The butcher, the faker and the dodgy film maker


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Real Christian teachers and pastors are stunned at the magnitude of stupidity rife within Christian churches in light of the fictional book ‘Heaven is For Real’. Here is a real CHRISTIAN pastor warning his church about the dangers of the work ‘Heaven is for Real’.

As a young website, we are only beginning to demonstrate the magnitude of the foolishness that flows from the Hillsong pulpit and its fearsome leaders, Brian (the bible butcher) and Bobbie Houston (the fake pastrix). Recently, we have seen Brian Houston and his wife Bobbie show serious pastoral incompetence in their guidance to their congregation (and worldwide Twitter followers) on important Christian issues.

This celebrity-pastor, movie-endorsing duo seem to love the limelight and are increasingly promoting films that transform the Word of God and the Christian life into myth and fable. The latest blasphemous film they are endorsing is quite disturbing for a number of reasons and poses a danger to the Body of Christ as it promotes a false Jesus and a false spirit.


Brian Houston can’t see the dangers of the film. Here is Brian Houston endorsing the film Heaven is for Real:

“Some faith based films that have come out recently especially those that are really much closer to the “text” are a real blessing because it does give you opportunity to bring friends, bring family and even for churches. Churches go as a community, go to see movies together. And I think that’s wonderful.

I remember when initially the ‘Passion of the Christ’ came out, churches like ours, we just hired numbers and numbers and numbers of theaters and just packed them out. So it really does also give you a chance to rally the community around something that’s evangelistic, entertaining but can generally make a big difference in people’s souls where it matters.”

Rally the community around something that’s “evangelistic”? Scriptures teach us that Satan parades as an angel of light. Why rally the community around something that is opposed to God’s Word? Entertainment in this case is simply the carrot to entice gullible Christians to embrace a blasphemous film. What matters is God’s Word. If his Word is replaced with anti-Christian films like this – then Hillsong’s evangelistic attempts are worse than useless. It’s deadly to people’s souls.

Later Brian Houston addresses the issue of bullying in the film.

 “The people who are most empowered to handle bullying are the people who see it happening and determine, “I am not going to stay back, I’m going to do something about this”. And confront it and create environments where it’s simply unacceptable. I guess you know if you are the one who is being bullied you can feel very helpless because you would presume the person is either more powerful than you or they’re bigger than you or they’ve got a nastier tongue than you. And often sensitive people being bullied, they don’t feel like they have a come-back. The very best thing is when people gather around them, put their arms around them and say, “You know, you don’t have to go through this by yourself”.

It’s odd hearing Brian Houston speak against bullying in this movie advert considering he has no problem slagging of Christians who hold him accountable to what he says or bullies Christians in and outside off his church into submission. Maybe Houston needs to look at himself in the mirror and consider how he uses mob-like tactics, legal intimidation and deceit to shut Christians up. Why not admonish the members at Hillsong Conference that attacked Christians at your event, Brian?


Recently Bobbie Houston enthusiastically recommended Christians see the blatantly New Age movie ‘Heaven is for Real’:

Very grateful to watch a pre-screening of HEAVEN IS FOR REAL film. Oh my. Beautiful. Inspiring. Delightful. Moving. Cried. Smiled. Thoroughly recommend. AND AMAZING HOW GOD IS TRULY speaking to hearts from all angles. #forsuchatimeasthis #releasedEaster

Source: rlhouston,, 10/04/2014. (Accessed 10/04/2014.)


If you click the thumbnail, you will see a picture in the movie of a girl painting Jesus. Why are we mentioning this artist? Because when Colton Burpo saw Akaine’s painting of Jesus, he identified it as the Jesus he saw in heaven.


The girl in the film is Akiane painting her famous ‘Prince of Peace’ portrait of Jesus. This should alert Christians everywhere to the New Age agenda being pushed behind the movie (whether genuine agenda or not). Arkiane was heavily promoted as a child prodigy by the notorious, New Age Elijah-List collective for her spiritual paintings. Sadly, her work has been regarded as “Christian” in spite of her overall New Age tones and philosophies. You can check out some of her works here.



Even in the preview, you can see that the theology is completely wrong. Trivialising ‘heaven’ into a reich-like community is not even remotely Christian. Allowing the naive, unbiblical teachings of a four year old’s experience to now dictate and trump the truth of scripture reveals just how undescerning people like Brian and Bobbie Houston really are. So why are they pushing this film so strongly?

Is it because Hillsong’s beloved Darlene Zschech was involved behind the scenes for the musical production of the film and want to flog no other name but Jesus their brand name? (Edit 16/04/2014: While we know Zschech no longer attends Hillsong Church a commentor said something similar and stated “her latest album was produced by Louie Giglio, it’s not financially connected with Hillsong”. If this is true then we will acknowledge this. However, that does not mean that Darlene won’t help Hillsong further their brand name, as she identifies herself as a close friend. The song below ends with the lyrics, “Heaven, heaven is so real”. This may be a coincidence although Brian, Bobbie and Darlene are known around the world for representing the Hillsong brand.)

There are a significant number of articles that examine the dodgy theology behind the book which should give people the idea just how bad the film (and the book) is.  We have sampled a few excellent ones here, and hope that our readers will enjoy the different observations these writers have made. Overwhelmingly, these Christian commentators were highly critical of the book and have biblical grounds for refuting the claims made by Burpo and others making similar claims. Most of the authors of these articles also identified the New Age undertones of the book’s content and expressed their concern over how human experience is trumping the truth of Scripture.

Heaven is for Real…Well Duh.

Film Adaptation of ‘Heaven Is for Real’ Being Planned; T.D. Jakes to Produce

The Burpo-Malarkey Doctrine

Heaven is for Real But the Movie is Not

Heaven is For Real – This Story is Not

Book Review: Heaven is for real

Demonic Deceptions in the Heaven stories. (Mostly about the Colton Burpo story Heaven Is For Real)

NOTE: All screen grabs were taken on the 11/04/2014.

Bobbie Blasts Bible Believers


, , , , , , , , , ,

At Hillsong, people look up to their leaders. They watch their leaders defend themselves from “critics”. They watch their leaders defend pagan movies from “religious” people. And now they defend non-Christians from “narrow-minded religious” people. It seems odd that Barbie and Brian Houston seem to defend anything but the bible. Funny that.

Recently, Russell Crowe tweeted the following,

Getting a stack of buzzed texts and emails from friends and family who attended the premiere in Sydney.

Source:, 4:21 AM – 26 Mar 2014. (Accessed 08/04/2014.)

Barbie Houston decided to tweet the following response (because clearly Russell’s tweet was about critics),

Hey Mr Crowe — don’t be disheartened by the narrow-minded religious. I love God and we think you are amazing. :)

Source: Bobbie Houston, Twitter,, 5:03 AM – 26 Mar 2014. (Accessed 08/04/2014.)


If that wasn’t enough, Barbie Houston decided to post the following.

Just saw NOAH for 2nd time. Personally I think it’s great. It’s an “action packed HOLLYWOOD movie” and may well open wonderful conversations with people. So enjoy it for what it is. Actors & cinematography amazing! #noah #xox

Her comment is insulting to Christians worldwide. In response to someone saying, “Not expecting a bible study from hollywood but i didn’t expect this either”, Barbie wrote,

@gkeehan —- well we are all different eh. I saw Noah’s wrestle as a “wrestle within himself”. As if any one of us wouldn’t wrestle with such a mammoth task and traumatizing experience. I doubt that anyone in our world is changing their beliefs about the NOAH bible account to match the screenplay. And it’s always an opportunity to open your bible with unchurched friends or family and explain the REAL STORY.

Source: rlhouston, Instagram,, Accessed 09/2014.


“I doubt that anyone in our world is changing their beliefs about the NOAH bible account to match the screenplay.” Really Bobbie? Then who said this?

“The funny thing about people is that they consider Noah to be a benevolent figure. You know, because he looked after the animals.
“Awwwe! Noah and the animals!” It’s like, are you kidding me? This is a dude that stood by and watched the entire population of the planet perish! He’s not benevolent. He’s not even- he’s not even nice! You know what I mean? At one point in the story his son says, “I thought that you were chosen because you were good”. And he [Noah] goes, “I was chosen, cos I can get the job done, mate.”

