Thread: "Megachurch With a Beat" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027757
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
So after their front page story on Mars Hill a few weeks ago, it seems the New York Times has caught the evangelical bug. Big story about Hillsong's expansion into the United States yesterday.
quote:
The Hillsong empire might appear to be a musical powerhouse first and a church second. It is, after all, a multimillion-dollar enterprise, drawing large crowds to arena concert performances; one of its bands, Hillsong United, is even the subject of a documentary scheduled for release by Warner Bros. next year.
Its songs, with a folk rock sound and simple, accessible lyrics, pervade the Christian charts and have transformed the Christian songbook.
“They are without a doubt the most influential producers of worship music in Christendom,” said Fred Markert, a Colorado-based leader of Youth With a Mission, a Christian organization. And Ed Stetzer, the executive director of LifeWay Research, an organization based in Nashville that studies practices in American Christianity, declared in an analysis of Hillsong, “In sensory stimulation, Hillsong’s productions rival any other contemporary form of entertainment.”
But its critics, and there are many, deride Hillsong as hipster Christianity, suggesting that its theology is thin, its enthusiasm for celebrities (Justin Bieber is among its fans) unbecoming, its politics (opposition to abortion and a murky position on homosexuality) opaque.
I think the article captures quite well why I find myself on the fence with Hillsong. They're very much in my charismatic evangelical lane, and I admit to loving their music ("Oceans" has been on repeat for the past month or so). But I'm not sure how strong their theology really is, and how much of the church is a hype machine for the record label versus people really being taught what it means to be a Christian.
So - when do we need to start taking Hillsong seriously as a church (or perhaps we already should have)?
[ 10. September 2014, 14:21: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think the article captures quite well why I find myself on the fence with Hillsong. They're very much in my charismatic evangelical lane, and I admit to loving their music ("Oceans" has been on repeat for the past month or so). But I'm not sure how strong their theology really is, and how much of the church is a hype machine for the record label versus people really being taught what it means to be a Christian.
I think their theology is in general very weak - it is also not consistent, which means it isn't always uniformly weak. They lean heavily in a prosperity theology direction whilst also borrowing from the more managerial bits of Willow Creek. Finally, in Aus at least there are crossovers between people involved in their movement and various reactionary political parties.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Part of the thing that bugs me about their music is that they have this thing where they take a line from a Psalm and a line from another bit of the Bible willy nilly and it's almost as if the songs are William Burroughs style cut ups of the Bible, decontextualised near-random selections from scripture pasted together.
It's about as postmodern as Christian expression gets (although they'd go mad denying that).
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Finally, in Aus at least there are crossovers between people involved in their movement and various reactionary political parties.
Every Australian evangelical I have ever met has been scary right wing. Like, just as much as the American ones I've met.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Finally, in Aus at least there are crossovers between people involved in their movement and various reactionary political parties.
Every Australian evangelical I have ever met has been scary right wing. Like, just as much as the American ones I've met.
Sorry to have frightened you. Boo!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I generally dislike their worship songs as being too much 'Jesus is my Boyfriend' in content; Darlene Zschech (sp?) is a particular offender IMO.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So - when do we need to start taking Hillsong seriously as a church (or perhaps we already should have)?
2nd attempt (accidentally lost this first time round)
There can be a temptation to adopt an 'older brother' (as in the parable of the prodigal) attitude to churches that are new or do things slightly differently. This can lead to some criticism being rather haughty in nature and rather lacking in grace, which is rarely good for ecumenism.
That's not to say there shouldn't be some eyebrows raised or questions asked.
I've not yet been to Hillsong, but I know a few who were part of one of the many teams that help it to operate as well as several who go there once every couple of months as a sort of 'day out'. What I glean from them is that it is very 'non-local' drawing people in from far and wide and scattering them back out again, with little sustained local footprint.
There was a similar article in the evangelical alliance magazine which raises some questions about a generational split.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I like Shout to the Lord. Wouldn't want to sing it every Sunday but I like it as far as praise music goes. What is Hillsong going to offer that a thousand other megachurches aren't already offering? American megachurches already use some Hillsong music.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
This is going to have to stay off "bitching about church music" if it is to stay out of Dead Horses.
/hosting
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What is Hillsong going to offer that a thousand other megachurches aren't already offering? American megachurches already use some Hillsong music.
