come out with a good guess)

    No history except the exchange on this blog and groupsects.

  98. I think your quote is excellent, by the way, RP.

    I also enjoyed teddy’s Ken Ham quote on the other thread, which was excellent. I’ll probably comment on it.

    I can concur that I do not know wazza2, nor do we have a history. I know nothing about anyone but what is discussed here. And I’m not looking, either. I am only interested in commenting.

    I said this a few comments ago about the local church I attend:

    ‘Whatever our affiliations might be, and I have never declared them here, our church is run autonomously, as I have said many times, and is not told how to conduct its affairs, what ‘party line’ to toe, what doctrinal stance to follow, or any other such thing.’

    I will add this: it is my educated guess that if any organisation we were affiliated with attempted to dictate to us what to do or how to do it we would immediately pull the pin. Our accountability lines do not include papal bullying. We have never been dictated to by any group we have ever been affiliated with or networked with. We have always had, and maintain, cordial relationships with those we are in covenant with.

    Our doctrinal stance is, as far as I can make out, allowing for human flaws, in line with the Bible rather than an organisation. Jesus is Lord of our church, not a man. The Bible determines our doctrine, not an organisation. It has always been so, and will remain so.

    We have many people and groups we relate to in an oversight and fellowship capacity, Pentecostal and Evangelical.

    That is all I really want to say on this, but I hope it gives people more confidence in our church to operate decently and in order than S&P makes out.

  99. Anonymity is often a good thing. I think there are a lot of people in ministry or in churches who would benefit from being able to talk with someone who doesn’t know their name, church or organization. Of course, the ideal is to be able to share everything with someone who knows you, but there are times when that seems too difficult.

    Great to hear you are an elder who goes on missions Faithlift.
    Elders often make more sense than Pastors. (sorry for Pastor bashing again!)

  100. btw, thanks Specks (&co?) for running this blog. Most interesting one I’ve come across so far.

    I think the reason why there is often so much friction and feeling here is because the issues are not just academic. On youtube, people rage and attack each other viciously over whether the Beach Boys or the Beatles were the greatest band, or whether Elvis or Tom Jones had the best rendition of a song – but in the end it doesn’t matter so much when they log off.

    Here people have come to their conclusions through major life upheavals. Changing your belief or practices can affect friends, family, careers, money in the bank, where you live etc in some cases. Changing a church or stream can be like a divorce. (For some people it may even be a factor in a divorce?)

    Faithlift, as for my background, I know you don’t care but here goes. I’ve been involved in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches for 30 years. And evangelic background from toddler days before that. That’s enough time for me to think that outsiders are too critical of pentecostals or are critical for the wrong reasons, but on the other hand to think pentecostals could do with a little more self-critiquing. I’ve also been involved on the inside of leadership so I’ve seen enough to know that Pastors tell their people to not be critical or gossip and to have unity, but when they get together they can be more critical and gossipy than anyone. I know that Pastors can privately think things about a guest speaker but not necessarily tell their people about it. I also can say that it’s often convenient for Pastors to have the “coverings” overseas – so far away that it doesn’t really mean much. And I’ve seen Pastors take their churches in and out of coverings when it suited them. And as I have said on other posts, not everyone who is supposedly blessed, touched, healed, delivered etc still feels the same the next week – or day, or even hour. So I don’t speak out of ignorance.

    But I love the church. I know so many super sincere God-loving Pastors, elders, elders wives, missionaries etc. And I know that a lot of them are hurting, and don’t have the freedom to let other people know how they feel. I also know a lot of “lay people”, who have more spirituality and love for God and their neighbor in their little fingers than some of the big name super spiritual people who I have had the experience of being disappointed with. Most Christians are just lacking in confidence – they doubt themselves, and overestimate others.

    Now I wouldn’t call myself a Pentecostal or Charismatic, or anything. Christian is fine, and I would like to think I am a disciple of some sorts. Hope this doesn’t get me kicked off of here, but I don’t even mind going to a Catholic church for a visit. (It’s also nice to have a church building open for silent prayer and not have wailing away on drums).

    Also, I’ve lived a lot overseas, so that also changes one’s perspective.

    Another thing – I’m weird enough to be happy to listen to or read Mark Driscoll, Billy Graham, John Piper, Internet Monk, Brian Houston, Phil Pringle, Yonngi Cho, Rick Warren, Clement of Rome, ..you get the picture. I say what I think is wrong or excessive in the church, but I also know myself well enough to know that most people have their stuff more together than I do or probably ever will at the rate I’m going.

    But keep up the good work everyone with this blog, articles and comments. And don’t be afraid to tell me to pull my head in if I go too far.

    I also don’t really like the handle churchman. Just couldn’t think of anything else at the time. Doesn’t really suit me, except that I love the Church (as in Ephesians).

    If anyone has read to the end of this, they deserve a medal. And if anyone who knows me reads this, they would no doubt know it’s me straight away.

  101. FL: “What I said to s&p was that, it is obvious and logical to any sane thinker that, if I declared that I was in a senior position in a denomination he was bagging in a serious and public way, to a point of calling it a cult, and it’s leaders gnostics, and engaged in disrupting one of the churches, it would be expedient for me to pass this information on to someone in that church. If he forces me to be specific about who I am or what I do, then he places me in a compromise position if I am silent.”

    Not sure I agree with this. But I don’t think it is a critical point if the ‘exposure’ issue is let rest either as individuals, or jointly. I can argue that quite happily if challenged, but consider it not worth the effort.

    The crux of this issue is both of you appear to passionately believe quite different things about C3, some of the teaching that given genuine prominence and priority there, and the impact that that teaching has on others.

    Ideally on a blog such as this we would be able to discuss different issues, and hopefully each get nearer the truth about what it means to be a Christ follower in this life, with our fellow followers, what good doctrine is etc.

    But there are two key issues here represented by FL in one corner and Specks in another corner:

    Issue 1: like it or lump it FL this blog was put together primarily for and by people who have come out of pentedom burned, what’s more burned badly, and who are committed to exposing the teaching and practices still practiced in those parts by a very searching light. This is the way it is. There are be occasions where things go overboard, but generally a of the criticism that is levelled is simply a consequence of things in the public domain. If it walks like a duck, mostly it is a duck. There are some issues where I think where some differences are genuinely arguable on both sides, but there are – at least my mind anyway many that aren’t and it is simply a case of the status quo being defended. Be that as it may.

    Issue 2: what I think is more problematic is this – most people are out of the church environs that this criticism is being levelled at – except Specks. For him this is not historical or theoretical – it is for real.

    I think in your mind FL this becomes problematic as you outlined above – I understand that.

    But where I think you are wrong – and there are different views that could be had here, but after thinking about it this is mine – if Specks genuinely believes that C3 is a gnostic cult and he walks away leaving people he loves there, what does that say about him, and the ‘love’ that he has for those people?

    If C3 is a gnostic cult what does Specks owe them? Nothing. If this is what he believes and he did what you suggest, what integrity would he have?

    It is a decision that only each individual can make, but I will say this: if Specks leaves what he believes to be a gnostic cult – and I’m not saying it is – while believing that if he stayed he could genuinely help people out that then his integrity would be zero – with the exception that God lead Specks to specifically bail for other reasons.

    Essentially what each of you is doing in your own way is to ask the other to lay aside what the other believes is right, and in Speck’s case what he may be specifically being called to do.

    At this point this is not theoretical – it is life and death stuff, if that is not being overly melodramatic.

    I don’t know what you do with it from a blogging point of view.

    Issu

  102. mn,
    It is an erroneous argument to say that anyone who *thinks* a local church is a gnostic cult should have license to pull its people out, especially if it turns out it is not a gnostic cult, but their claims are based on their own error. If the person with a dissentive opinion of a church is allowed to run riot in that church simply because of a deep personal conviction of error, a leader would be irresponsible to allow it to happen.

    There is not a shred of evidence that C3OF is a gnostic cult. Not one inkling of proof. Even bloggers here with previous associations with C3OF have made it clear that they do not think it is either gnostic or a cult. It may, in their view, preach error in some areas, mainly financial, but that doesn’t make it either a cult or gnostic. It may have a system of government which they consider hierarchal, and authoritative, but that doesn’t make it either gnostic or a cult. It may preach a gospel which they consider falls short of being deep enough to satisfy their needs, but that doesn’t make it gnostic or a cult.

    What S&P has shown is that he doesn’t like some aspects of the ministry, including tithing, prosperity teaching, apostolic governance, and the depth of preaching, including in the worship. That in itself is purely a church which falls short of his personal standards and requirements in a local church. This doesn’t make it either gnostic or a cult. It just means he is not getting his needs met. He doesn’t like the place, and the longer he stays the more he will allow this anger to grow into bitterness. He already says he is angry with me, and I am nobody, just a friend of C3.

    I’m sure there is a long list of things which S&P will add to the list, but there is nothing that he has said that points to either gnosticism or that C3OF is a cult.

    For this reason, what you say about his passion doesn’t make him right, nor does it give him license to destroy people’s relationships within the local church. It doesn’t give him license to sow discord amongst the brethren, an abomination God hates.

    Proverbs 6
    16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
    17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
    19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

    Passion alone isn’t enough to support a case. Wolves are passionate about their hunger for sheep. The devil is passionate about enticing saints. You get the picture!

    There may be elements of error in every local church or denomination, and I’m sure if we looked deeply enough we could set up an entire web site to investigate the Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Uniting Church, Anglicans, Lutherans, yes, all of them will have something we can rip into, but none is a gnostic, none is a cult. C3 is no better or worse than any of these. And this constant barrage of attacks on C3 is destructive, and serves no purpose but pain.

    The difference between S&P and I is that I am not against any local church. I am ready to discuss things with anyone. I’d rather work through our similarities into agreement to bridge our relationship than tear down the fabric of a local church. Our local church has heaps of things wrong with it, but it also has some excellent things going for it.

    Now S&P is even trying to correct me, and he doesn’t know me or the church I attend. In his correction he gets so much wrong. God has not called him to bring correction to us.

    Better to be in a place you are building than one you are tearing down.

  103. There are students who are struggling to pay off their college fees because they are being taught to give their tithe before they pay their bills. Even young families/couples in college are doing as exactly Sumrall did and put their money for their house and cars for the church offerings.

    These lives are being ruined. That’s not prosperity, that’s destruction. I’m listening to Pringle now and writing out some of the stuff he is saying.

  104. mn,
    You say that this site was originally dedicated to ‘people who have come out of pentedom burned, what’s more burned badly, and who are committed to exposing the teaching and practices still practiced in those parts by a very searching light’.

    I dispute this. It was, before S&P arrived a spin off from Signposts, which was mainly interested in aspects of the emerging church. Lance made it into a version of his present site.

    After Lance, SP02 was formed, and RP ran a pretty open site, and wasn’t always focussed on C3.

    I ran the site for several months as the only poster, when RP was busy, so it didn’t actually die, and there were far more articles here about other issues, including some for and against Pentecostalism.

    S&P took over and has gradually taken it into a C3 hate-fest based on Lance’s anti-Pentecostal stance, and is threatening to continue.

    S&P,
    We were students in a Bible School where we had next to nothing, two small children, and one part time job. It was a struggle, but we never missed an offering, our children went to a great school, and we got through the entire course, paying our fees all the way through, never missing a payment. We worked in departments in the church as volunteers as part of the course, attended Conferences as workers and as participants. What a blessing it all was, and I do not regret one thing, and would do it all again. Our children never suffered. It was a tremendous primer for going into missions where we had even less support and relied on God for literally everything. The ministry is no place for the faint hearted. If you can’t make it through Bible School, you’ll have no chance in the field. If you don’t understand giving, you’ll never understand trusting God for the next meal for your family.