So I think people are gonna be- ah- judging from where their questions come from, I think they’re gonna be quite surprised what Noah actually really means. What it means to be in that position.”

Source: Russell Crowe, Russell Crowe: People Will be Surprised by ‘Noah’, YouTube, Entertainment Tonight,, Published on Jun 4, 2013. (Accessed 04/04/2014.)

Some people believe lies Bobby.

It is the Christians biblical duty to defend their faith and how their God is presented to a fallen world. The last thing we expected was you to endorse a movie that attacks the righteousness of God, His character, his Word, his name and his gospel and to promote a growing hatred against the Christian faith.

For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” Philippians 3:18-19

Brian Endorses ‘Noah’: “You’ll enjoy the film — if you’re not too religious”


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brian Houston recently defended his beliefs over the Hillslam controversy,

“I apologise for any confusion and obviously my allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ alone.” [Source]

Unfortunately, we have garnered enough evidence to now seriously question Brian Houston’s “allegiance” to whatever ‘thing’ he calls “Jesus Christ”. His latest endorsement of the movie ‘Noah’ gives us a fascinating insight to his spiritual state. While Judas betrayed Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver,  Brian Houston does it for free. We just don’t know if he has done this does deliberately or foolishly. After Houston’s Hillslam controversy (among many other things), it is of our opinion he is deliberately pushing his own agenda.

Recently, the Hollywood Reporter quotes Brian Houston of Hillsong endorsing the movie ‘Noah’ to his congregation in Sydney,

“You’ll enjoy the film — if you’re not too religious.”

The truth is, you wont enjoy this film if you ARE a Christian. Once again, Houston attacks Christians for defending their faith by labelling them “religious”. Furthermore, Hillsong’s head of film and television said,

“If you’re expecting it to be word for word from the Bible, you’re in for a shock [...] There can be an opportunity for Christians to take offense. [But] we were pretty excited that a studio like Paramount would invest in a Bible-themed movie.”

Bible-themed movie? This movie was based off the kabbalah and other gnostic texts. It looks as though they purposely misquoted the bible. The righteousness of God was perverted by Satan himself in this movie. Genesis 6:9 says, “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time” who walked faithfully with God“. The Apostle Peter says, Noah was “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5).

So Brian, can you please explain why Noah’s Father Malech (depicted as a Shaman) blessed Noah with the serpent-skin of Satan? Why did Noah go to Methuselah (depicted as a Shaman) and receive drugs to hear from God? Can you please explain why Noah put faith in demons (the Watchers) to fight for him? Why did god send the rainbow after Noah wrapped the serpent-skin around his arm to bless his family?

It makes no logical sense why Brian Houston has endorsed this pagan film. But when you read this article, it makes sense why the film industry would target false teachers to groom churches to promote their merchandise.

The Hollywood Reporter writes,

Rough Seas on ‘Noah’: Darren Aronofsky Opens Up on the Biblical Battle to Woo Christians (and Everyone Else)

“I was upset — of course,” the director says of Paramount testing alternate versions of the $125 million epic as he and the studio break their silence on efforts to appease a small but vocal segment of the faith-based audience: “Those people can be noisy.”

This story first appeared in the Feb. 21 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. OUR EDITOR RECOMMENDS

When Darren Aronofsky was a 13-year old in Brooklyn, he had one of those unforgettable teachers. Mrs. Fried dressed in pink and drove a pink Mustang; Aronofsky says she was “magical.” When she assigned his English class to write about peace, Aronofsky produced a poem about the dove that wings its way to Noah aboard the ark in the Bible. When the poem won a United Nations contest, it sparked Aronofsky’s nascent faith in his creative powers.

More than three decades later, the 44-year-old director is completing his epic take on the Noah story, a project he’s contemplated ever since he made his breakout indie film Pi in 1998. At that time, he says, he talked to producer Lynda Obst about the idea, prompting her to ask, “Do you realize what you’re getting into?”

He didn’t. The making of Noah, with Russell Crowe as the lead, turned into a head-on collision between an auteur filmmaker coming off a career-defining success in Black Swan ($330 million global, five Oscar nominations) and a studio working to protect a major investment that is intended to appeal to believers of every religion as well as those without any faith. Paramount Pictures, in partnership with New Regency Productions, is shouldering a budget on the March 28 release of more than $125 million, by far the costliest movie Aronofsky has made. (His previous high was $35 million for The Fountain, which foundered for Warner Bros. in 2006. Black Swan was independently financed and cost just $13 million.)

The trouble began when Paramount, nervous about how audiences would respond to Aronofsky’s fantastical world and his deeply conflicted Noah, insisted on conducting test screenings over the director’s vehement objections while the film was a work in progress.

Friction grew when a segment of the recruited Christian viewers, among whom the studio had hoped to find Noah’s most enthusiastic fans, questioned the film’s adherence to the Bible story and reacted negatively to the intensity and darkness of the lead character. Aronofsky’s Noah gets drunk, for example, and considers taking drastic measures to eradicate mankind from the planet. Hoping to woo the faith-based crowd, Paramount made and tested as many as half-a-dozen of its own cuts of the movie. “I was upset — of course,” Aronofsky tells The Hollywood Reporter in his first extensive interview about the film’s backstory. “No one’s ever done that to me.”

Both director and studio say that’s now all behind them. “There was a rough patch,” Aronofsky allows, but at this point, Paramount is fully supporting his version. Vice chair Rob Moore says the studio is launching an advertising campaign designed to communicate that this film — an exploration of Noah’s emotional journey — flows in large part from Aronofsky’s imagination.

Moore says Aronofsky’s Noah is not in the more literal vein of the blockbuster Bible series produced for the History channel by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. “They’ve been very effective in terms of communicating to and being embraced by a Christian audience,” says Moore. “This movie has a lot more creativity to it. And therefore, if you want to put it on the spectrum, it probably is more accurate to say this movie is inspired by the story of Noah.”

At the same time, he says the film reflects “the key themes of the Noah story in Genesis — of faith and hope and God’s promise to mankind.” The studio is aware that a vocal segment of Christian viewers might reject the film over accuracy. Still, Moore says, “Our anticipation is that the vast majority of the Christian community will embrace it.”

The studio and its faith-based consultant, Grace Hill Media, have reached out to a number of key figures, with some success. Special trailers were screened to positive reactions at U.S. Christian conferences, including Catalyst, the Global Leadership Conference and Women of Faith: Believe God Can Do Anything. In January, Pastors Brian and Bobbie Houston of Hillsong, a Pentecostal megachurch based in Australia and with outposts around the world, were invited to a screening on the studio lot. Ben Field, the church’s head of film and television, who was there, says the pastors will support the movie. “If you’re expecting it to be word for word from the Bible, you’re in for a shock,” he says. “There can be an opportunity for Christians to take offense. [But] we were pretty excited that a studio like Paramount would invest in a Bible-themed movie.” On Feb. 4, Pastor Brian, at the church’s Heart and Soul night in Sydney, spoke before a few thousand congregants and joked, “You’ll enjoy the film — if you’re not too religious.”

Still, big challenges lie ahead. Burnett and Downey attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Feb. 6 to tout their new Jesus film, Son of God, which hits theaters Feb. 28, and received an enthusiastic reception. By contrast, an informal poll by THR of attendees at the key gathering of religious leaders found little awareness that a Noah movie was weeks from release. Further, THR spoke with several people who saw an early test screening in Southern California’s Orange County and who identified themselves as religious. One viewer, who declined to give his name because Paramount required him to sign a nondisclosure agreement, echoed the sentiments of others by criticizing the depiction of Noah as a “crazy, irrational, religious nut” who is fixated on modern-day problems like overpopulation and environmental degradation.

Moore, one of the few top Hollywood executives who identifies as a devout Christian, says he isn’t worried. As reflected in the ad for Noah that ran during the Super Bowl, Paramount is selling amazing effects as well, especially to the foreign market. Already, Moore says, early tracking is encouraging overseas, where the studio intends to release the movie in 3D in 65 countries. “The one thing Darren hadn’t done before is those big visual-effects shots,” he says. “And he certainly did a great job to deliver spectacular visuals.”