Two things from what I can tell:
1) leaders, music, venues that attract young people
2) an urban rather than suburban focus
A lot of the big megachurches in the US target wealthy middle-aged white suburbia, to put it bluntly.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Young people already attend megachurches. How is the same style of worship and preaching going to attract a different sort of people? I'm not opposed to Billabong per se. I just question how much US Christianity is in need of more megachurches.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So - when do we need to start taking Hillsong seriously as a church (or perhaps we already should have)?
The exceptionally-talented Australian singer Sarah Blasko has an interesting mention of Hillsong Church in her Wikipedia page.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What is Hillsong going to offer that a thousand other megachurches aren't already offering? American megachurches already use some Hillsong music.
Two things from what I can tell:
1) leaders, music, venues that attract young people
2) an urban rather than suburban focus
A lot of the big megachurches in the US target wealthy middle-aged white suburbia, to put it bluntly.
I am not sure that Hillsong is necessarily that different in that respect.
It is very much a church "brand". It comes across as appealing to people who are secure financially, professional and white, which tbh is a big chunk of churchdom, so that probably doesn't say much.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Young people already attend megachurches. How is the same style of worship and preaching going to attract a different sort of people? I'm not opposed to Billabong per se. I just question how much US Christianity is in need of more megachurches.
It's not in need of any more, but you have a generation of young Christians who grew up listening to Hillsong music and want to be a part of that, for whatever reason. There are two American women quoted in the NY Times article who went to the Hillsong "seminary" and have come back to support expansion in LA.
Also the fact that it seems non-denominational (although technically AoG) helps. A lot of young Christians have been burned by the Moral Majority-type evangelical movements of the 1980s and 1990s. Hillsong doesn't have that taint in the US.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My guess would be is that they're going where the money is and the money for this sort of thing can be found in the USA.
It'd also be a lot easier for them to grow their brand there than it would be in Outer Mongolia, Albania, Hungary, Ouagadougou and a hundred and one other places one could mention.
It's down to economics. The US has lots of young people already involved with megachurches who would willingly change brands whenever offered the opportunity.
They'll be preaching to the converted to a large extent.
That might sound ageist, cynical and elder brotherly but tough ... the whole Hillsong thing sucks.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
From the original OP by seekingsister:-
quote:
So - when do we need to start taking Hillsong seriously as a church (or perhaps we already should have)?
That's key, isn't it?
You can't answer the question without having an idea of what actually constitutes (a) church. There are very different opinions on that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - I know it's old news but there was that business back in 2008 about one of the Hillsongs leaders lying about having had cancer - and then claiming he'd been healed of it.
There have also been questions about some of the financial aspects.
Quite apart for the dire music of Darlene Dreck or whatever she's called and the lack of consistent theology - or should that be the lack of theology? - Hillsongs is one of those places I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.
Sorry. It looks all bright and shiny but underneath ...
http://hillsong.hubpages.com/hub/hillsongchurch
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Cheshire needs a Hillsong.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Why does there need to be consistent theology in a church, Gamaliel? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Isn't it far more important for there to be consistently Christlike character among a church's members?
Thinking a bit more, I wonder if inconsistent theology in a church is actually a positive thing (up to a point!) - because it shows unity in diversity, rather than conformity to external 'boundary markers'.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why does there need to be consistent theology in a church, Gamaliel? Isn't it far more important for there to be consistently Christlike character among a church's members?
Thinking a bit more, I wonder if inconsistent theology in a church is actually a positive thing (up to a point!) - because it shows unity in diversity, rather than conformity to external 'boundary markers'.
Hmmm, wouldn't the CoE come under that?
Posted by greenhouse (# 4027) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My guess would be is that they're going where the money is and the money for this sort of thing can be found in the USA.
They have previously planted churches in Ukraine and South Africa - hardly the wealthiest countries in the world.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Cheshire needs a Hillsong.
Why Cheshire? And what is so significant about Cheshire for it to be singled out in this way?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
- read Gamaliel's location!
Though I believe BA left out the "...like a hole in the head" bit.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by greenhouse:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My guess would be is that they're going where the money is and the money for this sort of thing can be found in the USA.
They have previously planted churches in Ukraine and South Africa - hardly the wealthiest countries in the world.
I suppose they're going where they think their work is most likely to be successful. This generally means going where other successful churches of a similar type have been, whether that's Los Angeles, London, Ukraine, or wherever.
I don't know about Hillsong, but to be fair to them, most churches of whatever sort usually develop a strategic focus on particular areas, and few churches will remain in a district that yields insufficient fruit, whether that's in attenders, converts or income. Even the CofE closes churches in some places, and in others it finds it hard to attract clergy. Why would other denominations have it any different?