    Most students, even in secular Uni’s, go through the threadbare existence at some time. It goes with the territory.

    We never suffered. We completed the course, and learned how to trust God for everything.

  105. Was that meant to tug at my heart strings Faithlift?

    I was fine when I went through bible school. I didn’t believe the nonsense being preached down at the front about giving to God. God gave me the brains to actually be wise with what I do with my money.

    I am very conservative with my money and have given hard amounts away when I honestly believed GOD told me too, not when a minister told me too. I make sure I know where my money is going and I make sure in churches like C3, my money goes straight to the pockets of those who I believe are strengthening the church, who do struggle financially.

    This unusual form of currency of giving that I’ve started doing to random people in the body of C3, have often made them personally consider what they are giving too if they are not financially supporting the body.

    Going back to the topic, Phil Pringle is teaching how the ‘church’ functions. But he’s talking about the church organisation, not the actual church itself. Why would you support the system that you hope can support you when time’s get tough, rather then support those around you who then can support you later when things get tough?

    That’s the biblical form of giving that Paul was talking about in 2Cor 8.

  106. And you’d beter learn something important, S&P, and very quickly. When a person goes through Bible School, they are on the edge all the way through. There is never a moment when they are not being tested, emotionally, financially, physically and spiritually, and under immense pressure.

    It is important to them that they endure this, because it is only a taste of what it’s like in the field. All the other things that go with it, the personality clashes in class, the demands placed on them in school, the stress of assignments, deadlines, having to do things they’ve never been asked to do before, things beyond their understanding even, the trials they go through, all assist them to cope with the things they will face in ministry. They will go through the same things, but with more intensity in the real world, even though this is an indicator of the real they are facing now.

    I am sure they were told this when they signed on. It’s Boot Camp. It’s school intensive, and they need to learn to overcome their shortcomings, which will all be exposed in the pressure cooker.

    The last thing they need is a ‘sympathetic’ onlooker telling them to quit, an dhow they’re being pushed too hard. That will just be an additional test they will have to overcome.

    One day, some of these precious students will be in the heat of some spiritual, emotional battle for the souls of the lost in some foreign field or on an assignment in a local church plant, and all they will have is their trust in God and the memory of some incident which got them through whilst they were in Bible School, only on a smaller scale.

    But they will remember and it will get them through.

    I speak from experience.

  107. “I speak from experience.”

    Me too. Ministry is an incredibly lonely and vulnerable place. So I understand what Phil Pringle might actually have felt, working so hard to develop a place like C3. It’s his Isaac!

    So it looks like we’ve hit a wall here.

    Blogs like Signposts02 and Groupsects have indeed pushed Pringle’s buttons and other leaders at C3. Good. He needs to repent and turn from this false gospel he preaches and his gnostic teachings which are binding people to his cult. His motto claims this is ‘Your best life now’. A complete lie! Repeat that enough times and you can brainwash yourself (David Sumrall style)!

    He’s talked about us bloggers and the balls we lack in not talking to his face about our criticisms towards him. The point is, he is not listening but his congregation is. This is what is making him more extreme. He’s demanded his congregation to not listen to the world, the bloggers, the critics, the cynics. “Trust us! Not them!” He said. “We know what were talking about. They don’t.” (That’s a nearly word for word!)

    He said that in his giving talk before Kong Hee spoke. Check out the full giving talk. It’s full of manipulation. Just like this article pointed out.

  108. S&P,
    ‘I was fine when I went through bible school.’

    That’s great, but please don’t think for a moment that someone who is struggling through is being disadvantaged in the long run. It can be helpful to have to push through in some areas. You do not know what God has up ahead for them to overcome in ministry.

    I wasn’t trying to tug your heartstrings, just give an example for you to savour that sometimes God allows us to go through tough times to toughen us up for tougher times ahead.

    Romans 5
    3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance;
    4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope.

    A little heart doesn’t hurt, though!

  109. Two things FL…

    1. What you are saying is you need to do what you think is right, but Specks shouldn’t do what he thinks is right, because he is wrong and you are right.

    2. One of the main threads of commentary in the original SP was exactly what talk about most of the time here.

    Yes there was a lot of emerging church stuff, but this was also a consistent topic.

    Back to point one – where do you get off in saying that anyone who thinks something different to yourself should not act on what they think is right?

    What if Elijah had bailed because of that notion, or indeed Jesus?

    I’m sorry, but as a way of dealing with this issue that is just a total failure.

    I’m going to light a fire here……

    You either convince Specks you are right, our if you think you are right and Specks is messing with the church you ‘out’ him.

    I personally don’t think the latter is right option, but if you have any integrity those are the options.

    But to try and argue that Specks shouldn’t do what he thinks is right on the stand alone basis – because that’s what it is – that you are right….that seems to me to be a dysfunctional proposition from an alternative universe.

    Let me put it this way….

    If I felt as passionately about this as Specks obviously does, and is convinced of the rightness of his position, there is no way I would or could not fight this out. You would have Buckleys. It is beyond me why anyone would expect otherwise, or even entertain otherwise.

  110. You either convince Specks you are right……legitimately.

    I don’t see it happening anytime soon for either of you unless Go intervenes.

  111. I tried to post on this thread the other day.

    S&P’s questions should be directed in a private mail as the person to whom it is directed is not entirely a private individual.

    We need to close this thread.

    In other news: anyone care to talk about the still married Benny Hinn getting caught with his trousers down in a Roman Hotel with Paula White?
    If they weren’t making the beast with two backs, why were they checked in under a false name?

    Shalom

  112. That is not logical, mn.

    How can anyone convince a man who is patently wrong, but who completely believes he is right, that he is wrong?

    Will you apply the same logic to Richard Dawkins, and allow him into your church to create havoc on the basis that he absolutely thinks he is right? He would love to have access to your church, by the way. Would you like him to come in to talk to your parishioners about what he calls the God delusion?

    Should Frank Manhattan have equal acces to C3 churches because he is totally convinced he is right, and you will never persuade him otherwise? But let’s not challenge him, or prevent him from going from person to person, because he is totally convinced he is right, and therefore has the right to remain amongst the sheep.

    Would you allow Todd Bentley to remain in your church amongst the sheep to convince them that he is right about the angel Emma, and you are wrong, simply because he completely believes tat he is correct?

    But, according to what you just said, any leader would have to convince the person who was wrong, but was certain he was right, tat he was wrong before you could take any action.

    Does Jesus say this? Does Paul?

    John 10
    12* “But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them.”

    Acts 20
    28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
    29 “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
    30 “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
    31 “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

    ‘From amongst yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples to themselves’. Yet you would allow these men to remain unless you could convince them they were wrong!

    There is no changing S&P. He is on course for what he is convinced he must do.

    I have tried very hard to get him to show me where C3 is either gnostic, or a cult. He has failed, and yet you continue to support the possibility that he is right. You stand with him in this. You champion his cause. You encourage him to continue.

    You notice something very important here. He says the whole of C3, that is, over 200 churches, are gnostic. I have tried to narrow it down with him to his own local church, C3OF, but he continues to speak of C3 the movement.

    Now he is telling me what I should do. He is saying things on a public forum which even you agree should be confined to a private conversation. You do no know what I might have said to him in private.

    There are things I will not say here because they involve the lives and wellbeing of other people who do not comment here.

    Now I discover that if I do say things to him in private he will reveal them here. End of that means of conversation!

    I think the days of convincing S&P are long over.

  113. Your last post says more about what you actually think about things obliquely than possibly the last six months, or even a year.

    The answer to your first three questions is I wouldn’t, the congregation probably wouldn’t be interested or go near them, but if they did get through the door not much would happen because they are all idiots, and I have think the congregation would send them packing. Most Christians I know think Dawkins is a pseudo intellectual southfacing orifice, although they would use those words.

    What I am doing is logical. But what I am not pointing out the chances of success – irrestible force v immovable object. At which point perhaps this in an issue for prayer on both sides, and perhaps by the rest of us as well.

    I think what you say about the spread of issues is reasonable.

    Anyway you can ask Specks for my email if you want. Not fussed.

  114. That may have been true 20 or 30 years ago, Greg, but I’ve never known Pentecostals to teach anything but the APEPT model of leadership in recent times.

    At the very least Pentecostals would teach on Pastor, Teacher, Evangelist. The realisation of the continued ministry of the Prophet ‘revived’ in the 80’s and the ‘Apostle’ was better identified in the 90’s, although it could be true to say that the Apostle has been associated with the Missionary for many years.

    With the advent of church planting strategies and growing numbers of very large churches, it became clear that there was a revival, if you like, or recognition, of Pastors who oversaw Pastors, which was identified with being akin to the Apostle.

    I’m trying not to confuse this with the controversial NAR issue, but even within this grouping, which has been around since the 80’s, there was an identification with the APEPT ministries.

  115. The difference, as I have said before, mn, is that I am not against the Church, and I am not trying to pull anyone out of the local church, but rather help them remain in church.

    What I have seen is that the idealistic view that all people who are pulled out of a church will, therefore, transfer to another is erroneous. In fact many never go to a local church again once they have left in bad circumstances. Spreading discontent is a bad circumstance.

    I would rather a person remain in a liberal CoC or fundamental Pentecostal church and be settled enough to have healthy Christian relationships and encouraged to read their Bible, believe in Jesus, and love God, than to be out where the wolves of strange religions are.

    I draw the line at obvious cults, such as the JW’s or Mormons.

    As long as C3OF is not actually a cult, and people have great relationships, are involved in worshiping the real God, and believing in the real Jesus, they are in a place where they can grow, even in spite of flaws. There is no guarantee that pulling them out is sending them off to another church.

    I happen to think that C3OF is far better than this hypothetical bottom line of Christianity, by the way, but that is another story.

  116. FaithLift, in all seriousness, you don’t inspire confidence in C3 by defending it anonymously. People who blog anonymously are normally blowing the whistle on something they think is wrong. They don’t want to be identified so that they are protected from blow-back. If you think that C3OF is so good, why are you blogging anonymously?

    Are you a pastor at C3 Oxford Falls?

  117. Same reason you are, Chirpy? FL has explained his position recently and quite clearly. Some of us are known to each other but still blog under a pseudonym – I do because of family members (whose decision to stay at C3 I must respect).

  118. teddy, I’m a whistle-blower on C3, not a supporter. That’s the difference.

    Yeah, I should have read all the stuff he wrote like you said but it’s so hard to read.

  119. @ FL – that’s not fair to Chirpy! Lance will chew him/her up and spit him/her out in no time! Or it will make for some interesting dialogue on a quiet day.

  120. The truth-whistle. The whistle that explains how C3 can be so extravagantly wealthy and so dead.

    FaithLift, do you live in the Northern Territory?

  121. I wasn’t trying to send Chirpy over to Lance, teddy, but killing two birds…, er sorry, putting two separate comments into one, by adding Karin’s prayer for S&P in the same comment, although, thinking about it, Lance & Chirpy might be made for each other!

  122. Probably a different thread, but I still don’t know how we decided who is an Apostle or Prophet. Most of the ones I see I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw.
    And I question whether the church is any better now that we have suddenly “restored” those offices or at least the recognition of them.
    Suffice it to say that I despair of calling someone an Apostle because he has increased a church to thousands due to being a confident, ambitious good communicator, and so having Pastors come to learn his secrets or keys.

    I don’t see many Apostles like NT days. And there don’t seem to be many Apostles or Prophets recognized out of their streams.