The Bible’s account of Noah is not packed with detail. “From a storytelling perspective, the main points are that Noah is a man of faith who is picked by God, told to build an ark, builds the ark and survives,” says Moore. When the studio did early polling to explore the idea of a Noah movie, it found that audiences thought they knew the story and didn’t grasp what the movie might add.

But as anyone who has seen Aronofsky’s hallucinatory Black Swan or Requiem for a Dream might have guessed, his Noah was never going to be the white-bearded figure of popular imagination. “We wanted to smash expectations of who Noah is,” says Aronofsky during a break from finishing the picture. “The first thing I told Russell is, ‘I will never shoot you on a houseboat with two giraffes behind you.’ … You’re going to see Russell Crowe as a superhero, a guy who has this incredibly difficult challenge put in front of him and has to overcome it.”

It’s fair to say Aronofsky is singularly committed to his vision. Fox Searchlight production president Claudia Lewis, who released Black Swan, analogizes the director to Natalie Portman’s obsessed character in that film — “her drive, her perfectionism, her desire to give it all, never mind the consequences.” In an email, Lewis adds, “It’s a fierce artistic mind-set, slightly nerve-racking in audience previews (for him, not us, we’re used to it!) but energizing and mesmerizing in its single-mindedness. I found it oddly endearing.”

Aronofsky, who grew up in a conservative Jewish household, says his goal from the start was to make a Noah for everyone. For nonbelievers, he wanted to create “this fantastical world a la Middle-earth that they wouldn’t expect from their grandmother’s Bible school.” At the same time, he wanted to make a film for those “who take this very, very seriously as gospel.”

While he and co-writer Ari Handel dreamed up a world that included fallen angels with multiple arms and inventive, computer-rendered versions of animals, Aronofsky says, “I had no problem completely honoring and respecting everything in the Bible and accepting it as truth.” Genesis describes the ark as a giant box, he says, and that’s what he wanted for the film. “Of course, my production designer [Mark Friedberg] had a million ideas of what it could look like, but I said, ‘No, the measurements are right there.’ “

Aronofsky says Moore’s Christianity is one reason he set up the movie at Paramount when there were other suitors: “It was written by two Jewish kids, and to get his reaction gave us the confidence that there was a bigger audience for the film.” Moore concurs: “Certainly the conversations we had about the movie took place at a very different level than a lot of other people in terms of my understanding of the story.”

To Paramount, Noah seemed like an opportunity to do what Warner Bros. had done in entrusting Alfonso Cuaron with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as he came off of Y Tu Mama Tambien — take a chance on pairing an auteur talent with an important, big-budget project. At the same time, it represented an opportunity to go after the massive faith-based audience that drove The Passion of the Christ to $612 million in box office a decade ago (an audience that has since proved elusive for Hollywood).

But as work progressed, the studio wanted to do what studios invariably do when a lot of money is on the line: protect its investment. Aronofsky was vehemently opposed to test screening the film before it was done. “I imagine if I made comedies and horror films, it would be helpful,” he says. “In dramas, it’s very, very hard to do. I’ve never been open to it.” The studio also insisted that test audiences are sophisticated enough to evaluate movies without finished effects in place. “I don’t believe that,” he says.

Aronofsky went to a few of the early screenings, but it was terrible to him that audiences were seeing an unfinished film. He compares his approach with the work of a sculptor: “You start with a big piece of clay and keep going and going and going.” To show audiences an overlong, 2½-hour cut with only 20 minutes of music in place struck him as folly. (The final version of the film is 2 hours and 12 minutes.)

Tension grew as the studio became concerned about some of the feedback. One worry, says Moore, was that “significantly conservative folks who have a more literal expectation” from a movie about Noah might turn against it and become hostile. “There are some people where it’s a very emotional experience of, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa — a Hollywood studio is trying to tell a story from my faith, and I am skeptical,’ ” he says. “Not necessarily 50 percent of the people, but maybe 10 or 20 percent. And those people can be very noisy.”

The screenings revealed a range of issues for that group. Some in the audience found the Noah character too conflicted. Some needed clarification that Noah’s son Shem, played by Douglas Booth, was married to Emma Watson’s character, Ila. “It was important for a Christian audience that you affirmed that these two were married — which we took for granted,” says Moore. That was easy to address by adding a line, but there were more complicated problems.

In some cases, Moore says, “people had recollections of the story that weren’t actually correct.” For example, there was Noah’s ability to open and close the door to the ark. “People said the door to the ark is supposed to be so big that no man can close it. Well no, that’s not actually what it says. What it says is that God ultimately shut the door of the ark when the flood comes, so it wasn’t Noah shutting the door on the rest of humanity — it was God making a decision.”

And then there’s the scene — which actually is in the Bible — in which Noah, back on land after the flood, gets drunk by himself in a cave. “But most people do not remember or were never taught the fact that after Noah’s off the ark, there is a moment in the story where he is drunk,” says Moore. As Aronofsky worked on his version of the film, Paramount set out to make its own cut under the auspices of production president Adam Goodman. Moore says Goodman has demonstrated his talent for working with filmmakers to get the best version of a movie, citing last year’s G.I. Joe sequel and World War Z as examples. “Both ended up being hits when they could have easily not been,” he says. “When you’re in a movie that’s over $100 million, there is a level of process you go through because the stakes are so high.”

Aronofsky, who went without final cut approval on the film in exchange for Paramount greenlighting a nine-figure budget, says he was confident the studio’s efforts would fail. “My guys and I were pretty sure that because of the nature of the film and how we work, there wasn’t another version,” says Aronofsky. “That’s what I told them … the scenes were so interconnected — if you started unwinding scenes, I just knew there would be holes. I showed it to filmmaker friends, and they said the DNA was set in this film.”

Further, he felt confident that he knew where he wanted to go with his film. “I’m a great closer,” explains Aronofsky. “I’ve never reshot a frame, and I think that’s very odd on big-budget movies. We’re meticulous. We come from independent film, with limited resources.” Aronofsky says with pride that he kept the project on track despite the complex effects and a life-imitates-art storm — Superstorm Sandy — that delayed filming on one of his two massive ark sets, in Oyster Bay, N.Y. “It was pretty hard to keep working,” he says, adding that some of his crew who lived in the area had their lives upended. “But we still brought it in on time.”

As the studio and Aronofsky worked on different cuts, producer Mary Parent was caught in the middle. “To Darren, I said, ‘Listen, no one is impeding your process,’ ” she recalls. “‘Try to embrace their process as best you can and have faith that they’re going to do the right thing in the end.’ Which they did.” In fact, sources say the studio’s versions tested no better than Aronofsky’s. “They tried what they wanted to try, and eventually they came back,” the director says. He adds, “My version of the film hasn’t been tested … It’s what we wrote and what was greenlighted.”

Whatever happens with Noah, the story has had a happy ending in one respect. Aronofsky asked his mother, herself a retired schoolteacher, to track down Mrs. Fried. She found her in Florida, and Aronofsky invited her to the set. True to form all these years later, she arrived in a pink car, dressed in pink. Aronofsky gave her a cameo in the film. You can spot her playing a one-eyed crone in a scene with Crowe.

With the film poised to make headlines in the run-up to its release, Aronofsky says he hopes those who might have expected a certain version of the story will accept that Noah is for them, too. “For people who are very literal-minded, it would be great to communicate that the themes of the film are very much in line with the themes of the Bible — ideas about hope, second chances and family,” he says. “If they allow that, they’re going to have an incredible experience with the movie. If they don’t allow it, it’s theirs to lose.”

Source: By Kim Masters, Rough Seas on ‘Noah’: Darren Aronofsky Opens Up on the Biblical Battle to Woo Christians (and Everyone Else),, Published 7:00 AM PST 12/02/2014. (Accessed 02/04/2014.)

“[...] Houston’s gospel message appears to have as much gospel as the movie Noah”


, , , , , , , , , , ,

Christians seemed have expressed concern that Brian Houston endorsed the pagan (and rather demonic) film Noah.

Truth With Snare writes,

In Time Magazine – Senior Pastor Brian Houston Gives “Stamp of Approval” to Noah – Why!?