To those who have, more will be given.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Finally, in Aus at least there are crossovers between people involved in their movement and various reactionary political parties.
Every Australian evangelical I have ever met has been scary right wing. Like, just as much as the American ones I've met.
Really? YOu need to get out more. Seriously I'd say that element is a very small minority of Australian Evangelicalism. Of course our defintions of Evangelical might differ, I'd tend to put Hillsong outside that camp because they play very fast and loose with the bible They're extremely Evangelistic but in Sydney, they are deemed to be on the charo/Pentecostal spectrum and definitely not kocher to "real" Evangelicals like those who hang around Moore Theological College. Most of those are not particularly political and support the separation of church and state because they fear political interference in the church.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Finally, in Aus at least there are crossovers between people involved in their movement and various reactionary political parties.
Every Australian evangelical I have ever met has been scary right wing. Like, just as much as the American ones I've met.
Really? YOu need to get out more.
I think it's more that a) I'm in the UK so my sample is tiny and skewed towards people who can afford to come to the UK for any length of time and b) Australian politics are somewhat to the right of the UK anyway.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
(also, pretty much everyone I know is politically to the right of me)
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Perhaps Wood, but I still haven't come across any Australians who are as right-wing as the American right wing Christian brigade. Socially conservative and capitalistic yeah, I can accept that but not bat-shit crazy.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why does there need to be consistent theology in a church, Gamaliel? Isn't it far more important for there to be consistently Christlike character among a church's members?
I don't see how this is achieved without a framework. Just saying "Jesus" and "love" a bunch of time and having awesome music isn't really enough.
The fact that Hillsong does focus on prosperity - when I was looking at joining a church in London I came across them but was put off by the fact that they were running more courses on financial success and career achievement than Bible studies - makes me question if the "Christlike" character they are aiming to achieve is actually based on the Jesus in the Bible.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Perhaps Wood, but I still haven't come across any Australians who are as right-wing as the American right wing Christian brigade. Socially conservative and capitalistic yeah, I can accept that but not bat-shit crazy.
I'll grant you, none of the half dozen or so I met were really what you'd call mentalists.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The really naughty thing about Hillsongs (who are not alone in this) is that they stage their services on Friday evenings; this means they can siphon off people from other churches whilst giving those people the impression they are not being disloyal to their original church, even though they are likely to get sucked in timewise and financially.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The fact that Hillsong does focus on prosperity - when I was looking at joining a church in London I came across them but was put off by the fact that they were running more courses on financial success and career achievement than Bible studies
Having attended Hillsongs in London a few times years ago, giving, and the pre-offering talks were definitely a fairly big part of the service.
Both from my own experiences and that of a friend who met his wife there and who attended there for a number of years I'd make the following additional observations:
- The branch in London definitely depends on expat Australians/OEers for their numbers - plus it tends to be very young, with older people either going back to Australia or eventually leaving for other churches.
- Yes they do talk about money and success and influence a lot.
- They used to have a regular spot in the service where they'd highlight someone working behind the scenes (which was generally good overall), but then often this person would have 'won' a trip to Hillsongs HQ as a result and then they would highlight that (which was somewhat less good).
- There was a definite tendency to push the most attractive members of the worship team to the forefront - and conversely push the less attractive members to the background.
I'll just link this here because it is appropriate to the subject in question:
http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/the-cruelties-of-the-prosperity-gospel-a-very-modern-heresy/
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Unfortunately, BA, the Hillsongs songs have reached Cheshire ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
A Pentecostal guy who attends our local parish started introducing them on a backing track during the services and we were all expected to sing-along with them karaoke style. Fortunately, to my relief, the vicar soon put a stop to it.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Both from my own experiences and that of a friend who met his wife there
This is probably another important part of its attraction - the number young people meaning opportunities to find a partner. If I had been single when church-shopping I might have been more inclined to give them a chance.
I just looked at their website in London and in addition to the Surrey and Kent branches they've just launched one in Oxford. So I guess they are trying to keep hold of the young people who couple up and move to the suburbs.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This is probably another important part of its attraction - the number young people meaning opportunities to find a partner. If I had been single when church-shopping I might have been more inclined to give them a chance.
This is true of all the large churches in London though and not specific to Hillsongs. There are large numbers of young singles at All Souls, St Marys, HTB, KT etc (and even ostensibly more traditional churches like Metropolitan Tabernacle).
