"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…" (Part 2)
c3, C3 Balmain, c3 balmain scandal, c3 church oxford falls, C3 Church Rozelle, C3 Church Rozelle scandal, C3 Rozelle, C3 Rozelle scandal, CHC, chc scandal, Christian City Church, City Harvest Church, kong, Kong Hee, Lucas, Macken, Paul Macken, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, Ward Lucas
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE – WHERE IS IT?
"… nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light." – Jesus, Luke 8:17
The context of the above scripture has Jesus explaining how we should listen. What I have been seeing at C3 church is a lack of the leaders hearing the words of Jesus and instead hide things in secret so they do not get caught. After reading various articles on this site, researching C3 church further on the web and attending C3 Conferences, I feel compelled to share some thoughts and information with you in this article. As a Christian attending a C3 church over some year, I believe what I have seen and heard in C3 needs to be examined further. After reading this article you will see why.
COMPARING KONG HEE'S CHC TO PHIL PRINGLE'S C3…
Before reading any further, please read my first article here:
The above heading is slightly altered from Tom Adam's website that tackled the scandal his family was involved in at C3 Balmain. He has updated the information on his website. This section of his website should get everyone's attention (emphasis mine):
The Mystery of the Disappearing Cash
When I had left C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle, I was so disbelieving that the senior pastor Ward Lucas's 'love' for us could have resulted in such an outcome that I kept asking questions about finances. I only wanted to know what had happened to the large sums of money given into their control by my wife and I and others, just to make sure our expulsion hadn't been some kind of grotesque cover-up. At first I was met with fob offs, then silence. So I went as far as to start court proceedings, thinking perhaps they were just being difficult because they could and they 'loved' us so. They'd thrown me out for 'pretending' that they were not accountable, surely they'd have no problem providing proper financial accounts to me then? On the contrary, they went on to prove during a four year court process that as well as making sure they've set themselves up to avoid any legal obligation to provide financial information to church goers, they're also prepared to spend signficant time and money in litigation to avoid it. They did all this with the energetic assistance of Mr Paul Macken Solicitor, of C3 Church Oxford Falls.
The actual reasons for this painful display only became clear at the death, after years of ducking and weaving. C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle had taken $20K I had given them specifically to be used for a building fund, that came from my late father's estate, and tipped it into something else. At one point according to my forensic accountant, the money seemed to spend some quality time in an C3 Church bank account called 'pastoral account', that was apparently used for pastor Lucas's expenses. This was written up by the church accountant as a mistake. And although I clearly recall specifically telling pastor Lucas what the money was to be used for, he signed an affidavit sworn on the bible saying I did not give the money to be used for a building fund, I was making that up. Odd, because when C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle got the money they wrote on the cheque the words 'building fund', and put it into an account where it remained for years labelled 'building fund'. According to pastor Lucas, notwithstanding the church's own records, the truth was that I had given it to them to use for a later fund that did not come into existence until years later, one that was used for things that included buying chairs, musical equipment, paying insurance and accountants fees.
But then, at the door of the court, after the years of ducking and weaving, faced with a judge who might actually consider things like the church's own records, C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle decided they didn't want to roll the dice on that yarn, and paid all the money back to me. Which reveals the truth of the matter more succintly than anything I can say. So test the claims. Jesus is not reported of speaking of an unforgivable sin of asking about money, questioning or disagreeing with religious leaders. Instead, he blasted religious leaders who neglected justice and mercy and threw those making money out of the temple. And then those same religious leaders killed him for it.
Senior pastor Ward Lucas worked diligently to remove my family and I in 2008, well aware of the issues with the cash that we had started asking about. His assistant pastor Anthony Grant, who also often claimed to 'love' us, helped put it into effect. The 'love' proclaimed by them so often before we asked about their use of other people's money had become something else entirely. I've had more genuine enemies, who at least didn't pretend for years to 'love' me. The C3 Church Oxford Falls overseers, Steve Janes and Mark Kelsey, who knew all about the circumstances backed pastor Lucas to the hilt. They didn't even speak to us before reportedly judging us to be liars based only on the say so of pastor Lucas, and recommending our forced removal.
No one protected us, or our kids. So why would they protect you?
Source: Tom Adam, Important Information about C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle, http://www.christianchurchbalmain.info/. (Accessed 02/09/2014.)
As Tom Adam explained on his website, it appears C3 settled with him on the Supreme court steps early this year. Being a solicitor with a strong family history of members involved in Law, he was a very brave person to threaten them and win.
Obviously, Phil Pringle didn't want the scandal to be made public. I believe very few people at C3 overseas and in Australia know anything about what happened to Tom Adams and other church members at C3 Balmain.
HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO?
For more information on the C3 Balmain scandal, click on the link below and go right to the bottom of the page and click on the subpages to follow on.
C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle Review Page
Below is a blog stating that the Attorney General's Department was also involved in the Supreme Court action against C3 Balmain. It discloses some details on the structure of the C3 Church which their Lawyers uncovered. It appears the person who wrote on this blog as "Dave" is Dave Adams, Tom Adam's Brother. I understand he and other family members were expelled from C3 Balmain. Here are the comments I thought were worth reporting from David Adams:
Hi, Specks,
What you say is right on the money.
Seven members of my family were expelled by force from C3 Balmain after asking to see properly kept accounts of the church's Rise and Buile fund to which they had given more than $100,000.
The story is told on this web site:
http://sites.google.com/site/c3churchbalmainreviewpage/
It's worth a look.
The church leaders are now in the Australian Supreme Court defending themselves against among others our Attorney General's Department.
The money has vanished.
C3 Church Balmain is set up so that there is no independent oversight whatever of the use of funds donated to it.
What strikes me is that these guys convince you to give money to them by telling you if you give to God, you'll prosper.
They are the ones who gain out of that arrangement.
The lawyers in my family's case have found everywhere in the C3 movement dodgy private companies; dodgy incorporated associations; and church's with massive assets that are not actually owned by the church community, but effectively by five or ten people–the Pringles of the world.
Keep protesting is all I can say!
Source: David, C3 'Vision Builders' Pamphlet for 'Rise & Build', Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%E2%80%98vision-builders%E2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%E2%80%98rise-build%E2%80%99/, September 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
G'day Specks.
The fault doesn't lie in any particular company (as in say such and such company is alleged to be skimming money).
The problem lies in this (this is what has got the Attorney General interested).
If you're a not-for-profit you're supposed to be set up so that you have enough formal members to have an independent majority ensuring that you don't misuse funds, and that you are looking after those regularly involved in your organisation.
C3 churches appear to set themselves up so that the legal entity behind them has a handful of members. In which case there is no independent majority overseeing the finances and protection of ordinary attendees as required under the Charitable Fundraising Act.