  123. Just read that interesting conversation on Groupsects, that FL kindly linked to. I’d forgotten about it. Not very often you get such a passionate, pure prosperity proponent proselytising like that.

    Anyway, found churchman’s autobiog interesting. You can change your handle if you want to – just tell us all when you change so we know we are still talking to the same person.

    I don’t think C3 is a cult (as I’ve said before), and I think the use of the word ‘gnostic’ whether true or not, won’t persuade many congregation members, because its too esoteric. The megachurches partly succeed because they use language people can understand and relate to, as well as keeping doctrines fairly simple and accessible.

    I don’t think you need to worry about S&P, FL. If he was making a big ruckus, or causing real, ongoing problems at C3OF, the staff would throw him out. I’ve found from my own experience, that you don’t convince people something is wrong by just announcing it to them, either. People go through their own experiences, as churchman referred to, or witness things that disturb them happening in their congregation, and reassess what they’ve been taught in the light of these things, rather than because another person tells them to. If that causes them to turn to scripture for themselves, and look up what they’ve been taught, to test it, that is a good thing. In some things, they may find their faith affirmed. In others, they may find their faith corrected.

  124. Interesting thread Teddy. I don’t really want to comment because I take no delight in that kind of stuff. In the end we are all sinners, and I think it’s good not to judge, and even if an allegation is true, we are all sinners.

    All I will say is that if the photo is real, regardless of the truth, Benny must have not been thinking straight to hold hands with another woman in public. And the same for her. Unless they are both super innocent and pure in heart that they couldn’t possible perceive that people would think it looked strange. And there are people like that.

  125. RP I had that same thought that if S&P was such a – cue to Doc Neeson

    spy, agitator, thief

    He would be locked up, thrown in solitary, and third degree.

    In any church I’ve been associated with if someone was causing such a ruckus they would be counselled, the church would split (unlikely in this instance), or they would be thrown out.

    That is not a value judgement either, just an observation of how things tend to work.

  126. I don’t like it either even though I posted it for Bull. At least he’s talking about it and not ducking for cover.

    It was a train wreck waiting to happen in regards to his ministry vs marriage. A potential problem for any pastor that puts their ministry first.

  127. That’s exactly what I mean, MN. I have seen various people asked to leave over time, often for good reasons, and would imagine it would be no different if Specks was rocking the boat too much.

  128. Teddy, I really do completely agree. It’s often tragic when ministry is put before a marriage, in the long term. (Sometimes not even that long a term.) I think many of us have probably witnessed the results of this from time to time.

  129. How deep undercover can one go? A “mole” at C3? Why is it necessary and is it a symptom of the mindset there?

    That comment from Groupsects about the “proselytising prosperity propenent” that RP noted is pretty close to many that I know and love (though not family thank goodness). Maybe as Specks has said, he is making an impact one on one. Do I agree? Not really – but I’m so grateful for someone pointing out error to me a few years ago, even on a blogsite.

  130. I don’t want to put up the Hinn article, because i don’t agree that the church should be discussing minister the same way the world does with Hollywood celebrities.

    The Bentley saga was huge, so worth while discussing. I don’t feel like we need to go there unless it actually is revealed.

    But that doesn’t mean Teddy, Wazza or RP can’t put it up. I just wont reply there.

  131. I clicked on the C3 website this morning, for no other reason than the site is in “favourites” alphabetically. http://www.myc3church.net/

    It struck me that the name of Christ is not evident – I clicked from Home/Conferences/Services/Ministries/Groups?Training/Projects /Volunteer, arriving at Media before finally seeing His name in small print half way down. I began to count how many times PP’s name comes up, certainly more than Christ.

    So I’m thinking let’s be fair here so I went to our church, a very plain, no bells and whistles website, and thankfully (because I would have to be honest) Jesus is mentioned ….

    “The feature of our church life is our confidence in the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, through the teaching of the Bible.”

    Here’s Hillsong’s front page, at least it’s prioritised….

    “The heart and soul of Hillsong Church is to introduce and connect people with the living God.”

    Where am I going with this? I don’t know, just having a coffee buzz. Certainly zealous for His name to be lifted up – especially if someone randomly clicks on C3 looking for answers only found in Him.

  132. And I clicked on Chris Pringle to see what her latest tweet was. God was in that click!

    Chris Pringle tweets:

    Here she is! Our new “pax” employee-Rebekah Faith @ desk! Welcome aboard ! http://twitpic.com/2djhgu

    about 1 hour ago via Twitpic

    Just as I am starting to get curious about Pringle’s PaX Ministry/Publishing/Co, that pops up.

  133. I found the name Jesus Christ on the second page I clicked – ‘About C3 Church’.

    “C3 Church exists to connect people to God. The church is full of people who have discovered an incredible richness of life that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

    So to me the current site promotes ‘Your best life’ via Jesus Christ. Just what ‘your best life’ is, is a matter for interpretation. On the C3 website, it looks like a prosperous one, where richness is literal. Nabi Saleh is advertised as speaking at their Marketplace Breakfast; he is one of the directors of Gloria Jeans coffee and is an elder at Hillsong.

    I like the idea of breakfasts for business people. It’s good to see churches trying to encourage people in their daily pursuits. Its just how its linked to prosperity doctrine teaching that is unfortunate.

  134. I’d also like to see churches put on regular breakfasts for people in other pursuits though… unemployed people, prostitutes, young liberals. Ie. people who tend to be looked down upon in society.

  135. If you’re looking for lot’s of mentions of the cross, resurrection, Jesus Christ, forgiveness of sins, then these are not the places.

    But regardless, they are great at getting people. And they are here to stay. And I predict that a church like Hillsong will be able to start Hillsongs all over Asia.

    Contrary to what many westerners might imagine, Asians in general see no problem with using a god/gods/God to help them get rich and healthy.

    Take that anyway you like.

  136. “I’d also like to see churches put on regular breakfasts for people in other pursuits though… unemployed people, prostitutes, young liberals. Ie. people who tend to be looked down upon in society.” – wazza2

    LOL. Well, I guess if the breakfasts are also for fundraising, then they won’t have much luck with those crowds.

    I’d kind of hope that work was seen as important in its own right, and not just as a way of making money so that you can donate it back to the church.

    I don’t actually have a clue what goes on at a Marketplace breakfast. Maybe Nabi Saleh will discuss the latest court judgement re Gloria Jeans?

  137. Yes, these churches are here to stay. Really its up to individual Christians to make their own minds up. The scary thing that you mentioned before, churchman, is the discouragement of questioning and the emphasis on submission.

    But we have the internet and blogs these days. The more these institutions try to control questioning and submission, the more people will react against it, and in these times, in a publically accessible fashion.

  138. @ Specks – Joe was holding that position before Beck, keeping it all in the family. Hate to be the one to mention it again, but it was Becks promoting the “splat pens” in Singapore. Photos of course availlable for general public viewing.

  139. “Contrary to what many westerners might imagine, Asians in general see no problem with using a god/gods/God to help them get rich and healthy.”

    That’s why the have a huge prblem with the prosperity gospel and NAR hitting places in Asia. As I’ve said in the past, Joseph Prince is the Kenneth Copeland of Asia. They are very big on outward status, blessing, longevity and things that benefit them. More-so in Buddhist countries.

  140. Prosperity doctrine is a reflection of our western, consumerist culture.

    Are there any cultures that are not big on: “outward status, blessing, longevity and things that benefit them”?

    My Asian doctor told me that us Westerners were too individual, and that was why people like me had issues with the big megachurch culture. Whereas he, by implication, understood it and thought it was good. So he saw my discomfort with it as Western, but from the perspective of being unable to sublimate my individuality for the sake of the greater community good.

  141. Yonngi Cho’s church flourished because of the culture it was raised in. It’s a very submissive culture and very conformist. Of course a church like Cho’s will flourish.

    Korea was heavily influenced by Japanese culture. I observed some of the common proverbs, sayings and expressions that Korea adopted from Japan:

    “The nail that sticks its head up is the one that gets hit.”
    “The nail that sticks out is hammered down.”
    “The nail that sticks up will be hammered down.”

    His views reflect a common understanding of Asian culture. In understanding the Korean culture, this helps explain why Yonngi Cho’s prosperity-like church is also successful. He can be completely wrong in his teachings, practices and accidentally demonstrate publically poor leadership, but that doesn’t mean people will leave his movement or speak out. Here’s an interesting article here:

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/07/256_66687.html

    It looks as though the Korean culture us changing. For the better of for worst? That’s what they need to examine, especially when you have mega-churches like Cho’s. When I heard a C3 talk about the influence of Cho’s church over the city, it reminded of the influence the RCC had over Europe. I found it quite creepy.

    Phil Pringle is accountable to Yonngi Cho and idolises the influence Cho’s church has and the numbers that attend. Pringle has mentioned this in the odd sermon every now and then.

    He has stressed why can’t C3OF be like Cho’s church. He really would like to see C3OF like Cho’s church. Now that is an uncomfortable thought.

  142. Other interesting articles here on ‘The Nail That Sticks’ and similar topics:

    http://www.racialicious.com/2009/07/20/quoted-holly-on-interpretation-of-culture/

    “What I understand it really means in Japan, in my limited half-breed way: You should not emphasize your own individual excellence or difference over group harmony (wa, 和) to avoid resentment and dissension. Think about a sports team with a star player, one whose talent and skills stands out over everyone else. If that player were always trying to be the one to take the shot at basket, to score the goal, even if they statistically have the greatest likelihood of success, teamwork and the group dynamic suffers. The individual may be outstanding, but the group suffers. This is what’s trying to be expressed.

    In some ways it’s similar to the concept of “hubris,” but without the divine element. There’s actually a pretty good discussion here, with examples from different cultures. The “tall poppy” of New Zealand, the “high trees catch much wind” or “sticking your head above the mowing field” in Dutch, or “if you move you won’t be in the picture” in Spanish.

    All of these are a little different, of course. But I feel like none has been called out as an “essential descriptor” of a culture, at least in the US, as the Japanese example. And I believe that’s because of the “weird mirror” dynamic.

    Some of these carry more of a “warning” dynamic ― hey be careful, you’re a target! And it can be used in Japanese that way too, which is maybe more popular now that the “prioritize the group above trumpeting your own merit” which is sort of an old fuddy-duddy thing. However, my mother wants me to say that in order to really understand what it means and the importance of this saying, you also need to grasp what wa (和, harmony) means in Japan (white guy tries to explain here) and also ’sekken’ (sp?) a word I don’t know. She claims that some article she wrote about this might be online some time soon, but doesn’t know how to find it, because she gets irritated with Google.”

    I encourage you to read the entire article. It’s very well written and insightful.
    The article points out this good discussion too:

    http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/culture/his-brain-is-not-involved/

  143. Oh yes I remember reading about Cho’s law of “incubation” – first make a clear-cut goal, then draw a mental picture, vivid and graphic, to visualize success. Then incubate it into reality, and finally speak it into existence through the creative power of the spoken word.

    In other words, PP’s principle of vision-casting. He learned from the master. Sounds all very zen-like.

    Can’t quite imagine C3 doing the whole mega stadium coloured baton wave like they do in Korea though.

    Cho “groupies”…..

  144. I can’t see the video, but I remember that teaching re incubation. I learnt it when I was at PP’s church 20 years ago. Have never forgotten Cho’s bicycle example. Also, I remember people getting up on stage and giving a testimony about their house where they did exactly this.

    Basically, this is ‘The Secret’, from the sound of things.

    I think PP really believes this. Hence the emphasis on positive speaking and thinking.

