The saga continues . . .
Well Robert Fergusson did write back one more time. I have now carefully reread the legalize at the bottom of each mail. Based on this comment it would seem that I can quote Robert's mails as I was the "intended recipient":
The material contained in this email may be confidential, and may also be the subject of copyright and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this document is prohibited.
Could someone please post a comment with advice regarding this. As I read the disclaimer it seems to me that only unintended recipients cannot disclose or quote it.
I want to be careful about this because I want to agitate Hillsong for one reason and not two reasons. I want to keep the argument relentlessly pointed at their shameful practices when it comes to adherence to the biblical Gospel and their willingness to edit Scripture as they please. We are to submit to Scripture. Scripture does not submit to the pragmatic practices of Hillsong. I do not want to provide an opening for them to argue about the secondary issue of copyright. If only they paid as much attention to detail when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So if I can receive further advice confirming that I am interpreting the disclaimer correctly, then I will publish Robert Fergusson's mails. I know some of you want to read them - and you may find them quite lame anyway. It would seem that his "apologetical approach" is to take his bat and go home. He seems to think that I want to argue about who belives most in repentance and the authority of Scripture - when nothing could be further from the truth. Scripture has no authority to people who vandalize it and I cannot find anything to suggest that "Hillsong" believes in preaching repentance at all. One of us believes in these things and the other doesn't. I was hopeful that he could figure this out - I thought my explanation was quite simple. Maybe Robert Fergusson is through with writing or maybe his third e-mail is delayed - perhaps he is still digging through Brian Houston's sermon archive looking for that elusive message calling sinners to repentance. Either way, I don't think I'll be hearing from him.
Nonetheless Fergusson's second mail provoked my third mail:
Now Robert, be reasonable. They are fair questions that I am asking. How can you even suggest that repentance from sin is discussed in the Gospel presentation found in the CD? I was hopeful you would address the issue - not pretend it doesn't exist! I am not suggesting I believe the Gospel more than you - I am saying that if you do believe the Gospel then you will put a stop to the false one being presented on behalf of Hillsong. Doesn't it concern you at all that Hillsong propogates information telling people to pray this prayer and then you are a child of God with no call to repentance from sin. No mention of the cross. No mention of our guilt. Please tell me this is of concern to you as a preacher of the Gospel?
Based on feedback, this series has revealed to me that Hillsong is a far bigger sacred cow than I ever imagined. A sacred cow that needs to be carved up and barbequed. This isn't over . . .
Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1
There Are No Neutralities in Religion
10 hours ago