Tamaki, Cultwatch and the Herald

Once again Brian Tamaki, New Zealand's highest profile and possible richest church leader is in the news.  This time it is a Herald editorial, blasting Cultwatch for categorising Brian Tamaki as a cultist because he has denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.  The writer of the editorial appears to be under the impression that this then places Tamaki in the same camp as Lloyd Geering and other liberalising theologians in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine in the name of embracing the fruits of secular modernity.  Said editor displays a complete failure to grasp that this is not "Bishop" Tamaki bowing to the reason of the modern age but his out of control ego propelling him to reinvent Christianity in a way that serves his own ends more efficiently.  I would, however, agree with the nameless Herald editor that Cultwatch has been a bit slow on this one, it is not doctinal unorthodoxy that makes a cult but the systematic manipulation of the vulnerable.  True followers of Jesus are good news for the poor, they don't use the poor to bankroll their next pruchase of a Lexus.  If a pastor has a personalised number plate it should read "here to serve," Tamaki's betrays his true heart:

Destiny not so daft

Once again the amazing power of Destiny Church to grab NZ headlines was demonstrated yesterday.  While I understand the pastor and his congregation for walking out on the money grubbing, one wonders if he mightn't have been better to stay and protest from the inside.  Now another voice for reason has been lost to Destiny.  Notwithstanding, the detail in his Destiny contract as revealed in the article is pretty interesting.

In that contract, it said if they were to withdraw as a pastor they were forbidden to pastor at any other church for two years and their new church could not be less than 50km from a Destiny Church.

The phenomena of big personality pastors ripping churches asunder and then setting up shop 50 metres down the road is sadly not a rare one.  I think all churches should have a contract like this, although the two year clause seems overly punitive.  However the idea of stopping schismatic pastors from setting up a new church in the same town is simply good common sense.  If such a clause was in every ministerial contract the incidence of church splits would drop massively.

Of course in this situation it will be interesting to see if that contract will hold water.  I don't know anything about Andrew Stock but I expect a new church with him as pastor and within 50km of the old one to spring up in the not to distant future. "Bishop" Brian may have to demonstrate the Christian virtue of forgiveness if he does. As Kiwiblogger points out, "Never heard of God having restraint of trade clauses for his servants before."   I think the secular courts might be similarly perplexed if it goes that way.

Are the critics missing something about Destiny?

Mick Duncan makes the point that those who are reacting against the predominantly working class church Destiny are doing so from a rather narrow middle class perspective. Of course, sociologists always want to make these things about class. ;-) You could also point out some significant differences in racial and cultural makeup.