    I had someone (at the gym, not at church) say just the other day, not to say something, in case it made it happen later on. They really believed speaking it would make it occur, good or bad.

  145. I’ve got a headache but I can’t say I’ve got a headache because then I will have a headache… but if I can’t tell someone I’ve got a headache how can I get them to pray for me! (Smacks head and gets headache just thinking about it)

  146. Trouble is, there is some truth in this, even if the teaching is not a true formula. Most people who achieve something will have thought about what they wanted to achieve and set goals. The trouble is, most of the time they have done a lot more than visualise or speak an outcome. They have worked towards it, made numerous choices to take them in that direction, and persevered. Being positive in the face of adversity may well have helped them persevere. On the other hand, ignoring problems or criticisms along the way, because they are ‘negative’, might have slowed them down, or reduced quality of their outcome.

    I think the key is to acknowledge problems and legitimate criticisms, and address them. At the same time, if the goal is worthwhile, you wouldn’t let problems put you off your goal just because they seem negative. Some problems can even have solutions which result in a better positive outcome.

    Whatever the case, while visualising or even speaking the end goal can help one stay focussed, actual choices and work are usually what makes something happen.

  147. This is no different at C3. They have achieved what they have through a lot of focus, patience, and through the hard work/money of many, many people.

  148. Lot of really interesting posts there. I think many are so impressed by Cho’s church, and would love to copy what he does there. And a lot of people are really moved when they go there, but probably many would be disappointed. It’s a lot different to what a lot of people may expect. Here are some things that surprised me.
    When Cho leaves the building all the employees line up and bow as he leaves. For the average westerner, and even for Asians, it seems like over kill. (Of course he is in the back of a luxury car.)
    Koreans pray so earnestly and fervently. But every does there. Go there when the students are trying to get into the best universities and it isn’t just the Pentecostals who are shaking and screaming and crying in fervent prayer for admission. It’s the Buddhists too. Koreans are a pretty passionate bunch.
    Not everyone attends the all night prayer meetings. And there are deacons who walk around slapping the seats to wake up the people sleeping up the back.

    Cho has seen incredible growth but if you look on a yearly basis, its very steady and consistent and based on plan. Home cells have to increase by a certain number by a certain time, and if they don’t meet the quota the leader will have to go and pray and fast.

    Another interesting thing is that not many people leave. But I remember one testimony of Cho’s saying how he convinced one person to stay when they were going to leave. In the end, he pulled out the person’s giving record showing them how much they had given over the years and how what a waste it would be to leave that behind. It’s also interesting that he stated in an interview with Rick Warren that if he had his time over again, he would not have spent as much money on buildings.

    Cho has also had his family problems like everyone else. But, I like hearing him speak and he’s a gracious man in person. And he’s inspiring. I wonder what I would have done in life if I prayed and fasted a fraction of what he has.

    Oh another thing about the nail standing out. It’s very true. And in Pentecostal churches it will have lots of expressions. One simple one is that if people are falling over, it will be a very very brave and independent thinking person to not fall over too in a healing line. (But I think that happens elsewhere too).

    Asians also like get a lot of value from what they belong to. Family, company. So once a church gets big….well, everyone will want to be part of a megachurch.

    But, megachurches aren’t all bad. Plenty of small churches with problems too.

    One last thing, Cho’s teaching on specific prayer and incubation is maybe not well explained. He is not a person who says you just dream up something and visualize and speak it out. He is still old-time in a sense where he has the “praying through” stage. You keep praying -until you sense that you “got it”. Then you speak. If you read some of his stories you see that he knows what it is to go through suffering, and he knows what it is for God to say “no” to his personal desire.

    Once again too much raving. Stop churchman!

  149. Cho makes the claim of a special revelation from God that taught him of the “fourth dimension” – denying God’s transcendence, teaching that the power of the spoken word of man can create, and teaching the health and wealth gospel.

    Cho, being well aware that this linked him to occultism, argued that “if Buddhists and Yoga practitioners can accomplish their objectives through fourth dimensional powers, then Christians should be able to accomplish much more by using the same means.”

    “You create the presence of Jesus with your mouth … He is bound by your lips and by your words … Remember that Christ is depending upon you and your spoken word to release His presence.” (both quotes from The Fourth Dimension, volume 1)

    A book I read years ago, it sat on the shelf with all my “fourth dimension” dreams unrealised before finally chucking it out along with all the other WOF books gathering dust on same shelf.

    Since replaced by a few good John Macarthur books i.e. “The Truth War” (brilliant), “Twelve Ordinary Men” (also great), a few very good mouldy oldies, “Who Moved The Stone?”, “Shepherd Of The Hills” , a few Francis Schaeffer etc etc and recently a brand new copy of Enid Blyton’s “The Magic Faraway Tree”!!!!!!!!(because it’s going to be rewritten and made politically correct for children – so the Berkelouw people told me).

  150. Teddy, I’ve read it. I think I’ve read volume 2 as well. (Unless I’m getting mixed up with a different book.) And I’ve read other books and heard him preach quite a few times. And I’ve spoken with him in private which at the time was a thrill – not that that makes me an expert on him or his teaching.

    What I was trying to point out is that one of his points is to “keep on praying”. He says that this time of just praying – asking, seeking etc, may take quite a while. And it may include fasting. I think he is open to the fact that during that time you might realize that the request is not a good one.

    And the fact is that people may give up halfway. I think regardless of your doctrine of prayer, lots of us give up, or just forget what we wanted in the first place. There is a place for specific prayer with strong desire and a willingness to keep going until you get it. What do you think?

    I do understand the problems you have with his teaching that Jesus being “bound by your lips and words” however. Doesn’t sound right somehow does it.

  151. Actually churchman, you have reminded me. Even though I still say hard work is typically necessary for goals/visions to be achieved, I have to agree that prayer is often very important. I’d agree with Cho where he says as you put it:

    ““keep on praying”. He says that this time of just praying – asking, seeking etc, may take quite a while. And it may include fasting. ”

    Also, if Cho recommends praying until you feel you have ‘got it’, with respect to faith in an area, then that is also good.

    I did read the 4th Dimension a long time ago, and I only remembered the instruction to be very specific when praying for something, and to speak it out and visualise it etc. I think those latter things can be good for focus but don’t agree that they make things happen. However, I do agree that when we pray and seek to know God’s will in certain areas, we can find faith in those areas at times, and then move forward in that faith, continuing to pray along the lines we’ve been shown. It sounds wierd, but in my personal experience, and that of others I’ve known, it has been important.

    I’ve had a number of times, and Heretic would agree with me very much here, where we’ve been working towards certain goals, and have really hit stumbling blocks or major problems. When we neglected to pray, nothing would seem to happen. When we did pray, things moved. This happened a lot during time we weren’t attending church in the past, to the point that we knew that while not ticking religious check boxes didn’t prevent God from looking after us, lack of prayer did seem to hold us back in various ways.

    So now, when we have an issue, we know that if we haven’t prayed about it, we really do need to. Because God does hear our prayers. And at other times, we might need to specifically pray for guidance to to find ‘where the faith is ‘ in a situation. Not that I always succeed there (lack of persistence at times, too), but enough to know it’s worthwhile. Plus, I have also seen God respond to fasting in tangible ways at times (friends testimonies that I’ve seen them go through personally). So I would not want to diminish the importance of prayer or other disciplines like fasting. Just disagreeing about the ‘magic’ of us speaking something into existence.

  152. “And the fact is that people may give up halfway. I think regardless of your doctrine of prayer, lots of us give up, or just forget what we wanted in the first place. There is a place for specific prayer with strong desire and a willingness to keep going until you get it. What do you think?” – churchman

    Yes. I definitely agree. Even if ‘getting it’ is getting the message that this is not the right direction to pray in, and praying along new, more Spirit directed lines.

  153. I didn’t know that about ‘The Magic Faraway Tree’, Teddy. I might have to get some copies too. It was my favourite book series when I was a kid, and the best of the Enid Blyton stories.

  154. The “praying it through” was explained by his secretary actually…

    If you go to his church on a Sunday, they used to have this time afterwards when foreign visitors could go up to his office. His secretary (American lady) explained that. Actually I think “praying through” was the expression used. In other words, Cho isn’t really just saying that you sit down, decided you want a pink ferrari, visualize it and keep saying “I’ve got a pink ferrari” hundreds of times a day. Though you could be forgiven for thinking that reading his book. He obviously prays a lot, believes in fasting (influenced heavily by his mother-in-law), and doesn’t just confess riches all day.

    But .. his wife WAS aghast when he was put up in a dingy hotel in Australia (in the old days before AOG went prosperity), and I heard him once in Asia say that “Australians think the Holy Spirit comes through dancing!”. That was interesting …

    Funny what people say about countries when they’re in a different one!

  155. Oh. I started writing a response, but it turned into a MASSIVE article. I’ll post it up soon.

  156. no. on this topic.

    But I have the old book of Enid Blyton’s “The Magic Faraway Tree”. I’ve had it since I was wee little kid.

  157. Hang on to it Specks, the old copies are becoming valuable, particularly as they are making the reprints more politically correct for kids.

    “In modern reprints, the names of the children have been changed:
    Jo is changed to Joe, because the character is a boy and this is the more commonly used spelling of the name for males;
    Bessie is changed to Beth, because the former name is now less commonly used as a nickname for Elizabeth;
    Fanny is changed to Frannie, because the former name is slang for vulva in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand ) and “bottom” in the USA.
    Cousin Dick, who appears in “The Magic Faraway Tree”, has been changed to “Rick” as “Dick” is American, Australian and British slang for penis.
    In modern reprints, the character of Dame Slap has been re-named to Dame Snap and she no longer practises corporal punishment but instead reprimands her students by yelling at them very loudly.”

    That explains all the problems I have now as a result of reading the original “translation”?

  158. I could have saved you guys all of these 200 comments by saying , the harlot whore mystery Babylon is forming. The tensions many of you are experiencing are God separating the sheep from the goats. The man of sin sits in the temple saying he is God. See 2 Thess 2. A great falling away is now here. Many have been sent strong delusion.

  159. They are very normal thoughts you’ve expressed here on Signposts02 ZionFreak. Welcome!

    What’s been your experience with mega-churches like C3?

  160. Phil Pringle has been going to City Harvest Church in Singapore regularly and is known as their “Advisory Pastor”.I pray for those members who will be deceived when the Singapore authorities bring charges to the church leadership for misuse of funds.

    Btw, anyone knows if it is true that in CCC and C3I, Phil Pringle calls himself as the Senior Pastor of City Harvest Church Singapore? It fits a good combination for money activities.

  161. I notice no one here uses their real name or picture and yet PP is happy to have his life scrutinised. You’re a bunch of losers who no doubt are making absolutely no difference in the world. If you weren’t here tommorrow how many lives would it impact?…well done cyber heroes. The only reason you think he’s all about money is because that’s all you care about and I’ll bet you have very little..I wonder if you even have a successful career….highly doubtful, your attitude reveals everything anyone wants to know about you.

  162. @ Arne

    i agree with you that people would have more credibility if they used their real names and showed some transparency.

    As for everyone who disagrees with PP being a loser and not having a life.

    Just imagine if Phil were taken back to Jesus ministry on earth and to the early church : what would they think of his teaching and lifestyle? Would it line up with theirs?

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/

  163. Arne, with your line of reasoning, nobody could criticize any famous person for anything.

  164. @ Arne – how many pastors have been influenced by this ministry?

    At last Christians are starting to voice their concerns about the “power” wielded by so-called “super apostles”…….