What is worse? Hollywood making their millions off of those proclaiming to be Christians or those considered ‘Christian’ leaders helping Hollywood to make millions off of Christians?

One of those Hollywood helping Christian leaders who recently caught my attention is Brian Houston of Hillsong. Why Houston? Well we stumbled onto a Time Magazine article, Films Are His Flock Jonathan Bock explains Christians to Hollywood and discovered there are Christian leaders assisting Hollywood market their movies. Near the end of the article is what caught my attention,

“Even though Aronofsky didn’t have the final cut, Moore says Noah is consistent with the director’s initial version, and it has received a stamp of approval from Christian leaders like Geof Morin, executive vice president of the American Bible society, and Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church, which includes thousands of congregants at a dozen churches around the world. Bock believes Christian audiences in general will embrace it as well. “What Darren has done is make this guy righteous and flawed, which is what is going to resonate with the Christian community.”

While I have not heard of Geof Morin, I have been reading news about Brian Houston in recent days with the Christian Post and the discernment ministry of Hillsong Church Watch. The  Hillsong Church Watch site rightfully warns about the false teachings coming out from showing how Houston taught that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Yes, I read where Houston is trying to un-paint the corner he painted himself into but Houston did indeed say what he said then muddles things further by not admitting the error. For more on that news click here to read what Apprising Ministries has up.

brian-c-houston-appSo what’s the big deal with Houston now? Rephrasing the quote above Senior Pastor Brian Houston of Hillsong, who represents thousands of church goers has helped to promote Noah, the latest of Hollywood’s Bible hacks further muddying the waters of what the Bible teaches.

Houston and those like him I suppose can filter around all of the garbage to where there is a reference to the Bible in Noah to find something biblical but then again Houston’s gospel message appears to have as much gospel as the movie Noah!

Any “…stamp of approval…” from a Christian leader should mean the movie does not twist, distort and pervert God’s word.

Considering the job Bible hacking that Darren Aronofsky does with Noah how can it get a stamp of approval from any Bible believing Christian much less from a ‘Christian’ leader such as Senior Pastor Brian Houston?

Source: In Time Magazine – Senior Pastor Brian Houston Gives “Stamp of Approval” to Noah – Why!?, Truth With Snares,, Published 31/04/2014. (Accessed 04/04/2014.)

Rosebrough: “The fault for all of this, lies on Houston who didn’t speak clearly”

Chris Rosebrough from Fighting for the Faith recently exposed Brian Houston dumbing down the Faith. Chris Rosebrough addresses Brian Houston’s clarification 37 minutes into the program.

Ba’al Divorce Certificates Cause Record Flooding In Texas?

Click Here to Download this episode

Program segments:
• John Benefiel’s Ba’al Divorce Certificates Cause Record Flooding in Texas?
• Analysis of Brian Houston’s Official Clarification
• Four Good Sermons by Pastor Ron Hodel

Source: Chris Rosebrough, Ba’al Divorce Certificates Cause Record Flooding In Texas?, Fighting for the Faith,, 28/03/2014. (Accessed 28/03/2014.)

Chris Rosebrough concludes,

“So here’s the thing. Having gone through this entire excercise um- I’m glad that Brian Houston has clarified. I think it was important for him to do so because you know to not clarify on such an important doctrine would have been to compound his error and create all kinds of problems. You know- for him and others. Okay? So I’m glad that he’s clarified.

It is wrong of him to blame this on the critics. The fault for all of this lies not on Houston’s critics. The fault for all of this, lies on Houston who didn’t speak clearly. The lack of clarity in his speech was caused by his twisting of the biblical passage and making a point and then not fully developing a particular point that he was making. So it was an error on top of an error. That’s why this happened. Not that critics are out to get him.

The fact is this: that the reason why Brian Houston has critics - and I’m one of his critics – the reason why Brian Houston has critics like me and like others is due to the fact that he is a heretic. He teaches the Word of Faith heresy, he twists God’s Word and I would recommend that if you are not sure about this, go into the archives of Fighting for the Faith. Go to Type in Brian Houston. Over the years we have covered many different things that Brian Houston has said and preached and taught. And we’ve demonstrated that this man habitually twists and mangles God’s Word. This was just another example of it that you heard in this episode of Fighting for the Faith.

This is a man who needs to repent. Repent of the Word of Faith heresy. Repent of the prosperity gospel that he preaches, repent of his bible twisting and ah- [inaudible] now he’s teaching for TD Jakes in Florida who denies the doctrine of the trinity and teaches modalism or at least some bizarre form of it [...] So Brian Houston there’s- lets just put it this way. It’s not like this guy is just going along correctly handling God’s Word and preaching the truth and proclaiming sound doctrine and all of a sudden he got t-boned by some you know mean group of bloggers. No-no-no.

The reason why Brian Houston has critics is because where there’s smoke in his case there’s fire. And this is objectively provable. Again, I am glad that he took the time to clarify these things. But the issue is that the fault is not on the critics. The fault still lies with Brian Houston. And so although I am glad he clarified his statement (which is what he needed to do), I’m supremely disappointed that he’s painted himself out to be the victim of criticism when in reality the blame for all this rests squarely only on Brian Houston’s shoulders.” [1:12:03]

Brian Houston further clarifies his view of god


, , , , , , , ,

Since his public clarification regarding his view on Allah and Yahweh, ‘Pastor’ Brian Houston of Hillsong Church has provided FURTHER clarification on his view of god through his public endorsement on the new movie Noah:

“You can’t help but get excited seeing the stories of the Word of God come to life in a Hollywood Epic. The story of Noah in the Bible is one that leaves us with room to dream about what God was speaking to this man and his family – no doubt a journey of trust and faith – and the makers of this film have brilliantly entertained us with their interpretation of a Biblical narrative.”

–Brian Houston, Senior Pastor, Hillsong Church.

Source: Paula Parker, Christian Leaders Love “Noah”,,, 21/03/2014. (Accessed 31/03/2014.)

Recently, in his official clarification, Brian Houston told us:

The ONE sentence that critics are drawing huge conclusions from was clearly a(clumsy) way of me explaining that though both Christians and Muslims believe they serve the God of Abraham, they are very DIFFERENT ‘entities’ or ‘deities’ in both nature and action.”

Yet Brian has endorsed a movie which he clearly believes is an acceptable representation of the God of the Bible. However, in the following review you will see that the god of the Noah film bears a striking resemblance to the god of Islam. In fact there’s no resemblance at all to the one true living God revealed in the Bible. We put the challenge to you: is there anything in this film that represents the Christian God?

These are the words of Christian Pastor Lyndon Unger in his analysis of the newly released movie, Noah.

Observation Nine: The “God” of Noah doesn’t exist.

Throughout the whole movie the God that is portrayed is more like Allah than Yahweh.  The God that made Adam and Eve is unpredictable and malicious.”

Source: Ps Lyndon Unger, A No Holds Barred Review of Noah : The Movie (2014),, MennoKnight, Published 28/03/2014. (Accessed 01/04/2013.)

We admit to being very confused by Brian Houston’s endorsement of the new Noah film, particularly in light of Ps Unger’s assessment that the film was highly demonic. The “Lord Jesus Christ” Himself in His earthly ministry CONFIRMED the truth of the biblical account of Noah. Because the movie attacks the story and the character of Noah, it makes Jesus out to be a liar. So how can Brian Houston claim his “allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ alone” when he endorses a movie that blatantly attacks Christ and His Word?

We will now let Pastor Lyndon Unger educate us all on the film, and in doing so perhaps he will shed further light on the god that Brian Houston “serves”.


A No Holds Barred Review of Noah : The Movie (2014)

All right.

Up until yesterday, I had heard a whole lot of hype about the Noah movie and honestly, couldn’t care less.  It’s a Hollywood production and, like The Passion of the Christ, I thought it would be an attempt by some biblically illiterate celebrities (for example) and a theologically lobotomized director/producer (for example) to atone for all the trashthat they’ve unleashed upon the world at 24 frames per second (or now 48).  There’s a huge difference between films made by Christians and films made by “HollywoodChristians” (the difference being a biblical  worldview vs. an explicitly pagan worldview hiding behind re-defined biblical terminology), and I generally ignore all the “Christian/religious” media that emerges from Hollywood.  To use a biblical term, films made by “Hollywood Christians” are generally moronic.  (For the sake of clarity, I use the phrase “Hollywood Christians” as a catchall for everyone who would self-identify as some form of “Christian”).