The short version!
At this stage white Horse hasn't been mentioned, although I've read about it.
God speed one and all!
Source: David, C3 'Vision Builders' Pamphlet for 'Rise & Build', Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13214, September 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)
What this means of course is that unless you are a formal member of the association/company that is your C3 church's legal entity, you in fact have no legal rights as an attendee of the church.
In addition it means that all the assets that look as though they're owned by your church community (buildings/fittings/land) are effectively owned, not by the church community, but by the five or six formal members of the legal entity.
It also means that the handful of members of the legal entity have iron control of finances. If the majority of them gain financially from the spending of the church's money (ie because they are employees of the legal entity as well as controlling it), then…?
Be it said significant breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act make you liable to a jail sentence.
Re C3 Balmain–naturally I can't go in to any detail that involves the court business.
What I've done on my site, and my brother has done on his, has been to confine ourselves to irrefutable facts.
The explicit information contained on those is supported by copious documentation.
That stuff I can chat about.
With respect to Kelsey's involvement, no-one knows at all what it was. Lucas and Grant apparently said one thing at the time; but as my brother's site indicates Kelsey, via his lawyer, is so vehement in denying any involvement the literal meaning of his denials seems to be that he has nothing to do at all with C3 Church Balmain, and that he isn't even a leader in the C3 Church movement.
None of us can make head or tail of that!
Here is my brother's take on things re Kelsey.
http://www.christianchurchbalmain.info/page8.php
He is the senior lawyer involved in the case against the leaders of C3 Balmain.
Peace be with all!
Source: David, C3 'Vision Builders' Pamphlet for 'Rise & Build', Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13223, September 6, 2010 at 9:34 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)
Hi, all,
Thank you for your kind thoughts. There is so much here, I can't reply in detail to it; but I appreciate your remarks. I will try in later posts to come back to anything you've written, if it seems good to.
In the light of the posts that have followed mine I thought it most important to clarify my own position about a few things.
I co-led an independent church for ten years. I founded a not-for-profit organisation working with victims of domestic violence. I wrote its constitution so that it complied with our laws. So I know from that point of view what our laws require both in founding and administering this kind of group.
The following is ultimately my reason for writing my own web site, and for being on this page. As it happens, this is what Tom and I both really care about.
The failure to provide explicit constitutional protection to attendees of C3 churches is a profound evil. It is a massive scandal in waiting. Why deny them these rights?
These are rights that are supposed, under Australian law, to be extended by every social organisation formed here to every person who can fairly be said to belong to that organisation.
If you do not comply exactly with the relevant government department's instructions in setting up a not-for-profit organisation, and if you do not comply exactly with its rules thereafter, you break the law. And you break it over and over in the ordinary running of your organisation.
As well, even if you do not allow church attendees to become members of your church's legal entity, you are required to extend the basic principles of your association's constitution to every person who comes under your care. If you do not—you break the law.
Serious breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act make you liable to a lengthy prison sentence.
No rigorous scrutiny is presently carried out by the NSW Government, to check whether not-for-profits in practice set themselves up in compliance with instructions. Nor are the financial documents submitted to government departments by not-for-profits here rigorously scrutinised.
The idea that a not-for-profit is probably on the up and up because it is allowed to come into existence, and because it later submits the requisite financial documents to the relevant government department without trouble arising, is false.
This lack of scrutiny is in part where the problem lies.
It is the way C3 Balmain is set up that has led to a situation in which the only way Tom can learn where his inheritance from Grandad went is to through a Supreme Court decision. If the church were set up properly, there would be properly kept accounts. If there were no accounts there would be a procedure for handling the matter internally, that would involve trouble for anyone failing in their accounting measures. Tom wouldn't be blamed for asking, and insisting; those who would not answer would have to face the music. There would be music to face. Should the internal procedures in place fail the minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing could intervene.
Without these things…it's as you see. Lucas and Grant face five years of nerve-racking court proceedings, with who knows what for them at the end.
With respect to the way not-for-profits are supposed to be set up and run, don't ask your pastor, and don't accept my views either. I suggest you call the relevant government department, and get the bundle of information that is given out to those who wish to start such an organisation. Then read it.
Or search the web. Here is a good place to begin.
http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/starting_a_charity.pdf
It is plainly taken for granted by this document that not-for-profit organisations (a) will allow all people working in them to possess full membership of the organisation; (b) will have a properly written and binding constitution that applies to all these members; and (c) will be governed by a board voted into office by a body of members that extends to all workers in the charity.
It is also plainly the case that the rules applying to members of the organisation will automatically apply to anyone whatsoever who works in the charity.
It is plainly not expected that your not-for-profit with fifty people active in its running will have five legally recognised members.
It is plainly not expected that employees of the charity will be paying themselves from donations because they form the majority of the organisation's membership.
It is plainly not expected that members of a not-for-profit which is set up bodgily are within their rights to apply the constitution only to themselves, and not to everyone else working in some capacity in it.
The whole purpose you're allowed to form a legal entity of the kind talked about here is that you are thereby going to be able to give legal protections and standards of behaviour to all persons involved in your charitable work.
This document is obviously not written so that a religiously minded person who is a good salesmen can create an authoritarian system of religious government in a church, and thereby come into joint possession of large assets with five friends (or worse family members)—much of it bought by other workers in the charity.
C3 Balmain is definitely not set up in compliance with the expectations of the document in question. And how far in the C3 movement does the same thing run?
Eventually the Tax Commissioner and the Minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing will work out what is going on, and then….
Source: David, C3 'Vision Builders' Pamphlet for 'Rise & Build', Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13264, September 7, 2010 at 6:32 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)
The burning questions are, do C3 churches as a matter of fact set themselves up with dummy constitutions to please the Department of Gaming and Racing, etc? (ie Constitutions whose content bears no resemblance to the church's actual workings?) And do they then systematically operate in a manner that, if it had been revealed to the authorities from the beginning, would have meant that they would have never been allowed to exist in the first place?
If the answers to these questions is yes, then the C3 movement in NSW is apparently guilty of a widespread and deliberate fraud.
G'day, Teddy…just had a spare moment.
The money was donated to the Rise and Build Fund of C3 Balmain.
Lucas and Grant can't or won't produce a properly kept accounting of the use to which the money was put.
(As soon as they did, the court case as things stand would be at an end.)
So we have no idea where it has ended up. Apparently, it might take a forensic accountant to discover its whereabouts (ie whose account it is in, what is was spent on, whatever)–and even then there is uncertainty whether such a person would find it.
We have never heard that Grandad's money might have gone to Oxford Falls. If that really is where it has gone, what motive could Lucas and Grant have for not saying straight out where is was? Most confusing….
