The chookwatchers [CWs] have gone into full damage control mode on their chookwatch-central site as Hillsong defenders rubbish the CWs’ support of the abysmal ACA beat-up on Hillsong United’s successful music ventures, which are being independently filmed by a US producer.
Some of the comments by the CWs reveal that they can easily become extremely unpleasant, evasive, and unwilling to scripturally defend their position without resorting to verbalising people or changing the subject. Here are a few examples of their responses.
In reply to Zac, who gives a measured and polite comment, letting the CWs know that Hillsong didn’t pay a cent for the movie, which is being produced independent of them, and pointing out that Hillsong’s financial report is available online:
“Are you from Hillsong Zac? Your ignorance and lack of biblical discernment indicates to us that you are. If not, are you part of a church that washes its brains in Hillsong’s trashy music?”
That is not a Biblical response. It is a personal attack. Zac even gave a link to the financial report, but their retort is dismissive, presumptive and rude.
Then there is their comment to George, who merely asked why the CWs wasted so much of their time and energy opposing churches and ministries:
‘And we started these sites because these cults create Christians like yourself to believe secularist philosophies and not the teachings of Christ.’
So, again, a personal attack on a commenter. Ad hominem is par for the course at the CWs’ sites.
Here’s what they say in reply to Don, who pointed out to the CWs that Hillsong had started from a small group of people in the 1980s and gradually grown in numbers and stature through hard work and dedication to Christ, along with a strong worship ministry, and challenged the CWs to review their facts by talking to Hillsong rather than reproducing ACA bias:
‘…that was the most amazing piece of brainwashed trash we have ever seen written on CWC. Well done Don. Do you have ANY clue what Christianity is? Do you even have a moral standard to base your illogical arguments? You may pity us but you need serious mental help mate.’
Can you see a pattern emerging here, of how the CWs treat a conversation when their own motives are challenged? Ad hominem responses to people who are pointing out the CWs’ continual verbalising of Hillsong and associated ministries, even suggesting that commenters need mental help, and are brainwashed.
And to Kit, who reasonably suggested that the CWs check out the fruit of the ministry in changed lives and the God-glorifying worship ministry, challenging the CWs to start their own ministry rather than pull down others:
‘You are yet another person who claims to be a Christian but exalts man and man’s works above God and God’s finished work. Why on earth should we give you an indepth [sic] response when you have clearly no regard for Christ and His Apostle’s [sic] teachings in relation to this topic.’
This is, at once, an evasive, defensive and personal attack on a commenter who is asking for answers the CWs do not provide in their post or thread.
The CWs often challenge a person’s integrity and even Christianity when they offer a suggestion the CWs do not like or cannot answer. To oppose the CWs is, to them, revealing that you are not a Christian. Only a non-christian would dare to say something contrary to the CWs – in their minds, that is.
So Kit, by saying something positive about Hillsong, is treated as an enemy of Christ.
Here’s a particularly ugly reply to ‘M’, who asked a few relevant questions that the CWs evaded.
‘Another neuron-free zone response. Keep up the brainless work M. Your defense [sic] of Hillsong proves that biblically illiterate Christians are the only ones that can defend Hillsong. Now. What is the gospel?’
Notice the superior tone used in this comment, especially the way the CWs ask ‘What is the gospel?’, their stock evasive response, which is asked in a challenging manner, rather than giving a soft answer that turns away wrath. The CWs’ comment is certainly provocative, but not in a way that provokes the reader to love and good works. These are the words of pride and arrogance, not a Christlike response to a valid question.
Earlier, ’M’ had asked, ‘I would like you to explain your statement: “Hillsong is militantly campaigning against biblical Christianity?”’.
After there was no response, ‘M’ asked a second time, ‘You never answered my initial question: please follow up your statement: “Hillsong is militantly campaigning against biblical Christianity.”’
The CWs’ eventual response:
‘Penelope/M – we don’t “owe” you an explanation. If you’re not prepared to hold these movements and their prosperity gospel up to the light of God’s Word, don’t expect us to do more work than we have already done.’
So the CWs make a defamatory claim that Hillsong ‘militantly campaigns against Biblical Christianity’, but not only fails to give a reason for their statement, from their main post, but actually refuses point blank to produce a single shred of evidence.
The comment made to ‘M’, ‘we don’t owe you an explanation’ is as evasive as you can get. In other words, they will make a statement without backing it up with fact, but, when challenged for an explanation, will ask the person challenging them to provide the evidence, which is…well…hypocritically ludicrous.
Notice, as a side issue, how they give people’s names out, based on emails, even though the CWs themselves are vehemently and zealously anonymous. This is part of their attempt to intimidate those who challenge them. ‘M’ never revealed herself as ‘Penelope’.
This is also how the CWs treat people who prefer to use a pseudonym whilst they themselves fear having their names revealed and will censure any comment which includes their names. The cowardly hypocrisy is glaringly obvious, but they refuse to see it.
The truth is, they have no explanation for their claim that Hillsong ‘militantly campaigns against Biblical Christianity’ because their statement is completely opinionated waffle devoid of any truth. It is another meme for their narrative stew.
They are admitting that there is no explanation. They are confessing that they made it up.
The question is, how much of what they write is made up? How much of what they say has no explanation because it is simply not true?
The people who challenged the CWs’ extraordinary use of the antichristian ACA footage were fully justified in their attempts to correct the one-sided nature of the CWs’ controversial remarks and support of the ACA beat-up, and the attempted damage control by the CWs which followed probably revealed more about their own nature than they realise.