Uh oh.

“Explicitly pagan”?


Isn’t that harsh and even arrogant language?

Am I saying that all the people who claim to be believers in Hollywood aren’t really Christians?

No.  Not at all.

Am I saying that if you like the movie Noah that you’re a Bad Christian?

No.  Not at all (though you probably have lack of discernment).

What I am saying is that the movies that Hollywood puts out under the guise of attracting the believing movie-goers are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attacks on Christians and Christianity as a whole.  Movies are a large vessel for the distribution of ideas, and spiritual warfare is ideological warfare; it’s the combat of truth and error.  Watching movies is spiritual warfare.

But before I go off on an entirely different blog post, I’ll simply say that I’ve generally thought that Hollywood puts out “Christian” movies that are so bad, they beg to be avoided by discerning believers.



I wasn’t expecting that much from Noah, but I thought that it was probably going to be a feel good cuddle-fest where Noah is a kind and loving guy who gathers all the animals around him like Cinderella, builds a boat, and then sails on some rolling waves with his family with them all singing southern gospel songs in an Indonesian accent.  Do you get that from this poster?



Me neither.

The poster told me that it was going to be a dark and emo-styled movie where a singer from a Mars Hill worship band builds a boat and barely escapes with his life while everyone else dies…or something like that.  I expected it to be somewhat true to the Biblical account.

Outside of a few names, a few vague details (like the animals showing up) and the presence of a flood, it wasn’t even remotely close.

No, scratch that.  It’s not that it wasn’t close; it’s that the director completely turned the story on its head…to the point that this was one of the first movies I’ve seen in the last decade that actually made me angry because it was so obviously agenda-driven and absolutely evil.  People have tried to excuse the director in saying that he’s “not a theologian”, but the movie is so bad that I wonder if he’s even bothered reading the story (he gets the story so wrong I honestly wonder if he’s spent any time reading it). More than that, I wonder if the director thinks that Christians are simple-minded fools who cannot spot basic errors or would find no offense at having their entire belief system being horrifically blasphemed.

Wait a minute.

Go back.

Did I say that Noah is evil?

That’s right.


As in “openly serving to brainwash the masses about the God of the Bible”, regardless ofthe efforts of the National Religious Broadcasters and Paramount Picture to soften what they know will be seen as a violent attack on the story of Noah.  They can say all they want about the movie being “inspired by the story of Noah”, but come on!  If someone made a movie about Harvey Milk that portrayed him as openly denying the charges of being homosexual and actually campaigning against gay rights, would anyone buy the “inspired by the life of Harvey Milk” line?

I wonder if Phil Cooke, or Jerry Johnson, or Alissa Wilkinson, or  any of the “respected leaders” promoted on Charisma have even read the story of Noah with any degree of actual attention.  (Also, the Charismatic movement seems to be home to all the folks I can find who support the movie.  Just making a passing observation there…)

The movie is evil.

As in, Noah worships Satan in the movie.  That’s right.

Okay.  I’m ranting now like some crazed madman.  Evil?  Really?

Well, I went and saw the movie last night.  The 10:05 showing with a pen and paper.  Empty theater so I used my phone as a light and took three pages of notes.  Allow me to share what I jotted down.

Be warned, I’m going to re-tell the story of the move and spoil everything.  I’m also going to make nine observations that should drive home why I think this movie qualifies as “evil”.  My comments will be indented.

>>>Let’s rock this like Eddie Van Halen rocks a McMuffin.>>>

Photo of VAN HALEN

Observation One: The Opening.

So the movie opens up with a quote: “In the beginning there was nothing”.

- Uh, nope.  I believe the story starts off with “In the beginning GOD…”  So much for a theistic worldview, let alone Christian.  Sure, God is mentioned as the creator, but before there was a creation there wasn’t nothing.  There was the triune God.  This glaring omission is rather indicative of the theme that runs throughout the movie; “God isn’t there”.

Observation Two: The History.

The “creation” is actually straight up naturalistic evolution of the Day-Age Theoryvariety. Apparently God spoke everything into existence and then took a hike…except for on the second “day” (which means somewhere over a few billion years) he made some sort of angelic creatures who, after sitting around for a few billion years, left heaven to help Adam & Eve.  Strangely, Adam and Eve apparently didn’t evolve but rather popped out of nowhere, glowing like one of these four:

STNG(No, not Dr. Crusher.  Guess again.)

Adam and Eve were banished from the garden for eating a fruit which the movie describes as choosing “darkness” rather than light, and then the Watchers show up.

- For those who read this blog, I’m not a fan of any sort of evolutionary theory, but I don’t really care about that.  It’s a Hollywood movie and I’d expect nothing less than full-fledged evolution.  That’s not really where the fight is here.  The whole “glowing Adam and Eve” thing is dumb artistic license though (were their last names “Cullen”?).  Did Jesus glow after he was resurrected and in his glorified body?  The real fight involves just how twisted the story of creation becomes.  Adam and Eve didn’t really know what was going on, ate something (for no reason that the movie describes) and then get punished by God, the seemingly-emo teenager.

Observation Three: The Watchers.

Remember the angelic creatures made on the second day?  When they left heaven to help Adam & Eve they were actually kicked out and fell to earth like fireballs.  When theyhit the earth, they were covered in magma that sort of hardened into a suit over their glowing selves…kinda like some form of rock-armor suit…or kinda like the Gorignak from Galaxy Quest combined with the Vorlon suit from Babylon 5; big rock creature on the outside but glowing, flying pilot on the inside…


Those angelic beings are called Watchers, and they’re stuck on earth forever, unable to return to Heaven because they screwed up in a way that the movie doesn’t clarify (something about wanting to help Adam and Eve after they rebelled).  For some reason they have three legs and three arms (probably because some folks involved in the movie are foolish enough to think that gematria is deep and profound) and since they were stuck on earth, they taught the line of Cain all about technology.  Using that knowledge, Cain’s descendants populated and covered the whole earth in a sort of pre-industrialization technological level.  The descendents of Cain have apparently logged the whole earth (the earth is covered in burned stumps in the movie), know about some complex machinery and smelting iron, and even have rudimentary canons that fireZohar (or Tzohar; they both sound the same), a sort of magic rock that ignites when crushed.

- The Zohar is a reference to a written document of Kaballah; Jewish mysticism.  The little glowing rocks don’t play a big roll in the movie, but a large component of the content in the movie is taken from non-biblical literature of rather suspicious nature.  No big surprise from Hollywood there; what with them being totally unable to discern what is a reliable source of information.  Tzoharwas, in Jewish mysticism, the name of the window on the ark that let in light.  It is a metaphor for a window between worlds (i.e. a window into the spiritual world for Noah).  I’m not sure which was the reference in the movie (no subtitles) but either way, it’s an interesting allusion that isn’t a good one (given the symbolism in the movie).

When the descendants of Cain gained sufficient power, they turned on the Watchers and attacked them, so the Watchers basically ran away and moved into Mordor.  In the movie, they live in a barren wasteland surrounded by a barrier of human skulls. Eventually, they’re convinced to help Noah: they end up being the ones who build the ark (Noah helps, but a few dozen 50-foot-tall rock creatures do all the heavy lifting and construction) and then they defend Noah against the humans who attempt to board the ark by slaying thousands of humans.  As the Watchers fall in battle, they explode and their glowing pilots explode out of the rock suits, killing dozens of people around them, and they return to heaven.  When some of the Watchers figure out that dying in this battle results in acceptance back into Heaven, at least one of them commits suicide and heads straight there.


- Uh, yeah.  WHAT?  A few moments into this movie it turns into “Lord of the Floodrings”.  Let’s clarify here a second.  The “angelic beings” aren’t the Nephilim, as some people have thought. The Nephilim weren’t cast out of heaven, but were “were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Gen. 6:4) who were on the planet at the same time as the “Sons of God” in Gen. 6:2.  The beings in the movie also aren’t the “Sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 since whoever the “Sons of God” were, they “saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose“.  The Watchers are demons, if they’re anything.