Hence jokes about HTB standing for 'Hunt The Bride'.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Thinking a bit more, I wonder if inconsistent theology in a church is actually a positive thing (up to a point!) - because it shows unity in diversity, rather than conformity to external 'boundary markers'.
Hmmm, wouldn't the CoE come under that?
That's quite a good point. If we want to go and look for areas to disagree with and criticise a church, then one could turn equally a critical eye to the CofE as they could to the Baptist Union, the Methodist Church or any host of smaller church groups.
For example, take Eutychus' critique that they could siphon off worshippers from elsewhere. Well, the CofE do that too. Sometimes I pop along to a church that does a lunchtime service near my office. That happens once a week; there's another that has daily services. Are they trying to suck me from my local congregation or are they providing worshippers with additional time and a place to engage in corporate worship? Unless it is a stated aim from one church to 'pinch' other people, then I would posit that your answer to that question in relation to Hillsong must be the same as the answer to the CofE (or any other church that puts on non-Sunday services).
While I would echo the others in expressing concern over the emphasis on money, are they perhaps simply more open about it than others. While the prosperity gospel may not be preached by many Anglicans,
the CofE is not exactly the poorest church around.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't see anyone here reserving their criticism for outfits like Hillsongs and letting the CofE and other historic churches off the hook ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If you want me to criticise the CofE, I'll criticise the CofE.
I'm like James Dean in 'Rebel Without A Cause':
"What are you against?"
"What have you got?"
The subject of this thread is Hillsongs. So I'm having a go at Hillsongs.
This is the Magazine of Christian Unrest not the Magazine of Letting Churches Off The Hook Because We Happen To Agree With Some Aspect Or Other Of How They Operate ...
There are equal and opposite issues with the CofE, the Methodists and whoever else ...
To say that there are issues with Hillsongs isn't to say that there aren't issues anywhere else - they're just different kinds of issues.
The CofE, I'm sure, would love to have some of the issues that Hillsongs have.
But I can only speak as I find and I find that the music is largely bilge the presentation is so glitzy and appalling and the whole ethos of the thing makes me barf.
Also, there's little direct comparison between, say, an old Wren church in the City of London laying on lunchtime communion services for City workers and a whopping big Friday night bells-and-whistles megachurch bash designed to draw in young singles and so on ...
And yes, the CofE has a lot of assets - but it doesn't enshrine dubious prosperity and 'success' teachings into its core values in the way that Hillsongs do.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The fact that Hillsong does focus on prosperity - when I was looking at joining a church in London I came across them but was put off by the fact that they were running more courses on financial success and career achievement than Bible studies - makes me question if the "Christlike" character they are aiming to achieve is actually based on the Jesus in the Bible.
I was just making a general point, not specifically defending Hillsong - for all I know, they may well be horrendously heretical in terms of their theology and / or way off beam in their conception of Jesus.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Well, the CofE do that too. Sometimes I pop along to a church that does a lunchtime service near my office. That happens once a week; there's another that has daily services. Are they trying to suck me from my local congregation or are they providing worshippers with additional time and a place to engage in corporate worship?
Obviously the CofE could do exactly the same thing - however, having attended midweek/lunchtime services and talked to people who organise these, quite often they see it as part of the duty of a 'national' church providing christian witness to everyone. At the evangelical end there would be an emphasis on not making those meetings a substitute for church and a similar emphasis on getting involved in a local church where you lived (and quite often they'd mention churches nearby if you hadn't found one yet). I have no doubt that at least some churches saw this is a method of transferring at least some people from midweek to Sunday attendees, but this didn't seem to be so much the focus.
Whereas the emphasis of Hillsongs *was* on trying to get you involved with Hillsongs, via pushing you to get involved in your local Hillsongs homegroup. Similarly with KT.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Fortunately, we're all free to 'barf' at churches we don't attend. Perhaps it's one of the unintended benefits of belonging to such a highly diverse religion!
Regarding the prosperity doctrine focus, I have Pentecostal relatives who seem to have been influenced by it, but I fail to understand why it would appeal to educated middle class singles (Hillsong's target group?) who are already destined to do well in life. What do they gain that a nice upbringing and an excellent education hasn't already given them? (Mind you, these attributes are no guarantee of a good job and a pension these days. And disillusioned young people are unlikely to make the best churchgoers....)