    “Around 30 elders at Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul have begun a protest aimed at Emeritus Pastor David Yonggi Cho and his wife, demanding that the couple refrain from making the church their own private assets.

    From around noon on July 20, the elders protested outside the Main Sanctuary at “Osanri Choi Ja-sil Memorial Fasting Prayer Mountain” in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, holding a banner demanding that Kim Sung-hye, Cho’s wife, quickly return 10 billion won ($9.5 million) in construction fees that she had taken in order to build a memorial to Cho. On the day, a religious gathering for Asian believers was being held and Kim, who is also president of Hansei University, was delivering a sermon.

    At around 1 p.m., the elders held up placards with slogans such as “Don’t make the church your own private possession” and “Do you like material possessions more than heaven?” toward Cho and Kim, who were coming out of the sanctuary at the end of the gathering. In the process, scuffles broke out between the elders and church officials and Hansei University professors who blocked them.

    Since April this year, the elders have been curbing attempts by Cho’s family to make the church part of their private assets through resolutions passed at the council, the church’s highest decision making body. On April 17, the council resolved to make Kim concentrate solely on Hansei University and overseas missionary activity; to make Cho and Kim’s second son and president of the daily Kukmin Ilbo newspaper, Cho Min-je, concentrate only on the Kukmin Ilbo; and to make their eldest son and former Kukmin Ilbo chairman, Cho Hoe-jun, choose only one of either Elim Welfare Town or an organization related to overseas churches.

    On June 26, the council passed resolutions on five further issues, including deciding to take over the office in Yeouido’s CCMM Building that Kim had been using for free, and to make Kim return the 10 billion won she had taken from the church, saying that she would build a memorial hall for Cho.

    Cho and Kim rejected these resolutions, and went a step further when Kim, who had decided not to give sermons in Korea, gave a sermon at the gathering at Prayer Mountain. This was when the elders decided to act.

    The elders plan to conduct a sit-in protest at Yoido Full Gospel Church on July 24 to criticize the Cho family’s private appropriation of church assets.”

  165. @ Arne – seriously, first Singapore and Kong Hee, now David and Kim Cho at Yoido? Are these the “towers falling” that Phil prophesied about? Is Phil going to be stepping to fill the pulpit as he did in Singapore?

    Why is there always a problem with money? Is it because they preach a false gospel in the first place, a “gospel” that focuses on your best life now rather than the one to come?

    Building a memorial to a man not even dead yet! So troubling…..

  166. @ Arne – just read this over at Phoenix Preacher in light of the issues surrounding C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. This certainly applies to blogs like Signposts – we have developed into a community of people who care about the Gospel. And as he says at the end “we are individual children of God gathered online”…

    “Let’s define what a blog is…it is a web site where articles or information are posted and the public reads those pieces and comments on them.

    Because even the best blogs are written by and commented on by fallen people, the content and delivery is always uneven…sometimes spectacular, sometimes sinful, usually somewhere in between.

    If a blog is good enough it lasts long enough to develop into a community.

    This blog started as a criticism of the polity and practice of Calvary Chapel and as a community we have publicized abuse and effected change.

    Two other blogs, SGM Refuge and SGM Survivors are trying to do the same with Sovereign Grace Ministries.

    All three of us have been called everything but holy and are usually excluded from any conversations about reform.

    Decisions about reform and accountability are always made by the leaders without any input from the people they are supposed to serve and be accountable to…so they gather in places like this.

    What all three of these blogs are is a reflection of what happens when flawed polity and ecclesiology allow and encourage the abuse of office and authority.

    All three are where leaders should read to know and understand the issues that are troubling the flock.

    All three are written by and commented on by brothers and sisters in Christ… who are already bearing the consequences of leadership by and for the benefit of leaders.

    All three affirm that there are good and godly men in the pastorate of both denominations, but that there are systemic issues that need to be addressed.

    Most importantly all three represent the scattered flock of Jesus Christ…and they deserve to be heard and affirmed before anyone else.

    We are not the enemy…we speak here because we were silenced elsewhere.

    We want to see repentance and reconciliation…and we want to be conduits of grace and healing where both are lacking.

    We are not “blogs”…we are individual children of God gathered online…and together we can accomplish much for His kingdom.

  167. Hi Everyone. I agree that maybe my use of the word ‘losers’ was an exaggeration in some cases. I apologise for that. All the best to you all.
    Arne

  168. Hello Arne,

    “I notice no one here uses their real name […]”

    I assume that Arne is your real name – however it is not your full name, is it?

    “[…] or picture […]”

    I notice that you have not posted a picture yourself.

    “You’re a bunch of losers […]”

    It looks like you already recognised that was a generalisation that wasn’t necessarily accurate or fair.

    “[…] who no doubt are making absolutely no difference in the world.”

    Christians are salt and light, and their mere presence makes a difference.

    “If you weren’t here tomorrow how many lives would it impact?”

    Well, technically speaking the correct answer is “none”, because impact is a noun, not a verb. If we disregard that fact, the answer in my case is many, many lives.

    “The only reason you think he’s all about money is because that’s all you care about […]”

    That’s a non sequitur. If you’re going to cross swords with the regular posters here, you will have to do *much* better than that, because they are a pretty sharp bunch.

    “[…] and I’ll bet you have very little…[…]”

    I don’t know on what basis you would draw that conclusion.

    “I wonder if you even have a successful career….[…]”

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, since I don’t know, but my career is going fine thanks.

    “[…] highly doubtful, your attitude reveals everything anyone wants to know about you.”

    Comments here are made by a diverse group of people of varied backgrounds, attitudes and doctrinal positions. I personally find it to be always interesting, often challenging, and occasionally cathartic to read and contribute here. It’s certainly a welcome change to the group-think, intellectual laziness and wilful ignorance that characterises the Church today.

  169. Your problem, Arne, is hitting upon a post added by a previous contributor some time ago, during a period of intense aggression towards C3 and Phil Pringle in particular.

    That person, having been uncovered and named as a someone of dubious attitude towards that very assembly, and subsequently asked to leave C3, has since ceased to post and started his own line of anti-megachurch blogs.

    It may interest y to know that there are, as advised, a variety of viewpoints expressed here, ranging from conservative to liberal, evangelical to emergent, Reformed to Pentecostal, so barley a day goes without some form of discussion from different perspectives.

    Bagging us all with the same tag isn’t consistent with reality. The one term we would all ascribe to is follower of Jesus.

    Maybe you should try some more recent threads. Anything C3 is generally the obsessive bad habit of specksandplanks, the person ejected from C3.

  170. Arne, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. To you the benchmark for being a genuine Christian is having a “successful career”. You are biblically illiterate.

  171. Lastly, specksandplanks has more guts and more discernment than most Christians I know. He actually has the capacity to understand when somebody is trying to deceive him, which most Christians don’t have. Most Christians are taught to believe the best about people and therefore lap up whatever false teaching the false Christian leaders ram down their throats like the trained animals they have become.

  172. Chirpy…

    ‘more guts and more discernment than most Christians I know’

    It doesn’t take guts to call people names and be wrong about them. It just takes a huge amount of rudeness and anger. Anyone can be angry and scream ‘foul!’ It takes guts to control yourself and learn to walk in love.

    If the discernment is present, as you claim, how come he let your conspiracy theories slip through the net?

    In fact I seem to remember him backing your dopey idea that PP was a devil worshipper because he held his fingers in the deaf signing position for ‘love’.

    Oh, wait a minute, the picture on this post is specks attempt to comply with your fallacious wallyness!

    It doesn’t take guts to continually complain about the same group of people for months, call them a gnostic cult, whilst pretending to be their friend, in their circles, and finally get yourself expelled from their midst for putting up posters calling their Pastor a false prophet. No. That takes something else, in close proximity to the gut, but somewhat less distinguished.

    We are taught to think the best of people, and that will always be true. We’re also taught to walk in love and forgive, seven times seventy, or, in other words, continually ad infinitum.

    So specks is forgiven, and has the opportunity to contribute here. But we all, as you see, are subject to scrutiny of the collective and the objective, so t will be for anyone who steps into this domain.

    I even think the best of you. But what you think and say conspiratorially needs some serious revision.

    Call people trained animals and you are likely to get bitten.

  173. Who are you, anyway, Kipling? I am ex-CCC Oxford Falls. I spent several years there and I have a very good understanding of what goes on there.

  174. You can stand there as long as you want, Chirpy, it makes no difference to how absurd your claim is.

    Judas spent three years with Jesus and ended up thinking he was worth betraying. Same spirit.

    If you think Phil Pringle is a satanist you have little understanding of anything that happens at C3OF.

    The tragedy is that after you were challenged to disclose scriptural or factual evidence for your claims that he is a satanist this was all you could come up with.

    An even deeper calamity was that specks backed you up so far that he gave you at least two headline posts to honour your claims. That’s discernment for you!

    I’ve seen people in churches who have been there for years and never been set free from their divisive attitudes, despite the love and care of the people they are spiteful towards.

    Saying Phil’s hand actions are evidence of satanism is so ridiculous it is not worth considering, really, except to point out to you that specks failed to discern that this was a silly idea, and that the notion was yours.

  175. You haven’t answered my question. You’re acting like a public relations consultant. Who are you, Kipling? Have you ever attended CCCOF?

  176. https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/little-bit-constitution-from-c3/

    The reason that there are thirteen (13) points on the first two pages under the title “Purposes, Goals & Objectives” is that Phil Pringle, who oversees the structure of C3 is a Satanist. Thirteen (13) is an occult number.

    The reason that there have been thirteen (13) points chosen is to signal to other people involved in the occult that C3 is a church that has been subverted by Satanists.

    To all of you who so glibly dismiss my claims, do you really think that there are not thousands of Christians in the western world who have been pondering the infiltration of the Christian church by the occult, particularly over the past five years? Do you really think that these thousands of Christians have not been swapping notes with each other via the internet.

    Many, many Christian churches in the western world are run by Freemasons. Freemasonry is part of the occult.

    I would hazard a guess that Phil Pringle is a Freemason but of this you can be sure, only a Satanist would chose thirteen points (13) for the constitution of the Christian church they lead and put the point about exalting Jesus Christ last. It is just like the slogan for Oxford Falls Grammar School:

    “For greatness, for excellence, for Christ.”

    Christ comes last in Christian organisations run by Satanists.

    Phil Pringle makes satanic hand signs while preaching and he chooses thirteen points for his constitution and he puts Christ last. The dots are pretty easy to join. They are hidden in plain sight to throw people off the reality that Phil Pringle is a Satanist.

  177. When was the last time you heard Phil Pringle admit he made a mistake and correct himself. I attended CCCOF for several years and never heard him admit anything remotely like a mistake.

  178. I rest my case!

    Chirpy is an occult bird name by the way. It has six letters. Three Chirpys is the number of the Birdybeast – ChirpyChirpyChirpy. Twitter, of course, is the fulness of the Chirpy, having seven letters.

    Any bird caught with the mark of the ChirpyChirpyChirpy will be sent to Birdatory and suffer eternal listening to entire flocks of Myna Birds, parrots and crows.

    Whilst we’re discussing pointless conspiracy theory, did you know that the Hebrew letter ‘w’ is also ‘6’, so the world wide web, ‘www’ is 666…

    None of this is in the Bible, of course, so it’s all conjecture, but it makes people sound important.

    Have to go, now, the sound of the myna birds is deafening.

    If you have anything scriptural to reveal, Chirpy, give us a whistle and I’ll tune in.

  179. @ Chirpy – you seem consumed with the occult and making bizarre claims without foundation – are you neglecting to be a witness to the godless society all around you, the real “children of their father, the devil”?