Noah’s allies in the movie are demons who cannot return to Heaven because they rebelled against God…except that they eventually do return to Heaven when they die in jihad.  That’s right; they’re demons who are saved by their good works…erm, which are actually horridly evil.  I don’t have a clue what in the world the people making this movie were thinking, but it seems like they were reading everything but the Bible when it came to finding ideas for the plot.

Observation Four: The Devil.

The movie doesn’t explain the Devil at all, but it does contain a cryptic image of a snake shedding it’s skin in the grass of the garden. In the first scene with Noah, he’s a boy and is about to be blessed by his father, Lamech.  His father pulls out a snakeskin, wraps it around his arm, it starts to glow, and then some descendants of Cain show up, kill him, and take the snakeskin (which they call a “relic”).  Later on, Ham steals the snakeskin from Tubal-Cain and it ends up back with Noah.  We learn that it is the skin of the snake from the Garden of Eden, and it apparently is the tool by which Noah’s birthright to protect the earth is handed down through the generations of the line of Seth.  I assume that it’s somehow related to where Methuselah gets all his magic powers, seeing that the skin is handed down via the line of Seth and they’re the only ones with magic abilities in the movie.


- What in the WORLD?  Noah’s helpers are demons and his right to protect the earth comes from The Devil?  Satan is the indirect savior of the world (his henchmen build the ark) and source of any direct help to Noah at all in this movie (Methuselah uses the magic he got somewhere, likely from the snakeskin, to explain the vague visions that God gives to Noah…among other things).  Let that sink in a moment.

I believe that would be called an “evil” idea.

Observation Five: The Crazed Warlock Methuselah.

In this movie, Methuselah is still alive at the coming of the flood and gladly accepts his own death, smiling and eating berries like a lunatic.  He lives in a smoky cave where he receives his oracles (which seems to allude to some of the ancient oracles of Greece and Rome), and he has magic powers.

Remember the Watchers?  Well, when mankind turned on them and attacked them, Methuselah defended them with his flaming sword.  There’s a scene where the poor and defenseless Watchers are trying to escape a large army of men and Methuselah stands in a field.  He pulls out his sword, plunges it into the ground and creates a flaming shock wave that ignites thousands of people as the Watchers get away.


Also, when Noah has a vision of a bunch of dead bodies in water and Methuselah’s mountain, Noah goes there to see his grandfather.  Methuselah drugs him, Noah wigs out and has a second vision of a bunch of swimming animals under a large wooden platform (we see the ark, but only from underwater).

Methuselah heals Ila’s womb (Noah’s adopted daughter who is also Shem’s wife).  Ila is barren after being stabbed in the gut as a child, but Methuselah touches her and totally heals her womb (he also can put people to sleep with his touch in the movie).

Finally, Methuselah gives Noah a seed that someone stole from Eden.  Noah plants it and it spawns a river and grows an immense forest in seconds.  Noah then proceeds to chop down all the trees and make an ark (which is an amazingly stupid irony, given the message of the movie).

- In other words, Noah’s grandfather was the protector of demons, using a flaming sword that he apparently got from somewhere (which sounds familiar, right?).  This story appears to have come from Jewish legends (read the bottom part about Methuselah here or check out this basic overview).  Interesting how in Jewish legends, Methuselah killed demons but in this movie he killed men by the thousands.  This movie neither respects the biblical text nor Jewish lore.

- Beyond that, there’s the unbelievable usage of magic in this movie.  No mention of God, no prayer.  Just straight up pagan magic where items have intrinsic power based on where they’re found or who they come from.  Sheer, unvarnished pagan magic.  God is nowhere to be seen in any of the supernatural events in the movie.

Again, I’d dare suggest that pagan magic is “evil”.

Observation Six: The Eco-Psycho message.

That’s right.  Eco-Psycho…as in “ecological” plus “psychopath”.  In this movie, mankind is a vermin on the earth that deserves the flood and gets no warning, no preaching, and outright condemnation.  When Tubal-Cain and his hundreds of followers come to Noah, they express a loose belief in the coming flood and a desire to board the ark but Noah only says “there is no escape for you and your kind”.  Methuselah agrees with Noah, commenting on how the Creator (the God of this movie has no personal name at all) is going to destroy the earth because mankind has corrupted it…but the only “sins” we see are logging and eating meat.  That’s it. The earth is overrun by carnivores who cut down trees, and they all deserve to be slaughtered mercilessly for their non-vegan and clearcutting ways…not that there’s any vegetables to eat.  All the plants are gone and the entire earth is a barren wasteland…so the animals are all that there’s left to eat.


Well, the animals seem to be all that’s left, but Noah and his family get by by eating moss and other fuzzy things that grow on rocks.


The animals are innocent in the movie and get saved from the flood because they “still live like they did in Eden”, but mankind doesn’t live like they did in Eden (i.e. eat vegan) and therefore mankind doesn’t deserve to live.  The movie makes it clear that mankind is unworthy of life, especially as Methuselah and the Watchers kill thousands of men with absolutely no remorse whatsoever in the movie.  The value of life in Noah is made very clear: plants are precious but people are parasites.

In fact, it’s because Noah fails to do what God “tells him” (not that God makes anythingclear in the movie at all, but more on that later) that mankind survives at all.  Ham and Japheth don’t have wives, Shem only has Ila (who’s barren), and Noah actually thinks that he’s building the ark to save the animals and then die.  He’s open about his expectation that Japheth, being the youngest, will die alone and the extermination of mankind is justice for all their logging and carnivorous ways.

The movie makes it clear that mankind is a mistake and God’s trying to correct the mistake of mankind…but he fails by entrusting the job to poor old Noah.  He’s just unable to follow through with the wholesale slaughter that’s required of him…not that Noah is a softie.

Noah sees slaves getting sold for some meat, but that doesn’t bother him.  He sees death everywhere, but that doesn’t bother him.  Noah has a chance to save Ham’s girlfriend who is caught in some sort of bear trap, but he gladly leaves her to be trampled and that doesn’t bother him.  In fact, nothing bothers Noah…well, almost nothing.  He sees a guy eating some raw meat and he’s disgusted by that.

- That’s right.  The flood, from what the movie makes clear, seems to be aimed at mankind en toto, including Noah.  He’s only needed to save the animals and they’re the only creatures who deserve to live.  Beyond that, whoever wrote the script was brainless.  I don’t throw that word out lightly on this blog, but I throw it out now.  I mean, if we’re talking about the Genesis story at all, we cannot miss that Genesis 9:3-5 comes right after the flood.  In that passage God says “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.”  That tells us that (a) Noah was given animals as food after the flood and (b) people did not eat animals before the flood.  If eating meat was the sin for which the earth was judged, it’s really stupid that immediately after the flood God lifted that ban.

Oh, and logging was the other sin for which the flood came…good thing in the movie God provided a whole new forest for Noah to cut down and use to make the ark.  No wait.  Methuselah or Satan provided the forest.  Never mind.  Any efforts to make any sense of this movie beyond explaining it away as the self-contradictory ramblings of a deranged ecological psychopath fall on their face.

Observation Seven: Noah is a Homicidal Maniac.

In the creation story that is told, Adam and Eve have kids, Cain kills Able, and all men are (for some reason) “descendants of Cain” except for Noah, who’s a descendant of Seth.  Noah is married to Naamah (the sister of Tubal-Cain) for some strange reason; the line of Seth apparently has fought the line of Cain throughout history and hates them.  Noah hates everyone on planet earth, except his family.  He tolerates them, but doesn’t really have a problem with them all dying after the flood.

Not only does he tolerate their deaths, but he openly delights in slaughtering people.  He kills three people (one in cold blood), when they shoot an animal with an arrow.  He kills around two dozen people trying to get into the ark.  He’s not about to let anyonerepent of their sins or escape divine judgment.