Plenty of Christians appear to feel quite comfortable about earning a good salary and living an agreeable lifestyle. It's not something they think they have to justify with a fully fledged 'doctrine'.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding the prosperity doctrine focus, I have Pentecostal relatives who seem to have been influenced by it, but I fail to understand why it would appeal to educated middle class singles (Hillsong's target group?) who are already destined to do well in life.
I presume you are contrasting people who are struggling in society - so it's worth mentioning that in the US at least, both groups are targets for the Prosperity gospel.
In terms of the latter group, it's mostly a case of baptising trends that are evident in society anyway and wrapping these things in a language that both justifies and imbues cultural trends with the message of eternal significance, thus making people feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
chris stiles
It's not that they're struggling, but that they're upwardly mobile in a developing country where many people are poor. The alternatives to success are all around them in a way that's not obvious to young professionals worshipping in megachurches in London or Oxford.
I have heard about the widespread infiltration of prosperity doctrines in the USA, but I admit I find it an awkward fit for white, middle class, professional Britain. This is not least because talking about wanting money or being blessed by wealth is traditionally a no-no among well-bred folk here! Whatever happened to that idea? Times change.
Maybe the message from Hillsong is that, despite the disapproval of more sophisticated Christians, churches gain a degree of popular success when they respond to felt needs. The privatisation of religious faith and the growth of new denominations have perhaps made this more obvious. You go to a church that 'meets your needs', which may involve finding a spouse, improving your career prospects, or being made to feel less guilty about being rich, etc. Going to a specific church so your child can attend a specific school is a similar thing: you're looking out for your own family.
Churches are likely to become more and more focused on meeting the felt needs of particular groups in order to survive.
[ 12. September 2014, 13:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Churches are likely to become more and more focused on meeting the felt needs of particular groups in order to survive.
Yes, telling people what they want to hear is popular everywhere. Generally it isn't the Gospel though.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe so, but the Gospel tends to be promoted by institutions that need a decent supply of both people and money to survive. I'd say that the costliness of our church structures is inevitably going to undermine the message that we claim to preach. But perhaps that's a subject for another thread.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Having been involved with a church where 'prosperity gospel' style teaching did gain something of a foothold, I can say that it doesn't happen very easily in a more middle-class UK context ...
Our church was fairly mixed in terms of demographic - with the more prosperity flavoured stuff coming from those with a more Pentecostally and working-class background ...
What happens is that the more polite, middle-class types resist it for as long as they can but they are eventually won over by other aspects they do agree with ... and so end up taking it on board almost despite themselves.
Or else they get fed up of protesting about it and leave.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
Part of the appeal of the Prosperity junk is it's gnosticism: if you embrace it you are one of God's special favourites not one of the hoi palloi.
As far as the spangelly Cape Town franchise is concerned - it didn't look like a particularly "township" church when we drove past a few years back if you catch my drift.
How do they relate to other AoG churches and KT etc?
(edditted foor speeling)
[ 12. September 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Twangist ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe so, but the Gospel tends to be promoted by institutions that need a decent supply of both people and money to survive. I'd say that the costliness of our church structures is inevitably going to undermine the message that we claim to preach. But perhaps that's a subject for another thread.
Going back to your previous post - part of the reason the Prosperity Gospel survives at Hillsongs London is because a large amount of their congregation is expats (please read the thread).
It's also perfectly possible to have enough resources to survive as a movement without resorting to the Prosperity Gospel.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I have heard about the widespread infiltration of prosperity doctrines in the USA, but I admit I find it an awkward fit for white, middle class, professional Britain.
From what I have seen of Hillsong London, it's not that white and has a lot of students - particularly international students. So you have different cultures and young people who while they may be in university themselves are not necessarily from well-off backgrounds. Aspirational Christianity might speak quite directly to their needs actually.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
To go back to Hillsong USA for a moment, another thing I've noticed is the coziness with celebrities.
I've attended some HTB events where there were celebrities - as in people anyone with a TV licence would recognize - and we were told specifically not to take pictures with them, bother them, or treat them in anyway like any other Christian.
Hillsong USA on the other hand makes a huge deal about celebrities. In recent weeks I've seen Kevin Durant (NBA basketball 2014 MVP) and Ja Rule (rapper who had a lot of hits in the late 1990s/early 2000s) talking up Pastor Carl Lentz in NYC. There are a few teeny bopper actresses and several other athletes who are also reportedly members.
Something about the way that they make a big song and dance about the famous people who come through rubs me the wrong way. Especially as a good number of them are not even based in New York, so how active can they actually be in the church?
