The Thinking Theologian blogs…
“In early May I was contacted by a Hillsong pastor, with whom I discussed this blog and my motives behind running it.
Whilst it was admitted that Hillsong are unable to close down the blog, I nevertheless voluntarily took down the content; to show [willingness] in maintaining a healthy, constructive dialogue with the Hillsong leadership.
I have since had several conversations with the leadership, in which I voiced my various concerns regarding Hillsong. I remain convinced, however, of the very evident need for frank and open critique of Hillsong’s culture, systems, and world-view.
I have therefore re-posted The Thinking Theologian, and advised the Hillsong leadership of my intention to continue the blog.
I would like to reiterate the purpose of this blog: it is to hold “a candle in the back-alleys of Christendom”, by which I mean, to reveal the inner workings of Christian organisations such as Hillsong, and bring to light any areas which require attention, in the hope that the relevant issues will be addressed. The blog was never intended to become ‘famous’, and its mention in the main-stream media served only to attract populist attention which was neither welcome nor particularly helpful.
My sincere hope for The Thinking Theologian is that it plant a seed of honest doubt in the minds of earnest Christians, and cause them to prayerfully (and thoughtfully!) reconsider the merit of Hillsong and churches like it.”
From http://thethinkingtheologian.blogspot.com/2009/07/rumours-of-my-silence-by-lawsuit-have.html
Good to see TTT’s blog back up!
“In early May I was contacted by a Hillsong pastor, with whom I discussed this blog and my motives behind running it.
Whilst it was admitted that Hillsong are unable to close down the blog, I nevertheless voluntarily took down the content; to show [willingness] in maintaining a healthy, constructive dialogue with the Hillsong leadership.
I have since had several conversations with the leadership, in which I voiced my various concerns regarding Hillsong. I remain convinced, however, of the very evident need for frank and open critique of Hillsong’s culture, systems, and world-view.
I have therefore re-posted The Thinking Theologian, and advised the Hillsong leadership of my intention to continue the blog.”
It seems to me that they could not take down the blog because of the allegations having truth to them…. I think that Hillsong obviously contacted TTT because of the bad light it put them in!
I do not believe that a leopard can change it’s spots, nor can a pente megachurch pastor do likewise, unless forced to do so, so it is not a surprise that the leadership of Hillsong was unwilling to make changes.
Is it just me or does this sound alot like what happened to Emblazoned back in 2006?
I know a lot of people who have seen TTT’s blog. It got huge exposure around the time it was in SMH which I think is a good thing
I recall Emblazoned also discussing his blog with hill$ong pastors a while back but it achieved nothing.
TTT – Which pastor contacted you about the blog?
Good to see T3 back. And credit to him for being willing to discreetly listen – for a period of time.
Same for me. The contact of a concerned Pastor, never leads anywhere. They are willing to listen, or to change or to admit *current* shortcomings in the operating model – or release financial statements (contrary to public declarations from the pulpit – ie. The books are always open).
should be unwilling…
Welcome back TTT. At least you’ll take some heat off me for a little while…
I am trying to create a facebook group for anon users who used to blog on the old Signposts . Is there any interest out there? It will be an invitation only private group that will not appear in the profiles . I am particulary interested in hearing how blogging on Signposts helped people but all comments would be welcome
Katherine, tell me more… rmac8082@bigpond.net.au
not sure if that includes me Katherine…
how far back you talking about?
specks_and_planks@hotmail.com
ttts back, wow, lets play
sorry, meant pray
I’d be in for that one Katherine http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=733487293&ref=profile
Not sure if anyone is aware but Phil Pringle’s latest altar call spiel involves simply asking all the visitors to raise their hands and make themselves known. He then invites them down the front saying that he wants to pray for them and when they arrive, he forces them to pray an abridged sinner’s prayer (excluding the repentance part). He then sends them off with a counsellor standing behind that will explain to them what they have just done. I guess he can do crazy altar calls if he wants. However, it makes me angry that the senior leadership in the church (eg Mark Kelsey, Mark S and Simon M) should know better and say something to Phil to stop him embarrassing the local church with these shenanigans… The reason it is offensive is that the decision is not genuine or based on truth or revalation so when there is no change, the supposed convert is innoculated to the gospel.
I think this whole procedure is deceptive and manipulative. I’d encourage other C3 members to dialogue here about this.