I'm enjoying following the conversation. Tom is, too, and I'm sure he's finding the aspects relating to his stuff encouraging.
RP, thanks for your kind thoughts.
Teddy, this is my church background (thanks for asking)–Dad was a Prezzy minister; Mum was a missionary. I went to the Prezzies till my mid-twenties; then I went to a cell church for ten years. Then a C3 Balmain/other churches mix for eighteen months. Then the Anglicans for a few years; but its youth work collapsed (I have young kids). At present we go the the local Baptist Church, which has an excellent youth program.
With respect to C3 Balmain, (I noticed some confusion about this, so it's good to clear it up), I went there occasionally over about 6 years, and fairly regularly for a while. However, I was never convinced, so I moved on. I wasn't going there when Tom etc were thrown out.
The help I'm giving Tom, apart from fraternal support, is much more to do with my particular experiences and training than with my intimate knowledge of the church's workings. (Apart from the things I've already mentioned, I worked as a social worker for a number of years. Another one of my areas of expertise both in and out of my current studies is the language-use of criminal tyrants–ie domestic violence perps, religious leaders in breach of the principle of natural justice etc..
If you're good at that kind of thing, you can spot a criminal tyrant five or ten minutes after they start talking–and of course very quickly from their written work also.)
That being said, Tom was extremely wise in his dealings with Lucas and Grant. About a year before he was chuckled out, he noticed problems with the legal set up of the church.
He pointed them out to Lucas and Grant, thinking these problems had arisen by mistake.
He was not encouraged by their response. So from that time on he had (if memory is correct) one private conversation with Lucas about anything significant. And there were two witnesses present at that conversation.
Otherwise he conducted all meaningful communications with Lucas and his superiors in writing. In other words, there is a permanent record of basically all his actual behaviour in his treatment of Lucas over a long period–a period which began before he and Lucas were in dispute.
I've read all the documents available–apart from the most damning one with respect to Lucas's own personal integrity, which Tom has never shown me, although I know its contents.
The speculations about Tom's behaviour towards Lucas are understandable–but the worst he can possibly be accused of doing is writing him a moderately ill-mannered letter. And really, the tone of his communications is pretty good.
In my view, his greatest fault in Lucas and Grant's eyes was that he kept quizzing them about whatever legal problems he perceived. Not long before he was thrown out, he pointed out to them that lawyers have to reveal legal problems, or they face being disbarred (of course what else could he do?) In my opinion this was as much of a problem as the issue of Grandad's money. To me, it was that which broke the camel's back–Lucas and Grant had a lawyer with a conscience in their midst, and a set up whose legality was…highly dubious.
Peace be on the heads of all!
Once again, I've enjoyed reading people's remarks.
Re the exemption of religious organisations.
This is my view (and Tom's).
(1) The Charitable Fundraising Act is a codification of already existing laws that apply to all groups existing for charitable purposes. It adds no new laws; it codifies what is already there. Its substance applies to all groups of this kind, regardless of the exemption.
(2) According to the Hansard documents, the exemption was only given to religious organisations because those with a good reputation–ie the mainstream churches–already complied fully in their running to these laws…so for instance the laws were already accommodated by the churches' constitutions, and these churches were properly complying with their constitutions.
(3) The Charitable Fundraising Act empowers the minister to remove this exemption from any religious group deemed to be failing in its keeping of the laws codified by the Act. That is to say, despite the exemption it is expected that religious groups will nonetheless do what the Act says–seeing that if they don't their conduct will be policed via the removal of the exemption in their case, and the application of the details of the Act to their actions.
(4) The upshot? The exemption doesn't mean religious groups are exempt from the law–it is on the contrary a nod to the integrity of the mainstream churches, who don't need the code provided by the Act because they were already complying with its substance, still do that and presumably always will.
The crucial point here is not exactly which act, and which minister, and so on, though.
The crucial point is, do C3 Church's set themselves up in contradiction of NSW law by adopting a democratic etc constitution according to its requirements, with every intention thereafter of ramming in practice an authoritarian system of government down the throat of those laws?
It doesn't really matter how many Acts of Parliament don't apply to the C3 church. Ultimately the illegality of their behaviour (should it be illegal) will not be affected.
The question, 'Which sentence of which Act?' is not really relevant–other than in settling on the precise sentences, clauses etc of NSW law that may have been broken.
Source: David, C3 'Vision Builders' Pamphlet for 'Rise & Build', Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13381, September 10, 2010 at 9:45 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)
On the question of the rights and wrongs of dealing with certain problems outside the church.
I agree with all of you who think that if it's very serious, you give the church an opportunity to deal with it inside the church. If the church won't deal with it, then you deal with it in the other places available.
And with many serious problems, you are required by law to report them; and lawyers face being disbarred if they do not report them.
In this situation, it is our opinion that we have no choice but to pursue the course we are following.
It's worth pondering the fact that at any time C3 could solve the part of the dispute involving Grandad's money, merely by showing (as is required by charitable laws) a properly kept accounting of the money's use.
That C3 hasn't implies, as far as I'm concerned, that the movement is quite happy to ride out financial scandals.
Again, BB, throught the centre of the target.
TVD is the worst advocate for Lucas and Grant and the C3 movement imaginable.
In the short time I've been here he has (a) made up NSW law; (b) advocated a dictatorial system of church government that is contrary to charitable laws in NSW, and utterly contrary to the servant model exemplified and commanded by Christ; (c) shown by constant misunderstandings that he can't read plain English, which means he is not qualified to fulfil one of a pastor's duties, that being to teach the meaning of the Bible; (d) imputed acts of defamation to Tom and I, which is itself an act of defamation, seeing that he can't possible prove it; (e)written that he thinks his obligation to uphold fundamental laws applying to him is a 'vibe' that he can ignore; shown no meaningful concern for any unjust treatment Tom etc might have received; and so on and so on.
This guy is living proof that our concerns are legitimate.
I've been thinking of taking snapshots of his comments, they're so damaging.
He has basically admitted in writing on this blog that our take on C3 church is spot on.
His utterly dismissive attitude to our charitable law is in my view utterly gross.
The only reason I engage with any of his questions is because the more rope he has, the more enthusiastically he throws himself into the noose!
Does the C3 church know they have this loose cannon blasting wildly in every direction here?
We have all seen the corruption, deceit and cover-ups within governments, business corporations and religious institutions reported globally daily in the media. Unfortunately many people have experienced it personally. Usually over time the truth always comes to light in some way.
What I have generally noted over many years is that corruption, fraud, deceit and injustice seems to occur when transparency and governance are deficient within the institutions conducting such unacceptable behaviour.