Add to this the fact that several - Bieber and Durant - are known to live lifestyles not exactly consistent with the Christian life*, and it makes me wonder whether discipleship and fellowship is really the basis of the senior staff's relationship with these celebs.
* Kevin Durant and Fiance Split over Religious Differences
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair, that's always an issue with celebs irrespective of style of church or churchmanship ...
Even the RCs and the Orthodox aren't beyond playing the celebrity card at times and it can bite them on the backside too ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I have heard about the widespread infiltration of prosperity doctrines in the USA, but I admit I find it an awkward fit for white, middle class, professional Britain.
From what I have seen of Hillsong London, it's not that white and has a lot of students - particularly international students. So you have different cultures and young people who while they may be in university themselves are not necessarily from well-off backgrounds. Aspirational Christianity might speak quite directly to their needs actually.
Ah, that makes more sense.
I'm afraid that the cynic in me (and the former Methodist church steward) finds that the more mainstream churches are, at best, somewhat ambivalent about money. On the one hand, they look askance at Christians in other denominations who make a hoo-ha about personal financial success; but on the other, they're often desperate to fundraise for various building projects, and they expect greater sacrificial giving from their congregations to be a part of that. It used to be one of my jobs to urge the congregation to give more! But where do we think the money is going to come from if we're all supposedly indifferent to financial success?
Count your blessings if your church benefits from good finances without having to make regular appeals, and without having to justify or prolong the success via some sort of prosperity doctrine.
[ 12. September 2014, 16:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Without naming names - and this certainly wasn't a Hillsongs church - but relatives of mine were once involved with a church that went heavily down the 'success' route ... the pastor was interested in anyone who somehow 'made it' or got a platform for themselves in some setting or other - be it business, the arts, the media, academia ...
Sure, we're not talking A listed celebs here nor even celebs at all ... but people who had, if you like, a reasonable profile in whatever field it happened to be.
The result of all this was that if you were a school dinner-lady or a postman or something he just didn't want to know ...
If Hillsongs are going for the shiny, aspirational international student types then I doubt they're doing a great deal - as Twangist says - for people in the South African townships or those living in Tower Hamlets.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Be careful, though, SvitlanaV2. I can see what you're driving at but a certain Maggie Thatcher used to go round saying that the only reason the Good Samaritan could do what he did was because he had the means to do it ...
On one level that's all too true - on another level it misses the point completely.
Sure, traditional churches are ambivalent about money and the fundraising thing is always an issue - but what Hillsongs and churches like them seem to do is to make a 'theology' (if that's the right word, I doubt it is) of success and aspiration ...
In some contexts, I could see that as a good thing - but what tends to happen in practice within more working class Pentecostal groups - and I've seen this happen - is that people get ripped off by unscrupulous freeloaders.
It's a tricky area as there are bags of enterprise and drive about some of these churches that can have an ameliorating and empowering effect ... but at the same time it tends to be certain people who get the cream ...
I remember reading about Jim and Tammy Bakke's TV-evangelist empire in the southern USA. Some of their biggest supporters and those who gave the most were the ones who had least to give - 'trailer-trash' poor whites ... The article suggested that there was something vicarious in it all - they seemed to take delight in seeing someone being materially successful - even if it wasn't themselves - and even if this material success was coming at their expense ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose that if any one Christian or Christian organisation had the authority to ban prosperity teaching or the psychological pressure exercised by any particular evangelist or church, many people would find some other way to donate to the unapproved leaders and churches whom they admired, and whose theology appealed to them. There will always be those willing to give money in the hope of receiving some benefit, spiritual, psychological or otherwise.
There's also the cultural factor. As you say, some poor white Americans will feel flattered to be contributing to the success of one of theirs, whereas putting their money into the edifice of a better regulated but largely middle class institution wouldn't give them the same sense of satisfaction. And going back to seekingsister's foreign students, I understand that African spirituality, for example, has often had a pragmatic streak which makes it acceptable that religious devotion should have earthly as well as otherworldly advantages. From this perspective, you could say that liberation theology and prosperity theology are different sides of the same coin, shocking though that may sound to some....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
* Kevin Durant and Fiance Split over Religious Differences
That doesn't read like a 'religious difference' - unless objecting to one's fiancé playing away has become an outdated form of religious prejudice.
[code]
[ 14. September 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
* Kevin Durant and Fiance Split over Religious Differences
That doesn't read like a 'religious difference' - unless objecting to one's fiancé playing away has become an odd and outdated form of religious bigotry.
[code]
[ 14. September 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0