Isn’t PP the bleoved benevolent dictator of the C3 fringe sect…?
As such he can do what he wants.
Some, not all of these points are eerily familiar.
It’s Teddy, not anonymous! Why does my link do that??
Trying to express concerns at C3 didn’t work for us. We approached leadership directly about not preaching the gospel, the unbiblical prosperity “doctrine”, etc etc. Leaving was the only option and was the best thing we ever did – should have done it years ago. You have to hear good preaching and sound doctrine elsewhere to realise just how really bad it is at C3
Leaving Phil Pringle aside, I guess it’s disappointing that the other leaders at the church don’t question what goes on. I don’t believe that they all would agree/endorse this type of behaviour. So, if they don’t address issues like this, why not? Phil gave an altarcall like this a couple of weeks ago at the pm service and followed up last night with the same approach. He hasn’t changed his ways after the first instance.
Is it fear of not towing the line / losing their jobs / looking like they are not supportive of the “leader”? If so, this does highlight a more concerning problem with the church and the way it operates – and suggests that this style of “do not challenge me” leadership flows through into all areas.
I would let it go but when Phil starts deceptively meddling with people who are effectively praying a prayer of commitment without the gospel being shared with them, I think it’s time to speak up.
‘Concerned about C3′ – I don’t think all the other leaders are necessarily in agreement, but my understanding is that PP is rarely challenged. Probably all the reasons you said are true. The leaders who might challenge Phil are probably those who’ve been there a long time, but he is the final word on things regardless.
I agree with you re this kind of meddling, and it could easily turn people away from the gospel as they feel manipulated, and perhaps even cause them to view the entire congregation as people who aquiesce to that kind of manipulation. Sounds like desperate measures to shore up numbers to me. For some reason, relying on God to draw people to Him isn’t good enough. I don’t think I’d go back to a church where that happened to me.
If you are unhappy, then maybe you should pray about whether to speak up – probably you have already. If you do speak up, the reactions will be educational. Already, you are blogging here rather than speaking up there, (or so it looks), and there must be a reason you are more comfortable to do that. Speaking up isn’t always easy – but why not? Is there something wrong with a culture where we have reservations about raising those sorts of issues?
Anyway, I think your reaction is right; it is important as it’s playing with people’s salvation. If you find eventually that you do need to move on, then I’d add my voice to Teddy’s – there are good alternatives to attending C3. Quite a few in fact, and in the same part of Sydney. I had an enjoyable decade at C3 some years ago, but I can’t say I’ve looked back after leaving!
I know for a fact that some of the staff do not agree with what comes out of the pulpit. Why do they stay? I don’t know. Job security is my guess, although they’re laying people off these days. But from their POV, I’m guessing of course, would you go up to your boss and tell him that the company was being run badly and the things that were said at the staff meeting were just crap?
“Concerned about C3″ – thanks for posting here. I’m primarily a visitor to this page, I rarely post but I certainly appreciate that blogs like this are helpful in the scheme of things, especially for folks like yourself who are perhaps in a “questioning” phase.
I’d 2nd what RP and Teddy had to say but more importantly, just ask yourself this – do you really think PP gives a toss what you think? Honestly??? Do you think the other leaders do too? The simple facts are that people come and go in that place (and you’d already know this anyways if you attend regularly) and 1 person with an perceived “issue” isn’t going to rattle them one iota. As if they’d care enough to do anything about what you had to say. It wouldn’t bother them and from their perspective, you’d be the philistine unbeliever who needed to “submit to the leadership”.
The best thing you can do is to vote with your feet. If every-single congregant got up and left and put God’s word ahead of the affairs of this age then it’d leave Pringle and co with a seriously vacant plot of land and a mountain of debt which in my estimation, is the very least they deserve. But of course that’s not going to happen – is it? While-so-ever there are positions going and the empty promise of the “prosperity gospel” is being espoused, you’ll willing souls to fill the seats.
You could always start a blog.
These mega-church pastors seem to sit up and pay attention if they realize others are listening to you.
You could always start a blog.
These mega-church pastors seem to sit up and pay attention once they realize that others are listening to you.
Katherine, yes i would be interested, you know, having been away from the GS blog, ive time to reflect. The thing is everyone wants to live in peace, harmony….
All i can say is, Wow very interesting, on that utube post “as above”
Re the youtube post from Teddy – some of those cult traits were quite familiar. The more extreme ones at the end weren’t familiar to my experience though, fortunately. I guess there are degrees of everything.