As disclosed above, what has come to light in relation to C3's treatment of Tom Adams, his family and other C3 Balmain members, was C3's attempt to hide the scandal from its members and the general public.
The issues that CHC are facing has some similar issues Pringle is facing (which Tom and Dave exposed). This would possibly explain why C3 settled outside of court to hide this fact. It's even more revealing C3 has "everywhere in the C3 movement dodgy private companies; dodgy incorporated associations; and church's with massive assets that are not actually owned by the church community".
This shows that C3 is totally deficient in transparency, governance, and accountability. Is it just a coincidence that it also seems to be the same situation in the other C3 / Phil Pringle associate institutions like Kong Hee's CHC in Singapore and Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea?
You decide.
These issues are what needs to be disclosed, investigated and vigorously discussed in depth. This is to inform others of the deceit and corruption that is going on within these churches out of sight from most honest church members.
40 thoughts on ""For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…" (Part 2)"
Icarus said:
The only thing that's keeping C3 from collapsing is that their church members believe Phil and co. have an authority to do as they choose provided by God. It's the religious component that prevents them being questioned and held accountable. After all, when Phil's standing there telling the congregation that the more they pay the more "blessings" they'll receive, who is going to challenge that? And what's really powerful is after you've given your $20k or whatever, C3 will hold the fact that "blessings" are coming your way to ensure you don't rock the boat – you might just lose those "blessings".
People need to wake up to the fact that Pringle is a false prophet and it's been proven. To prevent further damage I believe the government should step in and demand full and public disclosure of C3s financials. It will be painful but necessary for the healing to begin. Until that happens the only ones getting "blessings" are Phil, his family and his cronies.
Sharkey said:
It is now shown that MPA's (multi purpose accounts) are used extensively throughout
C3 and CHC Singapore (the clone of C3). MPA's are as shown in the C3 Balmain scandal and the CHC Singapore case just "slush fund accounts" they are used to redirect money so as to hide transparency and enable funds to be used for any purpose these so called church leaders wish.
So all you honest hard working Church members, after all that we have seen with C3 and CHC and their misuse of your tithes ,donations, miracle offerings etc do you really know where your money is being spent and do you trust after all these scandals what these C3 and CHC leaders are saying to you ?
All I can say is "Giver and Buyer Beware ! "
Dean Sweetman said:
Yeah, c3 is "collapsing" " roll eyes", we just finished our Europe, Australia and Americas leaders conferences with record numbers. We are planting and growing churches and leading people to Christ at record numbers.
Keep up the hateful anonymous blogging "watch" community. It only helps us and the Kingdom grow.
Dean.
Dean – like the human body, some parts of the body of Christ are missing their natural 'defense' i.e. biblically sound doctrine & sound teachers. They lack that biblical 'immunity' which would enable them to distinguish between false doctrine/teachers. Yes, Dean, so-called 'church' movements are spreading rapidly across the world and like a cancer or virus, they're feeding on the hearts, souls and especially, pockets of the weak. These churches if they had that natural 'resistance' i.e. biblically sound doctrine & sound teachers, would be able to fight back against the 'killer cells'.
And as for C3 church plants? Deceived people deceive people.
'Cancer' reproduces itself very well as cancer cells are distinguished from normal cells by three particular properties – growing out of control, invading the territory of adjacent cells and tissues and taking off and forming new colonies in the body where the cells continue to behave badly'.
thinker said:
How many people followed Jesus after they heard was unpleasant to hear to them personally? I bet C3 churches never make Jesus's "mistake"….. see verse 66 especially. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6&version=KJV
Which Christ? http://defendingcontending.com/2010/03/14/which-jesus-do-you-worship/
Islam has an estimated population of 1.3 billion followers (Pew Research, 2013). Of course statistics don't reveal how devout they are. Using your logic, high numbers = true followers of Jesus Christ. They say he's a prophet after all…. does numerical statistics make Muslims more Christian than C3Church followers?
According to a Mormon website they have over 15 million followers and over 29 thousand congregations. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-stats
Does that make them more Christian than C3 as well?
Jesus said narrow is the way to salvation. (see Matthew 7:13-14). The path to C3 seems very wide indeed. Shouldn't bible-believing Christians view that as a potential warning sign that your church is NOT the way to Jesus and approach with great caution instead?
Dean: A false teacher will say "WE just finished our Europe, Australia and Americas leaders conferences with record numbers. WE are planting and growing churches and leading people to Christ at record numbers." All glory to C3, Dean?
Thinker: A sound teacher will say – "The church of the tares is actually bigger than the church of the wheat. And today those who call themselves evangelicals are busy doing it. And there's a long list of locations called churches where tares assemble in increasing numbers with a scattering of weak wheat stalks among them. The successful assemblies of tares will eagerly market their skill at tare development. It can be very seductive to those who are motivated by numbers or pride or popularity."
And Dean, I think George Barna had leaders like you in mind when he stated in his book "Marketing The Church" – the audience, not the message, is sovereign.
Austin said:
@Dean Sweetman – well, if it isn't "Pastor Disaztor" posting in again… honestly Dean, haven't you got a scandal to sort out, or another failed church plant to bury? I promise that I'Il send flowers to the funeral parlor… probably Venus Fly Traps – they're very good at getting rid of pests…
I could say many things to you, but somehow i feel that this interesting little online article has said it all:
http://www.thepathoftruth.com/falsehoodexposed/c3-church.htm
Be warned peoples – God is not mocked – the Lord knows those who are His, and He knows how to save the godly out of trials and temptations and to deliver up the ungodly for judgement at the appropriate time…
Man made organisations like C3 will not last – all the kingdoms of men will fail utterly at the last – only the true Church will stand the test of time in these last days.
Listen up folks:
Jesus promised us that He would build His church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. In the last 2,000 years the Church has survived persecution by
1. The Jews,
2. The Roman Caesars,
3. Pagan countries that were part of the Roman Empire,
4. The Vatican – before, during and after the dreaded 300 year long Inquisition,
5. Muslim hordes and the subsequent Ottoman Empire,
6. Modern Antichrist movements such as the Communism and the Nazis,
7. Pagan religions of the Far East, South America, Africa and South Asia.
It has also suffered betrayal at the hands of those who claimed to be its leaders and protectors. In the last 70 years, from the time of the Latter Rain Movement, on to the Charismatic Move, until the modern day advent of the Emergent and NAR false churches – the "church of tares"…
And Dean Sweetman thinks he can come here and post a few Smart-Alec comments now and then, and even put a scratch on our armour…? 🙂
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)
Truth that leads to life – or error leading to death…
Ronfire said:
I used to attend a C3 church and this idea that God is blessing the movement because you've got C3 branded churches everywhere surprised me when I first heard it. Every church "plant" in other countries we were informed of turned out to be existing churches "rebranded" as C3. The reasons why those churches joined the movement are unknown and I won't speculate but I come from Africa, have also lived in Asia, and I've seen numerous churches and pastors in those parts of the world roped into church empires from the West, mainly the US. None of these were church plants by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of those churches have ended up as clones of their Western counterparts, with lots of big buildings, fancy equipment, booted and suited pastors who live in mansions ruling over organisations as CEOs, having implemented the "vision" of their group CEOs; empty shells who have lost their fervour and devotion to Christ, their passion for His Word and the simple faith of those who know their LORD.