Noah(This picture is used in the advertising, but it’s Noah guarding the entrance to the ark and not letting anyone in…)

What’s worse is that when Methuselah heals Ila’s womb (which Noah furiously claims to be “undermining the Creator”) she gets pregnant.  When Noah finds out, he is enraged and promises that if the child is a boy, it will die as the last man on earth but if the child is a girl, he will murder her the minute she emerges from the womb…so for the rest of the boat trip, Naamah and Ila and Shem plan to somehow escape Noah, the homicidal maniac.  Naamah even gives Noah a lecture on the ethical horror of murdering his own infant granddaughters, but Noah doesn’t listen to her for a second (crazy eyes and all).  They search for dry land by sending out a raven (to escape Noah’s desire to murder Ila’s baby).  They also build a raft and stock it with supplies but Noah finds out and burns it, leaving everyone in terror.  Then, when Ila has twin daughters, Noah chases her (carrying her two newborns) onto the roof of the ark while carrying a large knife.  He almost stabs the first newborn but cannot because Noah says that he has nothing but love in his heart for them.  Call me crazy, what exactly do you call a guy who chases you and threatens your newborn’s life with a large knife, and then makes any reference to “love”?



Then, once the ark crashes into a mountainside (a dove flies by with an olive branch in its mouth, but it’s somehow not a dove from the ark), Noah’s family lands and starts a new society while Noah lives in a cave on the beach and gets sloshed on home-made hooch as self-induced punishment for not killing his granddaughters.  Finally Ila talks some sense into him (maybe it’s okay to act lovingly to people without expressing it with knives?) and Noah returns to his family, though Ham wanders off into the hillsides because he doesn’t feel welcome at home anymore (since he doesn’t have a wife).

- The character of Noah in this movie is so far removed from his biblical counterpart that he’s absolutely unrecognizable.  He’s a maniac who is an idolater, a warlock, a murdering psycho, and in reality has absolutely no idea what’s happening with the flood, other than the “Creator” is behind it.  God gives him two visions and and he fills the rest in with his rather overactive and psychotic imagination.  Noah doesn’t preach righteousness and repentance for 100+ years (2 Peter 2:5), and the Noah in this movie is a violent butcher of a man, completely the opposite of how Genesis 6:8-13 portrays him.  He has no real knowledge of God outside of some vague idea that “the Creator” is behind everything, and he is essentially flailing for knowing what he’s supposed to do because God doesn’t give him much to go on outside of a nightmare.

Good thing he has a bunch of demons and a warlock to help him work out the details.

What’s the worst is that Noah chases his granddaughters around the ark with a combat knife and then stops because he “loves” them, but then drunkenly laments his “love-fueled” inability to do the unthinkable for an indeterminate matter of weeks after the ark ends up on dry land.

Observation Eight : Tubal-Cain is the voice of reason.

In the movie, Tubal-Cain is the king of mankind, at least in the region of Noah.  He’s a brutal and violent man who calls out to God when it starts to rain, but God doesn’t answer (more on this later).  Tubal-Cain is what you’d expect (cruel, brutal, selfish, etc.) except for one thing.  He sneaks onto the ark and hides out, and Ham finds him and gets a lecture on how Noah is wrong to think that mankind exists to serve the animals.  Tubal-Cain defends his industrialization and proudly tells Ham that the animals exist to serve man and he doesn’t regret subduing the earth.  Tubal-Cain decries Noah’s heartlessness to those outside the ark and tries to get Ham to help him betray Noah, but Ham ends up killing Tubal-Cain as he fights Noah.


- Subdue the earth?  Where have we heard that talk?  Oh yeah.  That’s the words of God from Genesis 1:28.  So the “good guy” works with demons, is a mass murdered, and is utterly confused as to why…but the “bad guy” is quoting scripture.

Do you call that evil?

God does.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” – Isaiah 5:20.

Observation Nine: The “God” of Noah doesn’t exist.

Throughout the whole movie the God that is portrayed is more like Allah than Yahweh.  The God that made Adam and Eve is unpredictable and malicious.  He didn’t tell themnot to eat the fruit but rather made the tree as two trees that cross each other to form an “x” (that’s obvious, right?).  Adam and Eve didn’t know what God desired of them, and the movie portrays God as being highly chaotic in casting them out of a garden for eating a fruit (though the movie makes it abundantly clear that Adam & Eve, as well as allrighteous people, were/are vegetarians).

Then there’s the silence.  God doesn’t speak to anyone in the movie.  Noah has a nightmare where he sees Adam and Eve, the snake, and then he’s underwater and surrounded by dead bodies.  When he goes to visit Methuselah (at Hogwarts), Methuselah gives him a drugged drink that causes a second vision, but even if it’s from God the only difference is that Noah sees a bunch of animals swimming towards what looks like a wooden platform (they see the ark from under the water).  Tubal-Cain calls out for divine revelation, but to no avail.  Noah does as well, but to no avail.  Apparently God doesn’t answer the unrighteous or the righteous (though Noah comes to realize that nobody is righteous…yay!  The whole movie is redeemed because everyone is a sinner…and the only solution is genocide?).  Noah begs God to help him understand whether or not he should kill his granddaughters, but there’s no answer.  Noah is absolutely tormented by confusion in the movie, and it’s absolutely disgusting since scripture speaks of him as a prophet who got actual verbal revelation from Godrepeatedly (which is the definition of a prophet, right?)

Finally, the God of the movie isn’t involved in his creation either.  The direct supernatural events aren’t caused by God, but magic.  God maybe causes the quadruple rainbow shockwave at the end of the movie (it’s insinuated), but there’s no covenant with Noah and absolutely no explanation of what anything means since God doesn’t have a voice.  He’s a total mute.  He just made things, sat back, confuses everyone and then all of a sudden kills people for doing what he (at least in the Bible) commanded them to do.

In other words, the God of Noah looks a lot more like someone from comic books than the Bible.

Odin(So Odin started out as Methuselah?  Did he go colonize Asgard after the flood?)

- The God of this movie is Richard Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker, a deistic God who basically starts the universe and then hides himself like mad.  Not even the “fallen angels” have a clue what he’s doing, or how to appease him, or anything (and one would think that they’d have at least more insight than Noah…?!?).

As for the silence, one wonders exactly where the dimensions of the ark came from, seeing that nobody had likely ever heard of an ark in Noah’s day.  One also wonders why Noah got in the ark anyway, seeing that he put all the animals to sleep with magic smoke.  He wasn’t needed.  The ark could have crashed, the crash could have awoken all the animals, and then everything could have started over without those pesky humans.

<<<Wrap up<<<

Now I could go on about more details that the movie got totally wrong, but that list islong.

Noah isn’t a Christian movie.

Noah isn’t even about the biblical story of Noah.

Noah is a movie that steals some names, the concept of a flood, and then insertseverything else from non-canonical literature and various carnal imaginations, and undermines the entire story by flipping it on its head in the most extreme ways.  It’s a story where the hero is the most wicked man in the story and the demons are more of a help than God.

If this is “Christian cinema”, Christians need to be really vocal about letting Hollywood know that we won’t stand for this kind of garbage being passed off as some sort of “Christian” movie, or even a tolerable representation of Biblical events.  Hollywood needs to realize that if Christians’ cherished beliefs are urinated on, Christians will not support it.


I’d strongly recommend not seeing the movie, simply because dollars are the only form of communication Hollywood understands.

If this is “Christian cinema”, Hollywood can stick to doing what it does best; making trashy action movies, teenage vampire romances or sappy romantic comedies written by elementary school kids.  At least then we’ll know what we’re getting.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “watch Noah at your own peril” Unger

Source: Ps Lyndon Unger, A No Holds Barred Review of Noah : The Movie (2014),, MennoKnight, Published 28/03/2014. (Accessed 01/04/2013.)

The gaff that keeps on gaffing?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Brian Houston’s clarification, he decided to attack critics for his gaff. We will offer our views on this soon.

Meanwhile Apprising Ministries reports,


You might have seen the March 18, 2014 Apprising Ministries piece WF Preacher Brian Houston says Christians serve same God as Muslims. In it I shared the following clip from Houston’s Hillsong TV // Living For The Master’s Well Done, Pt1 program:

I then provided you with a transcription of what he says in that clip:

How do you view God in a desert? There’s two types of birds. There’s vultures, and there’s hummingbirds. One lives off dead carcasses, rotting meat.

