It’s only fair, since they’ve asked just about every person who goes on their site to say nice things about Hillsong and C3.
We’ve already shown that the chookwatchers themselves struggle with the gospel.
After all, they hold to Reformed doctrine which says that regeneration comes before faith. In other words, people are saved sans faith, which goes against the teaching of the New Testament, which states that we are saved by grace through faith.
All the same, given that they demand that all correspondents to their site are able to recite the gospel, in particular 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, surely they should, by now, have asked their atheist cohorts for their definition of the gospel.
It’s interesting to note that a couple of the chookwatchers’ supporters have claimed, whilst arguing with a commenter who pointed it out, that they are not Reformed or Calvinist after all, even though their sites are chockablock filled with Reformed theology, recommended books, resources, websites, conferences, churches and ministries, and they argue from a Reformed perspective.
Their own recommendations drop them squarely into the Reformed camp, and most people who read their sites would have settled on this as a given, especially when reading through the comments made by their multiple chookwatcher entity moderators.
But, astonishingly, they have now spent weeks championing atheists. Yes, the only foil to their Reformed position is their newly adopted union with atheists who have come against Hillsong.
Their site currently has a header that advertises the latest book published by a well known atheist anti-Hillsong activist featured in a current affairs program fronted by another atheist, in the very week the book is published.
Their continued defence of these atheists, who have rejected God, Christianity and faith, is extraordinary. They have even given their site over to two articles by one of them, the second by invitation.
They are featuring this atheist, who is a rainbow flying supporter of equal marriage, a concept that the chookwatchers have raged against, as a partner in their endeavours – a person who set up a protest outside the Melbourne Hillsong which attracted four protesters, including the atheist and his missus.
The atheist was a bit put out because the Hillsong members either attempted to humour him, tell him the gospel, or completely ignored the protest. I think people were being kind, given the standard and offensive content of the posters, but we’ll allow some poetic license there.
The good news for them was that they were largely left alone. Maybe because there was a certain pathos and futility to the exercise and people sympathised rather than reacted. It just wasn’t happening for them.
OK to have an opinion
Not that there’s anything wrong with having a point of view or opinion about a particular church group. You can protest in whatever way you like in Australia as long as it’s orderly.
You can gather three or four people for a photoshoot, and make headlines on a site like chookwatch as long as you say something negative about Hillsong or C3.
And, of course, it doesn’t matter if you’re Christian. You can be atheist and they’ll still use your stuff. They don’t seem to be that selective, really, when it comes to content.
Works both ways
The great thing about a democracy is that people are generally allowed to have an opinion and express it, as long as they are not disturbing the peace or disrupting organised meetings in a negative manner or inciting violence.
The other great thing about a democracy is that churches are able to congregate without fear of reprisal or sanction. Even large churches can hire venues and hold grand convocations. They can build great meeting halls for huge gatherings and meet in peace.
They can sing and praise their God in any style they choose, as loud as they like, as often as they like, as long as they don’t overly disturb the neighbours. They can invite and enjoy any speaker they choose to minister hope to hungry people. They can even raise funds to promote their message and spread it far and wide. Gosh, they can even have fun doing it, for goodness sake.
Freedom to blog
And you can run a blog relatively freely. You can have an opinion, as long as you don’t falsely defame people. And, of course, you can claim to be Christian and champion atheists at the same time.
The only trouble with this is if you put it about that yours is a Christian site upholding strict Christian values, promoting the Bible, opposing what you see as wrong doctrine, attacking what you claim is bad theology, whilst at the same time supporting atheists.
That is just plain wrong.
Atheists reject the God of all grace. They dismiss Scripture. They denounce faith.
Sola, sola, sola
One of the chookwatchers‘ constant cries is Sola Scriptura. It means Scripture Only. Yet they champion atheists who deny scripture.
They invoke Sola Fide, which means Faith Alone, yet they promote the books of a person who rejects faith, and writes a book opposing a group of Christians who have faith in Christ.
They claim Sola Gratia, which is Grace Alone, but defend atheists who deny the God of all grace, from Whom grace is given, and by Whom we receive grace for salvation.
What is the gospel?
And the chookwatchers demand of anyone who drops into their conversation that they reveal “What is the gospel?”
So have the chookwatchers set up two classes of people here?
Are they taking issue with Christians they disagree with theologically, but who worship and acknowledge the same God, whilst making huge allowances for atheists who completely reject the God they worship and say He doesn’t exist, and that people like the chookwatchers are promoting fairy stories and myths?
So what is the gospel, chookwatchers? Why are you pointing people to a book which ostensibly denies God? Is that the gospel? Or is it anathema?
Think about it!