How are C3's church plants any different? America, Europe and Australia? Same principle, right? People are people everywhere. Same fruit too, I wager.
Man, you guys are bitter and angry today. Keep the anonymous hate flowing.
God is doing powerful things in His church. People are being saved and transformed by the blood of Jesus. I'm thankful I get to play a very small part and get to watch people transform right before my eyes.
I know Jesus loves you guys, I'm not sure how He does but I know He does.
Have a great weekend and enjoy your local church services.
Amused said:
@Dean,
"[C3] just finished our Europe, Australia and Americas leaders conferences with record numbers."
So do tell us, Dean: did Nick Dimitris from C3 Asheville make it to the Americas "leaders" conference, or was he perhaps "unavoidably detained"?
"[…] hateful anonymous blogging […] only helps [C3] and the Kingdom grow."
So Dean, is that why Phil Pringle has warned his followers to avoid discernment web sites like the plague? (It seems like you and he are not quite on the same page with respect to that subject; maybe you need to sit him down for a little talk so that you can get him straightened out, eh?)
As an aside, I note with interest your turn of phrase "us (C3) and the Kingdom". This is a slip on your part: a none-too-tacit admission that C3 see themselves as an entity that is distinct from God's Kingdom – a fact that is well attested to by those who understand that C3 is indeed a gnostically-based pseudo-Christian personality / prosperity cult that has nothing whatsoever to do with God.
And talking of prosperity, you are no doubt aware of the dirt being revealed as a result of Kong Hee's trial in Singapore, including the fact that Kong Hee has been tithing not to CHC, but to himself via the so-called "Multi-Purpose Account", from which he and his wife drew money to fund their eye-poppingly extravagant lifestyles. I have some questions for you regarding this matter, since you are well placed to know:
(1) Did Kong Hee learn the technique of "tithing to self" from Phil Pringle?
(2) If he did, should we assume that Phil also tithes to himself?
(3) Apart from Phil, how many other pastors within the C3 movement are tithing to themselves?
(4) Do you tithe to yourself, or have you ever done so?
(5) Do you think such a practice could be correctly characterised as being the height of hypocrisy?
(6) What other money-making schemes are C3 "leaders" involved in that might pique the interest of the long-suffering punters in the pews who actually fund the C3 charade? (How is Barn doing, by the way – is he finding that his nifty "tithing app" is a healthy little earner?)
As always, we look forward to your answers with interest – and don't forget, you still haven't told us the exact institution from which your wife received her bogus PhD (rest assured that we'll keep reminding you until you do – you shouldn't assume that your detractors have the attention spans of gnats just because you and your cerebrally-challenged C3 mates do).
Hi Dean,
Hi Dean – you accuse us of "hating". So let's talk about love.
What is happening with the C3 Asheville (aka Asheville UNITED Church)?
Before C3 Pastor Nick Dimitris went to jail, did you defrock him from ministry so that he wont hurt those in the Kingdom of God?
If you didn't do this, will Nick Dimitris be stepping back into ministry after his time in jail?
What have you, Phil Pringle or C3 done to ensure, protect and help those wounded in the C3 Asheville scandal?
Will C3 be compensating those financially who were financially ripped off hundreds and thousands of dollars under your oversight? (The retirees come to mind here.)
Obviously C3 would understand that they need to apologise for standing with a criminal and outwork that love in supporting those that got hurt. We would like to hear how you and the C3 leadership went to work in this healing process.
Since when is rebutting a person's false conclusions (good church statistics = automatically from God) a sign of bitterness and anger Dean Salesman? Do you really believe that we cannot recognize when the "negative emotions are to blame for you disagreeing with me" manipulation card is being played?
Surely someone who has reached any position of authority has the reasoning skills to know opinions formed by facts are dealt with via opposing *facts*, not the "you're just a hater" primary school kid-type strategy.
If C3church is such a good church then we should be able to view sermons that carefully preach what the bible teaches, with special emphasis on faith in Jesus Christ Himself needed for SALVATION and the need to turn from SIN, with no need for personal embellishments and FLESH-pleasing half-truths ….. just like every genuine Christian preacher from every generation has done. Do you do that Dean?
Just noticed spell-check auto-corrected "Sweetman" and substituted "Salesman" instead. Now that was an amusing "correction" for a change….
'Surely someone who has reached any position of authority has the reasoning skills to know opinions formed by facts are dealt with via opposing *facts*, not the "you're just a hater" primary school kid-type strategy.'
"Thinker" raises a valid point, and one which deserves some further analysis.
It's quite true that those in authority should demonstrate at least some degree of skill when it comes to providing a logical and coherent defence of their position, but, sadly, there seem to be none in the ranks of C3 leadership who are even remotely capable in this regard. Let us not forget that these are the self-same ones who engage in endless self-promotion, who let it be known to all and sundry that they are "God's anointed", and who seem to fondly imagine that they are highly esteemed by the unwashed masses, who can only regard them from afar with amazement (and perhaps more than a tinge of envy).
Dean Sweetman has stuck his head over the parapet only to find that the air around his ears is thick with lead, and it doesn't take too long to ascertain that he is in the unfortunate position of a man who has come to the party with neither a weapon nor a flak vest. This is not the first time that Dean has ventured here, so it appears that he is either a dead-set masochist or a very slow learner (or perhaps a bit of both). When one sees that Dean has absolutely nothing of any substance to offer, it's quite apparent why the rank-and-file C3'ers who sometimes unwisely chance their arms here don't usually hang around for too long. (These unfortunates, who are led to believe by Pringle and Co. that they are "the head and not the tail", typically present as ones who can barely string a single sentence together – it must be a rude shock to them when they find themselves on the wrong end of such shellackings as are handed out here).