  180. And someone told me that Phil bought 13 mars bars at the supermarket last week. Now why would he do that?

  181. Problems with Mars Bars, they have had a number of problems associated with their manufacturing of Mars Bars. In 2005, there was a threat made that some of the bars had been tainted in the area around New South Wales. Only two people were hospitalized and they made full recoveries.

    The tainting scare supposedly only involved Mars Bars.The company also posted a notice that, due to manufacturing practices (i.e. “satanic rituals), vegetarians and Christians should avoid the product. The chemical used to produce whey in the products was not “pagan sacrificial animal” free.

    The sales figures across the board were down and before long, the company issued a statement through the press that it had made a grievous error in judgment and would one day repent of it.

    The company ceased the pagan use of “sacrificed animals” in producing the candy bars. Sales are back up – 13 known to be sold locally on the Northern Beaches………

  182. Hey Chirpy, sorry about my comment. After the events in Norway, I want to not ever insult, hurt or belittle anyone.

    Let me say this. Before you accuse someone of being a Satanist, I think you need a bit more evidence than a few examples of the use of the number 13. It’s a REALLY huge claim you are making.

  183. machoman, only the great apologise. I forgive you for your harmless comment.

    According to Mark 3:28-30, which is authoritative, anybody who accuses a person, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, of being of the devil (eg. a Satanist), will never be forgiven of this sin and will be condemned to hell for all eternity.

    This is a warning not to accuse anybody of being a Satanist unless it is certain that they are a Satanist.

    If I am wrong about Phil Pringle and it turns out that he is a bona fide believer in Jesus Christ, I will go to hell.

    The original photos of Phil Pringle making out-of-context satanic hand signs while preaching that I took and which were posted on this website on another thread (which I currently can’t find) were poor quality, low resolution photos because they were taken with a cheap digital camera. (There were more than twenty photos.) Regrettably, the poor appearance of these photos on this website means that they are not conclusive or persuasive.

    However, I have the original photos that I took of the paused video player that contained his preaching and I know what the images looked like on the screen. Phil Pringle made just enough blatant satanic hand signs fleetingly (so that it makes no sense to say that he was making the deaf sign for “I love you”) to make me realise that he knew exactly what he was doing.

    I have looked at this issue from a lot of different angles over a prolonged period of time and there is no doubt in my mind that Phil Pringle is a Satanist.

    What many Christians do not realise when listening to Phil Pringle preach or pray is that he is spiritually dead. He does not have an intimate relationship with God or with Jesus Christ. When he preaches and when he prays, he raises his voice to give the counterfeit impression of spiritual passion but the Holy Spirit is not present. His preaching is wooden, his prayer is wooden and his face is wooden. There is no evidence that the Holy Spirit lives inside of him. He is a faker. What he will tell you to convince you that he is a bona fide follower of Jesus Christ is that he has hundreds of churches around the world. However he has achieved this through the means of self-effort.

    Phil Pringle is a Satanist pretending to be a Christian. The sooner Christians start probing the darkness that surrounds him and follows him around, the better off we’ll all be.

  184. Just as well you guys don’t know my birth date is 6/6/66. Oh heck…….You’ve found me out.

  185. Chirpy. I’ve known Phil personally for 22 years. I have prayed with him. I have travelled with him. I have eaten many meals with him. I have spent many, many hours talking with him about Jesus and about church. You are so very, very wrong about the man.

    Let me leave you with this pertinent quote – “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” You, sir, are a fool.

  186. John, you could be anybody. You could be a Freemason pretending to be a Christian like many in the church in Australia. Your testimony is worthless.

    “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a case shall be in danger of the judgement. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”
    Matthew 5:22

  187. “You could be a Freemason pretending to be a Christian like many in the church in Australia”

    And you could be a satanist trying to besmirch the name of a respected church leader. You certainly display the fruit of a follower of satan.

    “Your testimony is worthless.”

    As is yours. Reveal who you are and I will reveal who I am.

  188. Chirpy…’According to Mark 3:28-30, which is authoritative, anybody who accuses a person, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, of being of the devil (eg. a Satanist), will never be forgiven of this sin and will be condemned to hell for all eternity.’

    Almost true, but not quite.

    What Jesus is actually saying is that if he, by the Finger of God, the Holy Spirit, casts out a demon from someone, and critics claim that he is doing so by the devil, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, a sin which cannot be forgiven.

    In other words, they are saying the Holy Spirit is the devil.

    The accusation isn’t so much against the person in-dwelt by the Spirit, but against the Spirit himself.

    Now I think you come rather close to blasphemy against the Spirit when you call Phil a satanist, but not to the extent of being excluded from God, because you haven’t actually said he does any works of healing or deliverance by the devil, to my knowledge.

    But if you do say this, then, yes, I think you are in trouble.

    I find people come close to the edge when they say other Christians who are doing the works of God are doing so by the devil, or speak in other tongues and it is by the devil. I would say that could be seen as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

    So you do actually raise a good point here. Maybe that’s another idea for a post.

  189. By the way, Chirpy, this site has thankfully moved on considerably since specks stopped his constant attacks on Phil Pringle and C3, and it has been much more fun atmosphere and constructive blog, attracting new commenters.

    Now you’ve come back to defend speck’s angry overkill assertions with your preposterous slander against Phil and C3, and you’re making a big stinky, bird-poo mess of the place, which had been reasonably cleaned up for a few weeks.

    Why don’t you do what specks has done and create your own anti-phil diatribal blog so you rant away to yourself and leave the rest of us in peace so we can discuss issues rather than attack individuals or churches?

    There’s a club you can join, which was described well by Jude and Peter. You come close to fitting the required dress code:

    ‘Clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.’

  190. Chirpy, I think most of your points could be addressed easily if someone took the time.

    But I’ll address just two for you.

    The hand sign? There are probably many Christians like me who have no idea about the secret hand signals of Satanists, Masons, or Labor Party members… But probably if you looked at enough video of me speaking, who knows, you might get a snap shot of me doing one. But ……if I were really a Satanist, why would I take the risk of doing a hand signal. What for? To whom? If PP is really a Satanist of note, his Satanist buddies/colleagues/underlings/superiors?..would no doubt know. Don’t they have other ways of connecting – phones?websites?

    As for the 13 points. I don’t think any Christian has to be scared of numbers. Seriously. I never think if I’m writing a thesis or planning my day think that I better not have 6 points, but 7. I like 12 better than 13…but remember, there are 13 players on the field on a team in the state of origin. Does that mean anything?

    For all I know, PP might have purposely just tried to be different and chosen 13 to make a point – that Satan doesn’t own the number 13 – that Christians don’t have to always do things in 7s,13s, 40s, 70s etc.

    Or…maybe it just happened that way. Sometimes you can read things into things that aren’t there. Are you married? Just wait – your wife will probably read deep things into things that you never even thought about!

    But another question. There are all kinds of people here. People who support Pringle, others that really oppose his doctrine, and others who don’t know anything about him – but you haven’t convinced anyone. Does that make you consider that you might be wrong?

  191. Chirpy wrote:

    “What many Christians do not realise when listening to Phil Pringle preach or pray is that he is spiritually dead. He does not have an intimate relationship with God or with Jesus Christ. When he preaches and when he prays, he raises his voice to give the counterfeit impression of spiritual passion but the Holy Spirit is not present. His preaching is wooden, his prayer is wooden and his face is wooden. There is no evidence that the Holy Spirit lives inside of him. He is a faker. What he will tell you to convince you that he is a bona fide follower of Jesus Christ is that he has hundreds of churches around the world. However he has achieved this through the means of self-effort.”
    .
    .
    .
    .
    This is true of anyone you could name in the religion business or industry.

    I saw Pringle years ago and he struck me as very narcissistic, in love with himself.

    As a young Christian i questioned: Why are all the “successful” leaders in Christianity such fake people in real life?

    Then i understood Rev 17. The system will never accept a genuine person, let alone promote him. Fakeness, self-love and self-promotion are the basic prerequisites to get started in the industry.

    But how do they get such large followings? They appeal to the flesh. They are people whom carnal Christians can identify with.

    The fakeness puts me off, but it appeals to someone else.

    Chirpy is pretty confused about a lot of things but he knows that if it quacks it’s a duck.

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/

  192. “This is an outrageous claim to make of anyone else – it is totally impossible for anyone but God to declare that someone is spiritually dead – there is no way for anyone else in any circumstance to have that sort of knowledge”

    You obviously aren’t acquainted with the gift of discernment, Greg. It is in fact a simple matter for someone with that particular God-given ability to be able to spot the pretenders, of whom there is an all-too-plentiful supply these days.

    As has been pointed out before, “spiritual truths are spiritually discerned”. Your bemused umbrage shows that you continue to flounder in the flesh in this regard.

  193. CCCer, are you saying Chirpy is right?

    I have been around Phil often enough to know he is an anointed man of God. Like John, I have prayed with him.

    But, besides this, it his fruit which determines his connection to God. I have been around enough of the people associated with C3 over the years to know the fruit is good, healthy and of the Vine.

    You know, there are churches being planted, people’s needs being taken care of, outreach into the lost and unchurched taking place, prayer going up to God, the gifts in action, faith is being acted upon. Jesus is being glorified, so the Father is being glorified.

    Making rash statements about a person’s digital flexibility as evidence of demonic possession is preposterous. Have you considered that this is the rambling conspiratorial rant of a person who is actually dead to the Spirit of God?

    I’d say Greg gas actually discerned that Chirpy is off track with some of his assertions. Maybe he was thrown out of the nest by a cuckoo.

  194. No.

    I stand with Christians against hypocrisy no matter where they’re from. I’ve even stood up for teddy and Greg despite our differences of opinion, because they were, at times, wrongly accused.

    You, on the other hand, spend most of your time, here anyway, criticising men and women of God, Jews, and anything you don;t like, without evidence or truth. Little wonder you are challenged at times.

    I just think you are challenged.

  195. Chirpy and Ian, you may be right – I don’t know. Obviously, people can lead churches and grow them to thousands and tens of thousands – and still be sinning the whole time. That’s been shown.

    But, we could all say that this person and that person are spiritually dead. Do you think there are people that could watch you preach and say that you are fake and spiritually dead? And how would you respond?

    People like Pringle are human. He probably hasn’t claimed to be any more spiritual that anyone else.

  196. @ Greg

    The only person on this blog who takes you seriously is Wazza.

    Everyone else believes you are a lost soul or a hypocrite.

    i don’t know anyone except Wazza who would consider you a Christian.

    …………………………………………………………………………..

    Anyone who denies the LORD Jesus Christ and who does not obey His commands DECLARES TO THE WORLD that they are spiritually dead.

    No one needs to judge them, they condemn themselves, they are condemned already, and they carry the condemnation in their conscience.

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/

  197. machoman, you said at 9:28am:

    “He (Phil Pringle) probably hasn’t claimed to be any more spiritual that anyone else.”

    You obviously haven’t spent much time in the presence of Phil Pringle.

    Ian, I think the best strategy for you is to let Greg display his character in his posts without passing judgement on it. I know that it’s frustrating, but there’s really no point in responding to slander. The kind of discourse that you would become entangled in really is beneath you as a Christian, Ian.