I did like that they identified ‘economic exploitation’ of members. Its so easy for churches to identify sexual exploitation and point the finger at it, but stick their heads in the sand when it comes to acknowledging economic exploitation.
yeah someone said to me the other day or I read it somewhere, “money doesn’t talk, it swears” Oh well, what can one do, nothing, live and let live.
Concerned about C3, I was a leader at C3 for a number of years, and I am one of the few who has challenged PP to his face about his doctrine, specifically regarding the tithe message. Contrary to popular belief PP actually listened to my concerns (admittedly I had a fairly high profile position there, so I guess PP was more inclined to listen than if I was a regular church member). Sure, I didn’t change his mind about what he believed, and he sure didn’t change mine, but I still see him occasionally and we chat.
Your suggestion about the fear of losing jobs is most probably apt. I know of several high profile leaders at C3 who disagree with much of what PP teaches, yet they still remain on staff.
What would you say to Phil if you found out he said in front of his church “I don’t pray for people who don’t tithe”, or “The church (building) needs your money so that it can continue to be a gateway of heaven so that people can receive things from God”?
The question above is to you AFAR (Anonymous For A Reason). I know he said the first statement twice this year and the other statement in 2007 (paraphrased). One of the worshipers for Sundays told me that it was compulsary for them to tithe if they were in a position of influence in the church (they did). I can think of some leaders from CCC that would disagree with a lot PP teaches, but they wouldn’t be game enough to talk to him about really. Isn’t that true? Phil doesn’t really have a lot to do with his church anymore. He’s rarely seen around by member, staff or student.
I understand that not only was it regarded as necessary for leaders and staff to set an example by tithing, but that PP also regarded giving to the builing fund as a requirement for these people. I suppose otherwise it would have been hypocritical for them to promote it to the congregations.
But the situation for staff (including non-leadership staff) becomes – accept a significantly lower than normal salary because you work for a church; tithe off the already reduced income; give from what is left to the building fund at a level that is sacrificial, off an already sacrificially reduced income. These people are very committed to do all this. Questioning the doctrines that lead them to this level of sacrifice would be very painful.
Don’t forget the ongoing sacrifice PP has to make promoting the “church” worldwide by his visible presence as opposed to His visible presence. http://twitter.com/philpringle
I liked that last comment Teddy – very good
Specks, I really don’t want to get into a C3 or a PP bash here, but let me just say that what you said is entirely correct. I heard the same sentiments many times in church and staff meetings.
C3 staff, not the plebs but the “important” ones, get a car and fuel card. Their mobile phone bill is also taken care of and I think they may even be able to have their tithe taken out of their salary pre-tax. Not 100% sure on that last one but the others are definite.
Obviously I only knew the conditions for ‘the plebs’! If they are making a lot of pastoral/ministry related calls, the phone bill payment makes sense; car and fuel card likewise, especially if its cheaper for the church organisation than paying the equivalent salary.
Having their tithe taken out of their salary ‘pre-tax’ is pretty good in principle, but introduces some interesting questions.
1. Clearly they believe in tithing off their gross incomes – some people tithe off their net. (My ex-Anglican minister used to say about this: “Do you want gross blessings or net blessings?”)
2. For a tithe to come out of their salary ‘pre-tax’ and for this to benefit them, they’d have to ‘receive’ income which is not declared to the ATO, because tithes are not tax deductable. In Australia we declare all income, prior to any deductions, to the ATO, and we are allowed to deduct only what the government says we can. So either they are tithing off non-declared income (legal?? – is there a moral issue where a church encourages this?) or its just a way of pretending to tithe off the gross when in reality they ‘tithe’ less. In this setting, a tithe becomes a legal technicality, rather than anything linked to kingdom promises, despite the prosperity doctrine they teach.
3. If they are having the tithe taken out pre-tax, then they are asking others in the congregation to give more than they are themselves, since no-one else gets to declare an income reduced by their tithe amount. This would be like giving 70% of the amount someone else gives on the same income elsewhere (assuming a 30% tax rate), or 50% even – but I doubt they’d earn enough to get that kind of tax benefit. So an element of ‘inequality’ is introduced into a system whose proponents claim it is fair.
It really is a legal system when people start looking for legal loopholes to ‘tithe’ less. Exposes it for the New Law that it is.