Phil Pringle himself is known to follow this site, and you can be sure that he has taken careful note of how Dean has fared here – that's why Phil does not dare to comment here himself, because he knows that he would get absolutely ripped to shreds. You have to give Phil some credit, don't you? He is at least smart enough to know a losing proposition when he sees it, and he obviously has no desire to be made a complete and utter fool of in a public forum. It's true, of course, that Phil can get pretty gung-ho when he's safely ensconced behind a lectern, and when he's surrounded by sidekicks who will summarily eject naysayers and troublemakers from his presence – however when it comes to a more level playing field, it seems that his nerve fails him. Maybe "apostleship" only works when one is actually in one of heaven's "portals", or perhaps Phil is just waiting us all out – biding his time until we all die in "mysterious car accidents", or something like that…
"And there's a long list of locations called churches where tares assemble in increasing numbers with a scattering of weak wheat stalks among them."
I wonder if Dean has ever read this: 'Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved."'
Are you familiar with that verse, Dean? Do you see how, out of the multitudes of Israelites, only very few were destined for salvation? How could that be, given that Israel were God's chosen people? Do you think that it might conceivably be because "Many are called, but few are chosen"? Can you see an analogue there for today's mega-cults, Dean?
What about the following?
'All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. "Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious," they said, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."
The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."'
"All the other prophets", Dean – the false prophets were in one accord, but Micaiah, as a true prophet of God, refused to be intimidated into backing away from the truth. Even though Micaiah was a lone voice, and even though he was in the presence of the king of Israel, he would not back down. He told Ahab:
'"So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you."'
And so it turned out that Ahab attacked Ramoth Gilead, and, just as Micaiah had foretold, he met his death there.
So do you think that being part of a large movement means that you are in the right, Dean? Do you think that being part of the majority ensures that you can't possibly go wrong? The false prophets of C3 "speak favourably" Dean, but they have a deceiving spirit in their mouths, by which they are luring multitudes of people to their deaths – and by virtue of your involvement in C3, you are complicit in that. You can be assured that the blood of those people will be required at your hand, and on that day there will be no one to rescue you.
'The false prophets of C3 […] have a deceiving spirit in their mouths […]'
Dean,
Just in case you think that the above was merely a bald assertion (the sort that C3 "leaders" are so fond of making), let me ask you this: where, pray tell, is the "revival" that we were meant to experience once Warragamba Dam filled up?
I assume that you recall that Phil Pringle predicted, some time back, that once Warragamba Dam filled up, revival would break out in Australia. As we all know, Warragamba Dam has since filled up, and – shock, horror! – there has been no revival! Then Warragamba Dam filled up a second time and – surprise, surprise! – still there was no revival! So what sort of "spirit" is it by which Pringle is "prophesying", Dean? If it's the Holy Spirit, why did Phil get it so wrong?
And let me ask you this, Dean: if Phil called you out to the front at C3OF to "prophesy" over you, and he waved his hand and said "Thus saith the Lord, blah, blah, blah ….", how much store would you really set by his words? Wouldn't you think "Well, that's nice, Phil – maybe it will happen, and maybe it won't, because you have been wrong so many times, and we really can't trust what you say any more".
Isn't it true, Dean, that a prophet who is constantly making mistakes eventually destroys his own credibility? And how can someone be called a "prophet" once their credibility is gone? Tell us, Dean: would you stake your life or the lives of your family on what Phil Pringle claims to hear from God? In times of drought, would you rely on an intermittent stream?
@ Dean
I don't get it. You constantly find this place full of "bitter and angry" people and you keep coming here?! There's a medical term for people who do that to themselves. I'm not sure you're that kind of guy (then again, what do I know eh?), so I wonder what's the real reason you're here? Do you use your forays into this world of "hatred" and "negativity" to show how bravely you stand up for the "kingdom"? How you courageously endure the flaming arrows of those evil, lying bloggers who rant and rave and spread lies about your glorious armies of "God"? How you attempt to engage all these "evil' people and struggle manfully to "bring the love of God" to us?
In other words, do you come here to score brownie points with the C3 hierarchy? Or maybe they just pull rank and make you do the dirty work?
Unlike you, my friend, no-one here has any doubts or misconceptions about how Jesus loves you…..with the same love that He loves everyone else with. The same Messiah who died for mankind commands us to love our enemies also tells us not everyone who calls Him "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. This same Jesus tells us all to judge with righteous judgement. Do you recall what the Lord Jesus says to John in Revelation 2:2 – His commending the church of Ephesus for "trying those pretending to be apostles and are not, and have found them liars"? He commends them, that's right. They tested these so-called apostles and show them to be liars – which act would be labelled "hateful" and "bitter", would it not – at least, according to you? You don't try people and prove them liars be giving them flowers and telling them how wonderful they are, do you?
How about further on in Rev 2:6? He commends them for they "hate" the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which He also "hates". Hates? Jesus "hates"? Yes, my friend He does. The Nicolaitans, as you hopefully know, were a Gnostic sect that arose from within the church. Tertullian identifies the founder of this cult as Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven chosen by the church in Acts – a colleague of Stephen the martyr and Philip the evangelist. From within the church. Someone who named the name of Jesus and fellowshipped with the apostles and the early church proved to be a charlatan and started a sect that Jesus "hates".
So, does that make Him "bitter" and "angry" too, Dean?
Donna Lloyd said:
http://www.acnc.gov.au/enforcementpowers/20140618_Direction%20Notice_NCCI.pdf
Donna thanks I found that link very interesting definitely worthy of more investigation.
That's very interesting. Looks like the webpage has been taken down as well.
http://www.thenewconnectionchurch.net/.
Wayback machine has a screen grab from 2013 of what appears to be its home page: http://web.archive.org/web/20130422234016/http://www.thenewconnectionchurch.net/
Sounds similar to C3 in tone…..wonder who this mob are?
Thor said:
The SMH newspaper printed this report on Wednesday re "The New Connection Church":
http://www.smh.com.au/national/belconnen-new-connection-church-has-charitable-status-revoked-20140910-10ezrp.html
Let's get the relevant authorities investigating to see if we can't get the same done for C3 – I'm sure that C3 couldn't be classified as a charity by any stretch of the imagination (unless, of course, one counts the fact that Phil extends considerable largesse to his family and friends on behalf of his milch cow congregants).
On a related note, I'd be really interested to know exactly what "services to the community" Phil Pringle ever performed in order to get an OAM. I seriously doubt that he has done anything deserving of such an award, and I think we should start a campaign to get him stripped of it.
Donna, thanks for that link. I had only been reading the ACNC's online website some 2 weeks ago but wasn't aware of any actions taken against a "church" at that time.
it is entirely feasible that some of these 'churches' may well establish an off shore headquarters, where taxes are a lot lower, or even non existent in some areas of their operations.
When they have "reinvented" themselves as a new corporate entity, they may well be able to funnel all of their "cash at bank" holdings (relabeled as "money for missions"?) and property ownership overseas as well, while the Australian outlets become 'branch offices' of the new overseas 'headquarters'. Corporate tax in some Asian countries is as low as 19%.