  198. Chirpy, I am not employed by C3. I don’t attend C3 anymore after moving interstate, but I did attend for 20 years. In those 20 years I spent a considerable amount of time with Phil and Chris, and I have been with them in happy times and in sad times, and not once did I see them behave in any way other than as born again believers. As I said I have prayed with Phil and with Chris on many, many occasions. That is all the evidence I need to know beyond any doubt that Phil has a close personal relationship with Jesus. You can think any deluded thing you like. You can stand in self-righteous judgement over Phil and invent ridiculous “arguments” to “prove” you’re right as much as you want. All it does is prove beyond any doubt that you’re a few sandwiches short of a picnic. And sadly, anyone who supports your ridiculous fantasies is painting themselves in the same light.

  199. Ian, I just visited your blog and website. I’m having real trouble trying to reconcile the apparently Godly missionary shown there with the judgemental, angry and accusatory Ian Vincent as seen here on Signposts. Are you both the same person?

  200. John, the photos are going to follow in the next two weeks. The photos are of the paused video player containing the preaching of Phil Pringle. Because I only had a cheap digital camera at the time I took the photos, they are of poor quality. However, there is enough data present to show that Phil Pringle was making satanic hand signs fleetingly while preaching. Combined with the other evidence that I have listed above, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Phil Pringle is a Satanist. He is probably a Freemason. If he had not made satanic hand signs while preaching, which I saw with my own eyes in high resolution on the paused video player, I would never have called him out as a Satanist due to the seriousness of the charge and the dire consequences of a false charge for me according to Mark 3:28-30.

    John, through no fault of your own, you have been deceived by Phil Pringle, just as we all were. He is part of a highly-sophisticated push by Satanists and Freemasons to weaken the church which has been going on for more than fifty years in Australia. He and his wife have publicly admitted to being involved in the occult in New Zealand before ‘becoming Christians’. The question is whether they ever left the occult. His wife, Christine Pringle, buried a Bible in the cement foundations of Christian City Church Oxford Falls when it was being built in the 1990s. This is not the behaviour of a bona fide Christian. She is a deceiver, just like her husband, Phil Pringle.

    Let Phil Pringle and his wife defend themselves. Of this you can be sure, they will not, under any circumstances, allow the original videos of his preaching that contain the instances that I will list with date and time stamps, to be released and scrutinised in high resolution by anybody.

  201. Kipling, Greg and any other sane, rational poster here on Signposts, I realise now I made the mistake of giving Chirpy reason to continue to write his deluded and demented rubbish, and for that I apologise.

    Chirpy, you’re…. how can I say this nicely….nuts! Your “evidence” is simply crazy! Hand signals? Seriously?

  202. @ John

    Re:

    “Ian, I just visited your blog and website. I’m having real trouble trying to reconcile the apparently Godly missionary shown there with the judgemental, angry and accusatory Ian Vincent as seen here on Signposts. Are you both the same person?”
    .
    .
    .

    Out of the hundreds i’m in fellowship with, i can’t think of anyone who would be interested in visiting this blog, as much of the content is so nutty and blasphemous.

    And i can’t think of anyone i know who would take Phil Pringle seriously.

    Therefore we must live in different worlds.

    Come over to india and see how the other half lives.

    Haven’t had a beard for a while now. But only a pea-brain would think that significant.

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/

  203. Ian, you mustn’t know many people then. I could point to hundreds of thousands of people who do take Phil seriously. Judging by your attitude shown here on Signposts I doubt you’d have very many taking you very seriously. Just sayin’

    Chirpy – are you serious?

  204. John, I’m absolutely serious. I’ve rethought the comments you’ve been posting and they don’t stack up.

    Are you a Freemason?

  205. True, millions take the Pope seriously, etc…. Rob Bell, McClaren….

    Yeah, We move in different circles. I don’t know anyone who would consider Greg and the like to be Christians.

    My attitude is nothing compared to the attitude that would happen if Jesus of Nazareth (the real one) turned up at any money church, or if any of the Apostles turned up. It would be like Bambi meets Godzilla.

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/

  206. Chirpy, I’m speechless!

    Can I ask you a question? Are you seeing anyone in the medical profession on a regular basis?

  207. Chirpy, I am NOT, never have been and never will be a Freemason. Phil Pringle would say exactly the same thing, of that I can most certainly vouch.

    Now, for the second time, are you seeing anyone in the medical profession on a regular basis?

  208. That’s good, John. I’m glad.

    To answer your question, no.

    Cue your predictable retort. It’s like dealing with children.

  209. Since you wanted to bury my post, John, here it is again:

    John, the photos are going to follow in the next two weeks. The photos are of the paused video player containing the preaching of Phil Pringle. Because I only had a cheap digital camera at the time I took the photos, they are of poor quality. However, there is enough data present to show that Phil Pringle was making satanic hand signs fleetingly while preaching. Combined with the other evidence that I have listed above, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Phil Pringle is a Satanist. He is probably a Freemason. If he had not made satanic hand signs while preaching, which I saw with my own eyes in high resolution on the paused video player, I would never have called him out as a Satanist due to the seriousness of the charge and the dire consequences of a false charge for me according to Mark 3:28-30.

    John, through no fault of your own, you have been deceived by Phil Pringle, just as we all were. He is part of a highly-sophisticated push by Satanists and Freemasons to weaken the church which has been going on for more than fifty years in Australia. He and his wife have publicly admitted to being involved in the occult in New Zealand before ‘becoming Christians’. The question is whether they ever left the occult. His wife, Christine Pringle, buried a Bible in the cement foundations of Christian City Church Oxford Falls when it was being built in the 1990s. This is not the behaviour of a bona fide Christian. She is a deceiver, just like her husband, Phil Pringle.

    Let Phil Pringle and his wife defend themselves. Of this you can be sure, they will not, under any circumstances, allow the original videos of his preaching that contain the instances that I will list with date and time stamps, to be released and scrutinised in high resolution by anybody.

  210. Is Greg a Christian?

    I don’t know. I’m still trying to work out my own salavation. But of the posters here, he’s one I’d like to sit and have a beer with.

    Same with Kipling and Machoman.

    Chirpy obviously looks for conspiracies everywhere but hey at least his theology is orthodox.

  211. I wasn’t trying to bury your post Chirpy, I was simply ignoring it. It’s complete fantasy and not worthy of serious consideration or reply.

  212. Bull, I’d like to suggest you terminate this post and any similar so that we can get on with discussing sensible issues and not continue specksandplanks’ ugly agenda.

    These nasty posts go back some time now and regurgitating the nonsense here serves no real purpose.

    If there were any decent discussions or comments taking place I’d feel differently, but this is just a pathetic hate-fest based on no evidence or truth.

    Some posts just outlive any kind of usefulness. This one had none to begin with, so can we put it out of its misery and move on, please?
    ______________________________

    Chirpy, I have been to many meetings in many different C3’s including Oxford Falls. I won’t be discussing any more similar questions with you because they’re none of your business. My only interest here is discussion and the defence of truth. I am not a freemason, either. Nor is Phil. He is a godly man with a great ministry.

    No matter what you think of him, the only thing you should be doing is to pray for him, not slagging him off with stupid, and, now, very boring, and empty theories.

    You are chirping up the wrong tree, as always.

  213. Bull, I hope that you will leave this thread open for two weeks from today so that I can post the photos.

    Kipling is obviously trying to sweep all of this under the rug and it looks suspiciously to me as though Kipling has something to hide and is afraid of the photos being posted.

    If the hand signs mean nothing then let Phil Pringle show that to be the case and he can put this to rest once and for all.

  214. Don’t be childish, Chirpy.

    As I said earlier, if you have so much ‘evidence’ set up your own blog and rant away into the wind. Who’s stopping you?

    I don’t shirk back from confrontation, as anyone here knows, but I’m not interested in the absurd or ridiculous, as it both wastes time and interferes with reasonable commentary.

    If you have some scriptural evidence of wrongdoing, then put it up and we’ll discuss it. No problem. I’m still waiting.

    I’ve asked for Biblical evidence several times from you now, but all you’ve come up with is a bogus and ludicrous claim about hand signals you have to photograph at slow speed off a dodgy camcorder???????!!!!!!!!!

    It’s called delusion in the Word!

    I say nip this dopiness in the bud before this entire blog becomes a laughing stock.

  215. Kipling, I didn’t record Phil Pringle preaching with a camcorder. The C3 video production team recorded Phil Pringle preaching with the digital video cameras in the Oxford Falls church auditorium. Those digital video cameras are owned by the church.

    Then those videos of the Sunday morning and evening services were posted on the Oxford Falls church website. I watched the videos, saw Phil Pringle making satanic hand signs, paused the videos, recorded the date and time of the preaching and the hour, minute and second mark of the videos being played from the website and finally took photos of the paused videos with a cheap digital camera.

    I’ve got more than twenty photos, all with associated date and time stamps.

  216. Chirpy, you are basing your arguments on an insanely ridiculous premise. If you had seen Phil attend a black mass and slaughter a chicken on the altar then you’d have a case, but to site a couple of momentary hand gestures and say you have unequivocal proof of his satan worship is stupid. I grew up in a house where it was rude to point, so I learnt to point at things with my first and last fingers, in much the same way that Phil holds his hands in your photo. Does that make me a satanist? Your 20 photos means absolutely zip. Your obsession is frankly quite sad.

  217. Chirpy, did you leave C3 voluntarily, or were you asked to leave? I remember a number of years ago a couple of college students were asked to leave because of some serious mental health issues. One of these students actually walked into a chapel service naked believing that God had told them to strip themselves of “everything worldly”. That wasn’t you, was it?

  218. Kipling, I love serious biblical discussion as much as the next guy, but you’ve got to admit, Chirpy’s rants are “interesting”! I wouldn’t worry too much about this blog becoming a laughing stock by the way. It has been for a number of years apparently. I was told about it by a friend who has been visiting signposts for years, and he would tell me some of the things going on here, and we’d certainly have a laugh at some of the views! I thought it was about time I saw it for myself, and, lo and behold, I have entered right in the middle of the most ridiculously hilarious argument I think I have ever seen anywhere!

  219. John: Conflict is what keeps this blog alive. Seriously. Tension on every page. Like a best selling novel. That, plus the occasional larger than life character.

  220. If you think I’m joking, have a read of this:
    http://writerunboxed.com/2007/12/07/interview-donald-maass-part-2/

    Extract:

    Q: Are there any telltale signs a writer has evolved story conflict enough?

    DM: No. There isn’t enough conflict in your story. Sorry.

    Q: If the goal is, literally, tension on every page, do you think most stories could (and maybe should) be shortened?

    DM: The issue isn’t length. The issue is whether a novel is eventful enough. Virtually all (in manuscript, anyway) are not. That’s partly what I meant by that terse answer just above. I’m telling you what I see, constantly, in submissions: insufficient tension, underdeveloped plots, not enough reason to keep reading.

    So, now you know why you and others get swept in. There’s conflict here in spades.

  221. “John: Conflict is what keeps this blog alive. Seriously. Tension on every page. Like a best selling novel. That, plus the occasional larger than life character.”

    “So, now you know why you and others get swept in. There’s conflict here in spades.”

    A very insightful observation, Ravingpente.

    I would add the thought that anonymity confers a high degree of freedom when expressing opinions here, so whereas a disagreement in Church might be namby-pamby “Marquess of Queensberry”, some of the stuff here is bare-knuckle (and occasionally beyond).

  222. I’d agree with that, in addition I think its something like a radio talkback vibe.

    To survive as a radio talkback host you have to be strongly opinionated and also express a view that many of your listeners identify with, but for some reason feel that they have not been able to express those views or have them taken seriously.

    At its best, the original Signposts blog allowed people to express their dissatisfaction and have it validated by others. People like Lance and Lionfish acted like the shock-jocks for this community.

    Now that we’ve moved on a little from opposition to Megachurch leaders, its interesting that sides have been taken in other battles – Calvinist/Arminian, Conservative/Liberal etc.

    As to whether its good or bad, I cant really say. Certainly the discussion can sometimes get you to think, and widen your views – even change them. If however you just stay on you side and throw rocks at the other, it gets boring.

    Then again, Ive seen quite a few apologies and acknowlegments of wrong views or behaviour, so that tells me there might be value to the whole process.

    The person who is most responsible for the continuation and life of this blog is Kipling. Without him, there would be no energy and no discussion and the blog would have trailed off into obscurity. So ironically, by defending Megachurch culture so steadfastly and eloquently, he has strengthened and enlivened that critcism.

  223. I think you’re right, wazza. Kipling is the longest enduring contributor who has provided consistent, opposing views, no matter what the emphasis here has been. It wouldn’t have lasted this long without him.

  224. “Kipling is the longest enduring contributor who has provided consistent, opposing views […]”

    There’s still time for him to repent, of course 😉

  225. Kipling is to be commended for his perseverence. Many other Pentecostals would have given up a long time ago.

    I like this site BECAUSE of the divergence of views. It challenges me to think about what I believe. 5PS is great at that. I go to a Pentecostal church yet trained through an Anglican seminary. There is no way I could have the kinds of discussions we have here at church. If I just wanted to communicate with people who agreed with me, there are plenty of those sites on the web.

  226. Bones, that’s interesting. Actually, I think Kipling is a great spokesman for the pentecostal viewpoint.

  227. I’m trying to work out how to say this the right way. Conflict is okay, and telling people they are wrong and why is good, but I am rethinking the way I have talked with people.

    I know of too many suicides and read about too many murders by people who have felt misunderstood and alienated. I think it’s better to engage people as respectfully and peacefully as you can.

    Maybe I’m getting old.

  228. Bones, most of my friends are pentecostals. They still think I am one. How’s that for strange…

  229. I think there is a lot of wisdom in your writings, Machoman. I don’t think you are getting old – I would say more mature in the faith and compassionate. Like Jesus.

    You are totally correct about Kipling as well.

  230. GREG@

    Kipling, have you ever attended C3 church Oxford Falls?

    Chirpy have you ever attended a psychiatric assessment?

    Hilarious…

    Ian, I think you have missed the point and how dare we have a “forum” on whether or not Greg is a Christian, that is the job of the Lord to judge. Instead of Ian and Greg fighing and Greg caling Ian a “Dick head” perhaps you both might like to consider the detrimental effect you are having on this group corporatately. It has got so out of hand I really don’t think I can be bothered still looking at this site. Attacks have become personal and name calling is rife, not cool….

    Anyway, my two bob worth, you all might disagree, so be it, but I am tired of fighting and name calling. Ian, what does it matter if Greg is not a believer, do you take the same harsh stand with people you meet in real life? I thought our job was to try and love others, while pointing them to the truth of Jesus and not be so judgemental???

  231. Machoman, if you think that’s strange.

    I am an ex-Anglican Youth Minister attending a Pentecostal church married to a wonderful Uniting Church lady. I have a brother who’s a Catholic priest and uncle and aunt who are very long serving Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  232. I’ll freak everyone out with this (except you maybe Bones), but go to an unchurched country with few Christians, and you realize how much you have in common with Catholics.

    Bones, go check out the video about youth ministry on Groupsects and tell me what you think. (If you have time and don’t mind that is).

  233. Kipling, Rudyard Kipling was a Freemason, so are you sure that you’re not a Freemason?

    And are you somebody who has earned a living for many years by being a pastor at C3 church, so that you are in fact very well acquainted with Phil Pringle?

  234. Chirpy is actually a treemason.

    He is related, through his maternal side, to Woody Woodpecker, which explains the ding in his head where his aunty accidentally drove her beak at force one day when she mistook him for a fledgling oak, his bright green plumage and stumpy greyish-brown legs giving him the appearance of a small sapling, particularly if he stands still for too long, practicing slow-motion observance of public speakers.

    This unfortunate injury gives him momentary lapses of rational focus where he actually believes fiendish activity is taking pace at low speed, undetectable to anyone but those with a trained eye or vivid imagination.

    The Woodpeckers, of course, are famed for their contributions to the early tree churches built to house flocks of birdshippers form the brush arbor movement. The woodpeckers and other craftsbirds led to a secret society of tetrapodic flapertinities, and, ultimately, a sinister branch called the Flights Templar, made up primarily of woodpeckers from Chirpy’s ancestry.

    Conflict and confusion showed up early in Chirpy’s life when those on his paternal side realised they had, through this hastily arranged marriage, been stealthily seconded into the Flights Templar clans as part of a drive to provide a front for their illicit woodchip cider operations, the Flights Templar being an ultra secret society communicating solely through wing tip signals known only to devoted cryptic avians in the darkest lodges.

    Through inbreeding and subliminal infloctrination, Chirpy developed the same wing tip signals, but they were so concealed and automatic even he didn’t know that the signals were presenting, until his uncle, Wally Woodpecker, a Birdshipful Master in the Flights Templar Green Lodge, gave the interpretation of a very secret signal known only to 32nd and 33rd degree treemasons.

    Little does Chirpy know that he is being groomed for high office, notwithstanding the dent to his head inflicted so long ago.

  235. Hey Chirpy

    I was given a link to Charismatic Chaos pod casts and each section had a talk by John Macarthur… I just counted up the chapters and there are 13, oh my gosh, he must be of the devil!

    Haha, you seriously draw some wild conclusions. Your latest makes me shake my head, so because the person has called themselves “kipling” they are now a freemason. My gosh, that is why I don’t spend much time on the internet, people like you give the rest of us Christians a really bad name.

  236. John Smith, you are blind to the infiltration of the church of Jesus Christ by the occult.

    I don’t know if Kipling is a Freemason or not. I’m asking him.

    Kipling, since Rudyard Kipling was a Freemason and since you have displayed a familiarity with Freemasonry in your post at 2:16am today, are you sure that you’re not a Freemason?

    And are you somebody who has earned a living for many years by being a pastor at C3 church, so that you are in fact very well acquainted with Phil Pringle?

    And if you are such an ardent defender of Phil Pringle’s integrity, why do you want to remain anonymous?

  237. Chirpy, who are your last questions directed to, Kipling or me?

    I am not blind, I wonder how you make such assumptions, but then again, based on the other stuff you have said I find it hard to take your arguments seriously. I think you actually said kipling was a freemason and that pp was the devil worshipper, that is pretty strong language.

  238. I’ve already answered your questions, Chirpy, and said I’m not interested in your interrogation anyway, but I’ll answer two things and ask you to stop.

    To put you out of your misery on freemasonry, I was saved in a small country town, virtually run, and ruined spiritually, by a Blue Lodge of Masons.

    I was invited to join on at least three occasions by different masons, but, on investigation and much study, discovered the anti-christ nature of freemasonry, and works led salvation thrust of their false doctrine.

    From then on I attempted to witness to as many as I could uncover in the hope of bringing some out so they could function in the local church rather than attempt to work their way to heaven through a bogus secret society. I managed to bring one out, thank God, who was in his 70’s at the time, and went to the Lord years later a believer!

    So, no, I have no connection with freemasonry, nor any desire to be associated.

    I hope that answers that question.

    Finally, I have, many, many times on this blog stated that I comment entirely on my own, am not representative of any church or organisation, nor are my views an expression of their policies, neither have I been asked to comment or be active on this or any other site.

    I have never been employed anywhere in Sydney, nor lived there. I have visited C3OF an many occasions when in NSW, as well as other C3 churches, plus COC churches, Uniting Churches, Anglican Churches, Baptist Conventions, ACC churches, and numerous other organisations.

  239. You’re a very patient bunch. On every other forum, Chirpy would have been dismissed as a troll and prevented from posting.

  240. I’ll have to confess I haven’t been as patient with Chirpy as some others, zeibart.

    But I was just reflecting on the question he asked me, “are you sure you’re not a freemason”, after I’ve said I’m not.

    Can someone actually be unsure if they’re a freemason or not?

    I thought you had to go through some pretty horrific vows to become one. I’m sure you’d know!

  241. Here are the photos of Phil Pringle making satanic hand signs while preaching. I’m posting them one link per post since a post with more than one link goes into moderation.


    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Mar-09 Sun – 6pm – 01h 44m 10s – Right hand – Conclusive

  242. Here is the complete list of instances of Phil Pringle making satanic hand signs while preaching, including instances whose photos were not good enough to show:

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 05-Apr-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 10m 50s – RH – Marginal

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 22-Mar-09 Sun – 9am – 00h 56m 29s – RH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 22-Mar-09 Sun – 9am – 00h 58m 44s – RH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 22-Mar-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 03m 11s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Mar-09 Sun – 6pm – 01h 29m 00s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Mar-09 Sun – 6pm – 01h 44m 10s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Mar-09 Sun – 6pm – 01h 48m 59s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 00h 58m 17s – RH – Marginal – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 00h 59m 41s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 09m 34s – RH – Conclusive – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 10m 32s – RH – Variation – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 16m 26s – RH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 15-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 17m 11s – RH – Conclusive

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 01-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 10m 18s – RH – Marginal – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 01-Feb-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 12m 41s – RH – Variation

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 18-Jan-09 Sun – 9am – 01h 00m 17s – RH – Variation – Poor Photo

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 05m 05s – LH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 05m 05s – RH – Blatant – In Front Head – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 05m 05s – RH – Blatant – Next To Head
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 10m 53s – RH – Marginal

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 01h 03m 57s – RH – Blatant – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 01h 25m 51s – RH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 28-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 01h 27m 34s – LH – Conclusive

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 12m 33s – LH – Variation
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 17m 19s – RH – Blatant
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 9am – 01h 29m 52s – RH – Blatant

    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 00h 58m 37s – RH – Blatant – Poor Photo
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 01h 14m 22s – RH – Conclusive
    CCC – Phil Pringle – 21-Dec-08 Sun – 6pm – 01h 14m 50s – RH – Marginal – Poor Photo

  243. Very harsh, Ian. I think Greg has the right to be heard whether you agree with him or not. I like Greg’s posts, yours and others as they help me to think about what I believe. You can’t compare Greg’s posts with Chirpy’s. Chirpy’s are clearly delusional. Having said that I’d rather leave Chirpy’s posts up and we call them for what they are.

  244. I don’t know PP personally, but I think he’d probably be amused with the hand signal allegation.

    I know I would.

  245. “I think [Phil Pringle would] probably be amused with the hand signal allegation.”

    I think he would wave his hand dismissively…

  246. It seems Phil’s hand is permanently stuck in the ‘I love you’ deaf signing position! It’s a sign!

    Leave Greg alone, ian!

    We may not agree with all he says, but he raises some interesting points for discussion.

    It would probably help you get over your religiosity to consider some of them, and, if you still disagree put up a concise apologetic for why so that we can all take note.

    I agree threads like this should probably have a cutting off point, and Chirpy’s folly abandoned.

  247. “if you still disagree put up a concise apologetic for why so that we can all take note.”

    Agreed. I know I need to get better at stating why I think a position is wrong in a concise clear way – even if I think the position is ludicrous.

  248. Steve,

    how can I moderate this?

    If I do, it will make it look like there is substance to the allegations.

    If I just leave it there, Chirpy comes across as needing help, frankly.

    No one believes that 9-11 was a conspiracy my yankee spooks to create a pre-text for war in the Middle-East.

    I think the best thing to do with this post is to close it.

    It isn’t getting us anywhere.

    Shalom

Comments are closed.