And if you think i'm giving these people some new ideas, I'd say they've already thought of it, and are more than half way to accomplishing it. Then again, our government could just as easily prohibit these new 'entities' from holding charity or PBI (Public Benevolent Institution) status, if their "new headquarters" has gone off shore.
If they brand themselves as charities, aren't they exempt from income tax here?
Just a guest said:
I feel as though there is something happening across the "Church"… as in God is weeding out the ones who use His name and church for worldly gain. I can see it across a number of church/organisations/pastors… Like Jesus did when he pushed over the tables in the tabernacle.. This still goes on today.. Its disguised better and craftier though…. I just want these men and women to be held accountable and stop damaging the church's reputation. I want the name of Jesus to be associated with men and women who represent him to the world in purity and love – this is when revival will happen. Less about us and more about HIM.
Annette said:
Just a guest- totally agree with all you say!
Amused,
He was unavoidably detained and did not attend.
Dean, you never answered where your wife got her doctorate from. She represents Trinity University in San Antonio (give me an answer and I'll show you my proof where she represents it) but I checked and that isn't it. So where? A diploma mill? Or are you going to dodge this question as well.
The problem with lies is you can never outrun them…
"Dean, you never answered where your wife got her doctorate from."
Yep, Dean is remaining as coy as ever on that particular subject, isn't he? The suspicion naturally arises that Jill's "doctorate" is no more authentic than those of Phil Pringle or that plagiarising pulpit pimp, Kong Hee.
Anyway, I've got a suggestion for you Dean: since you have claimed in the past that Jill's PhD is in fact the real deal, why don't you let her take on C3's opponents here so that we can see how good she really is? After all, we know that PhDs aren't handed out like ice-creams (well, we know that they certainly aren't *meant* to be). We understand the rigorous demands involved in obtaining such a high academic distinction, and we can deduce that your wife must have a very high IQ and must also be possessed of an outstanding facility with the English language.
Since Jill is also a "senior pastor" within the C3 movement, and given that she boasts such an impressive bio on the web (stating, inter alia, that she has "a unique prophetic gifting"), she should be able to put us all in our place with ease, shouldn't she? I'd wager she's far cleverer and much more gifted than all of the "negative" commenters here put together, and since Phil "My Opponents Should Grow a Pair" Pringle is proving to be such a shrinking violet, having someone send a woman to argue C3's case on his behalf would be just the shot – no doubt we'd all be toast if Jill rode into town.
Astute said:
God is doing powerful things in His church."
Yes He is doing great things in HIS church Dean and it's a crying shame that you're not part of it… As for us, no – we're neither bitter nor are we angry – we just like to share the truth as we know it to be. The amount of scandals over here and over there, is more than enough testimony to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the C3 man made movement is patently and obviously not of God. Exposing this fact makes us neither bitter nor angry.
"People are being saved and transformed by the blood of Jesus."
Well actually Dean, they're being hyped up by the falsely generated mega church atmosphere. Real salvation means the preaching of the simple Gospel, a strong stand against sin in the camp, and a changed life that clearly shows up as one that is separated from worldliness – that is not C3's platform or methodology.
"I'm thankful I get to play a very small part and get to watch people transform right before my eyes."
It would be better for the folks concerned Dean, if you played no part at all.
We show our love for Him too, by keeping his commandments Dean, not by money raking and false teaching – that's the difference… that's "Ministry 101" Dean, but then again, you skipped that class at Bible School, didn't you?
I don't have to 'go to church' to get my weekly 'fix' or to have a great weekend Dean – just knowing that you and I have had some "quality time" around the issues that matter, and that you have once more had to come across "the Pond" to us to get straightened out, is more than enough for me to have had a GREAT weekend…
Now Dean, when "church" is over, feel free to post back in and tell us all about those thousands of new disciples that have been added and those "new" church plants where people are just falling over themselves to get up the front and join the C3 vision – you know, the "2020 Vision" that assimilates small independent fellowships, faster than the Borg on Star Trek… and then charges a regular fee for using the company logo…?
Now that's definitely the blessing of God on your global activities, isn't it Dean?
andy Kanapoulos said:
"We are planting and growing churches and leading people to Christ at record numbers."
@Dean, so you say.
That "numbers" argument is rampant… yet meaningless.
The *EMERGENT CHURCH and others make the same claim.
You "numbers" people err in thinking the Lord will overlook a little sin & compromise, because your "numbers" are so incredibly "appealing" to Him.
What you "numbers" people don't understand, is that ONE person who lives faithfully according to His Word, is regarded far more highly than HUNDREDS who don't…
* Exodus 32:9-10
Which one of the 7 churches in Revelation BEST DESCRIBES YOU, Dean?
~Andy
Amused asked, "On a related note, I'd be really interested to know exactly what "services to the community" Phil Pringle ever performed in order to get an OAM. I seriously doubt that he has done anything deserving of such an award,"……
It is a good question, but I believe that Phil openly encourages and persuades members of C3 to vote and support a particular political party in time of elections, you might be able to retrieve some sermons preached around election times from Church Online (if they are still there), that can probably be considered as "services to the community".
Jesus never got involved in any type of politics. His command is still:
Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all the days (perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of age. Matthew 28: 19-20 (AMP).
@Andy,
Yep! These "numbers" that the c3 movement love to talk about, dont necessarily mean "salvations". Megachurches these days seem to get an influx of "members" off the back of a good marketing campaign (?) Presence Conf (?) Social Media hype (?). I call these people church hoppers. There really is nothing that C3 oxford falls do that reach out to the unchurched. These are hardly testimonies of what "God is doing in the church".
Mega church/c3 leaders reading this, God is not focused on numbers. I repeat GOD IS NOT FOCUSED ON NUMBERS. "Narrow is the way"… He wants his people to be totally sold out to HIM. Not numbers/bums on seats. Maybe you might try and get off your comfortable "pews" (theres a reason why they were made of hardwood in the first place) and actually meet the sinners where they are – they aren't walking in off the streets into your beautiful building and throwing their lives at the "altar". Not unless invited. Even then, alter calls were always "light" at C3 oxford falls.
Im really sick of hearing the same remark, "God is doing powerful things in the church and blah blah blah…" Thats great you think so, but is it an accurate assumption? Or is it perhaps because the emotional dial on the music has been turned up? Richter scale somebody? What is causing this move of God you say?? Is it reaching the sinners? The lost? The broken? Are the poor welcomed in and handed a place up the front? Are the widows being cared for? Is any of this truly for the GLORY of God? I ask this because I have seen very little in this movement.
Lastly but most importantly to note. God is present ANYWHERE that He is welcomed and honoured. When He is worshipped in spirit and in truth – not just under bright lights and a with tight jeans on. In the quiet He is there.. He is doing mighty things in the hearts of those who are completely sold out to Him. Not for any gain, but to further His name. We dont save people. HE saves people. ALL Glory to GOD.
"Mega church/c3 leaders reading this, God is not focused on numbers. I repeat GOD IS NOT FOCUSED ON NUMBERS."
Quite correct.
The self-appointed "leaders" running C3 are apparently blissfully unaware of the exploits of Gideon, and the details thereof. It also seems that they either missed the part in the Old Testament that relates what occurred when King David took a census of his fighting men, or they simply don't understand the import of it – in particular the fact that it should serve as a stark personal warning to them.
Considering the fact that Phil Pringle has likened himself to the prophet Elijah, it's surprising to see the tragic extent of his Biblical ignorance and consequent spiritual shallowness. And what of his fellow travellers in C3? It seems that Phil has assembled for himself and his movement a team of kindred spirits who are just as blind as he himself is – or perhaps some of them do know the truth, but are unwilling to correct or confront Phil because they love their privileged positions more than they care for God's truth.
We all know that people reap what they sow, and so it is with C3: they worship money and success, and, since they prefer darkness to the light, they have been sold under a strong delusion, and they now grope about in their blindness with none to lead them. Who can forget that Mark Kelsey once fatuously stated "My faith is in the tithe"? Apparently he is utterly convinced that, come the Day of Judgement, he will be saved by a pile of money: this is the fruit of the spirit that is at work in C3, and it is rotten to the very core.
God does not care about numbers. Anyone who claims differently is a fool or a liar, or both.
@ Just a guest & Amused,
Excellent comments…
It's amazing how when Dean or anyone else comes on here with an agenda, they have such a difficult time trying to pull one over here. People here do a lot of homework. It's probably the opposite at these visitors' "home bases" where whatever they say most likely goes without any question at all…
I actually often jot down things I learn from people's comments & the articles here in a little database that I keep, so I can remember some of everyone's key points later…
A lot of good information here…
In the state of Queensland, the Incorporation Act which allows people to come together as a single legal entity, with protections against their personal assets being acquired in a lawsuit involving damages, also stipulates that no less than seven members are required for an incorporated body to be formed.
The President is not allowed to also act as the Treasurer, but you can have a secretary/treasurer, who does not have to reside within the state, but who must reside within so many kilometers of the state border. So the incorporated body could be in Coolangatta, and the secretary may live in Tweed Heads, just across the state border. Management committees must have at least three members in Queensland.
You can have full "ordinary members" who pay an annual fee ($10 is normal) and also have 'associate members' (who may only pay $2.00 and usually have no voting rights) and even grant special classes of membership, such as 'life members' (who pay no fees whatsoever, but who can vote at AGMs). You can write your own constitution too, within limits, or simply follow the standard "model rules' as provided by the Department (Fair Trading/Consumer Affairs) who administers the legislation.
A lot of these "Inc." bodies are legit and act as charities, service clubs and community centres. In and amongst the legit ones, you will find others who are not legit – they tend to hide behind policies like "privacy and confidentiality' but even this cannot be taken to mean a total "black out" on discussion or disclosure of any facts relevant to the accountability of the organisation and its management committee.
The shonky ones have the management committee rigged in such a way that only "full members" can be on the committee (usually via private pre-arrangement) – everyone else signs on as an 'associate member', paying their nominal fee and having no voting rights at all… That's where church members get conned…
http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/non-profits/incorporated-associations/running-your-association/management-committee/who-on-committee
http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/non-profits/incorporated-associations/running-your-association/members
I'm posting all of this so that anyone who feels a little bit lost can at least find a starting point and maybe get together with others who may hold concerns about the lack of accountability within a local/regional or national organisation (a "church" per se.) Most state governments have similar legislation and it is usually online. Please note that some legislation also has "regulations" that go with it and are often listed separately on government websites – the devil is in the detail (or lack of it ::) )
Many organisations have wizened up and have cancelled their old 'Inc.' entities in favour of the "company limited by guarantee" where there are other advantages for non profits. It takes on more of a company structure, rather than the home grown "Inc." type structure, and has more formal voting procedures, and must be administered by a board with a balanced mix of grass roots and professional members.
As Church Watcher said, Lets talk about LOVE ! In particular the lack of love shown by C3 church leaders when they expelled Tom and Dave Adams and family members from C3 Balmain and stopped them from attending their church with security guards at the church doors, all because they wanted to know how their donations to the Rise and Build building fund was spent and to see the financial accounts.
This it seems is what happens at C3 when someone starts asking questions and when they query C3 leaders people are told they have a bad spirit and the C3 love disappears real quick.
How is it we never get to see these 'record breaking numbers'?
Surely an above board church such as c3 could publish them? And release the old records so we could compare them?
I remember old phil pringle telling us that there were soooo many new c3's …but we never get the statistics on attendance. Could it possibly be that attendance is going backward? Hmmmm.
I also don't recall where in the Holy Bible Jesus Christ required His Apostles to egotistically and vainly 'announce' their daily/monthly/yearly number of conversions to Him.
Regarding your comment;
I like your question, and it is a good question, (what sort of "spirit" is it by which Phil Pringle is "prophesying"?
Regarding his self-attributed fulfilment of his "prophesy" of the Warragamba being filled up again after that terrible drought experienced in Sydney at that time.
I still don't understand why Phil took credit for what Our Lord did at that time.
It was during that terrible drought crisis, that a group of people from different churches including a couple from C3 agreed to travel to the site (Warragamba Dam) to cry out to Our Lord, and PRAYED for rain.
I want very much to emphasize this; PRAYED (trusting in the absolute power of Our Lord, according to HIS WORD, John 14:13-14), and not "prophesied. And I am 100% sure that hundreds if not thousands of true believers did the same thing all over Sydney, PRAYED FOR RAIN, and Our Gracious and Merciful Lord and God, according to HIS WORD; honoured HIS PROMISES once again. Halleluiah!
Phil knows that this act took place at that time, and for sure he must remember it, even today. However, some months, later (about a year later), he claimed in one of his church Sunday meetings that He had "prophesied" that the Warragamba Dam will be filled up again, and that his "prophesy" has been fulfilled, and that he also remembered making another prophesy some time before, regarding the tallest buildings in the world coming down and crushing to the ground, which also has been fulfilled.
Most of the C3 Church attendants in particular, and people who follow this site, provably remember that at that time, Phil also made some yokes or remarks about a particular NSW politician.
So, like you Amused and many other people we also wonder what sort of "spirit" is dwelling in Phil.