The other lives off the beautiful, sweet, nectar in a particular flower, on a particular desert plant, in the same desert. They both find what they’re looking for.

Do you know—take it all the way back into the Old Testament—and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah, to a Muslim; to us, Abba Father, God.

It would seem pretty clear above that Houston has just told us those who adhere to the world religion of Islam, the followers of the prophet Muhammad, are serving the same God as those of us who are regenerated believers in the one true and living God of the Bible, the followers of Christ Jesus, the Lord.

But later on Brian Houston, who is Senior Pastor of the nefarious Word Faith haven Hillsong Church (HC) Australia along with his wife pastrix Bobbiee,1 could be seen going around the Internet proclaiming: Wait a minute, that’s not really quite what I meant.

Well, now pastor and pastrix Houston have issued the following joint statement attributed to Brian Houston on their Facebook page:

proof_ApprisingHoustonClarification_30-03-2014 (source)

Being one of those “critics” I wanted to make sure that in the interest of fairness you’d have the chance to see this for yourselves. I also wish to point out a couple of things here, speaking simply for myself as I have no way of knowing the intentions of whatever other critics Brian Houston is talking about; whomever they may be.

First of all, I didn’t say Houston believes Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I have no way of knowing what he believes unless he specifically states it. However, apparently Brian Houston shares with God the ability to know what others believe:

I realize that some critics WANT to believe their interpretation,…

In my case the title of my article is clear: Brian Houston says Christians serve the same God as Muslims. That is exactly what he did say:

Do you know—take it all the way back into the Old Testament—and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah, to a Muslim; to us, Abba Father, God.

He can claim that’s taken out of context, but that statement sounds/reads as if he personally believes this. There’s nothing in the prior part of his message that changes this, which is why I only highlighted the previous clip. That’s also why I also put in one of Houston’s attempts at clarification:


As I explained before, his clarification really doesn’t help him. It makes it look like he does hold a common, but erroneous, view that Islam is an Abrahamic faith. If Houston does believe that, then the statement below is indicative of his own beliefs and not merely that of some Muslims:

[T]ake it all the way back into the Old Testament—and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah, to a Muslim; to us, Abba Father, God.

Notice that Houston says you—to the Christians he’s addressing—then appears to include himself with them as he says ”we actually serve,” etc. ” Now we know that Christians holding the view that Islam is an Abrahamic faith usually also believe the Muslim has wrong beliefs about the one God.

The problem really isn’t with someone like myself who is trying to understand what is being said by attributing the meanings to words I find in dictionaries and text books. No, the problem stems from Christians who use what seems to me to be purposely vague language when it comes to the false religion of Islam.

For example. there’s A Common Word” Christian Response where we read:

As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world. “A Common Word Between Us and You” identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam which lies at the heart of our respective faiths as well as at the heart of the most ancient Abrahamic faith, Judaism…

Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world… What is so extraordinary about “A Common Word Between Us and You”… lies,…in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor…

We applaud that “A Common Word Between Us and You” stresses so insistently the unique devotion to one God, indeed the love of God, as the primary duty of every believer. God alone rightly commands our ultimate allegiance… We find it equally heartening that the God whom we should love above all things is described as being Love. In the Muslim tradition, God, “the Lord of the worlds,” is “The Infinitely Good and All-Merciful.” (source)

Unfortunately, such language is a bit disingenuous because does give the Muslim the impression that the Christian signers of that document, e.g. Rick Warren, are saying that they believe in the same God as those in Islam. Keep all of this in mind, and then let’s take a look at the following from Houston’s new statement:

If you listened to the message in its entirety, my point was that; who a Muslim extremist believes God is, determines what they believe God does, and what they believe God loves.

I was contrasting their harsh perspective of (their) god, with who I believe God is – (a Loving God, the Father of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ) and therefore what I believe God does and what I believe God loves.

The ONE sentence that critics are drawing huge conclusions from was clearly a (clumsy) way of me explaining that though both Christians and Muslims believe they serve the God of Abraham, they are very DIFFERENT ‘entities’ or ‘deities’ in both nature and action.

The botheration begins when Houston’s words in his original message are combined with his later Twitter statement, “Islam descends from one of Abraham’s sons.” They could easily seem to indicate that, in spite of their differing views about God, he meant Muslims and Christians do serve the same One.

As I get ready to close this out, I offer that if Brian Houston wishes to address such important and sensitive subjects as the nature of God and the religion of Islam then he needs to learn to be more precise in his language. That said, Islam cannot be an Abrahamic faith because it doesn’t believe in the God Abraham believed in.

First of all, Islamic history says its faith originates with an extraterrestrial visit:

Muslim tradition states that the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad and gave him the words [of the Qur'an] directly from Allah. (source)

However, if there truly was such a visit, then it was a lying spirit, possibly sent by God Himself (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-23). In other words, it would have been a demon who was impersonating the angel Gabriel. It’s also important at this point to understand that:

The Qur’an (Koran, Quran) is the Holy Book of Islam and the religion’s most sacred writing. Muslims consider it the actual word of Allah and not the word of Muhammad to whom it was given. (source)

Now, since the Qur’an was supposedly brought by that being, who allegedly appeared to Muhammad, contradicts the Bible on the nature of God, then we know that this being could not have been an angel sent by the LORD God Almighty. If anything appeared at all, then it would have a lying, deceitful, spirit i.e. a demon.

As I told you in Keeping You Apprised of: Islam, while Islam does teach the existence of just one God (Qur’an 5:73; 112:1-4), Allah is so transcendent, incomprehensible and unapproachable, that it could not possibly be the one true and living personal God of biblical revelation, Who shows Himself to befriend men (Exodus 33:11).

The God of Holy Scripture is shown to be merciful to them because He loves them (Romans 5:5-8), and, in the doctrine of the Trinity, He reveals Himself as God the Father, God the Son–Jesus the Christ, and God the Holy Spirit (Deuteronomy 6:42 Peter 1:17John 1:1,14Acts 5:3-42 Corinthians 13:14).

In fact, the Qur’an itself actually admits that Allah is not the God of the Bible in Surah 5:73-75 where it states:

They do blaspheme who say: God is one in three in a Trinity: for there is no god except one.

Finally, the Qur’an portrays a different Jesus from the One we meet in the Bible. It says Jesus was not crucified (4:157), is not Deity (5:17, 75), nor is He even the God the Son (9:30). So, in the end, Islam is not an Abrahamic faith because Allah, the god of Islam, is nothing at all like the Biblical revelation of the only God there is.

Source: By Ken Silva, WORD FAITH PREACHER BRIAN HOUSTON ATTEMPTS TO CLARIFY HIS RECENT STATEMENT CONCERNING ISLAM, Apprising Ministries,, Published 28/03/2014. (Accessed 30/03/2014.)

Related articles:

Houston’s “Clarification”

The deafening silence of Brian Houston (silence now broken)

Thank you Brian Houston for your response but please clarify further

Brian Houston & Chris Rosebrough Offering Corrections

Brian Houston: “the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God”

Houston’s “Clarification”

It is good to see that Brian Houston has offered an official statement. The Christian Post has the statement at the end of their article. We will be looking further into Brian Houston’s clarification in another article.

We would like to add one correction to the Christian post. They said we said, “But we know that he can’t preach the Christian gospel because he doesn’t know it”. We did. However, we provided the following link to justify our serious claim:

“But we know that he can’t preach the Christian gospel because he doesn’t know it.”

With that corrected, the Christian Post reported the following,

Hillsong Church Pastor Brian Houston Denies Promoting ‘Chrislam;’ Says Sermon Taken Out of Context

Critics Blast Megachurch Leader for Saying Christians, Muslims Serve Same God; Houston Insists Flub Caused Misinterpretation

Brian C. Houston, leader of one of the world’s largest Christian churches, is denying allegations that he promotes “Chrislam,” a theological blend of Christianity and Islam, after stating in a December 2013 sermon, “Do you know – take it all the way back into the Old Testament and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah to a Muslim, to us Abba Father God.”

With a firestorm raging online among his critics for more than a week, the influential Sydney, Australian pastor of the 30,000-member Hillsong Church finally issued a statement Thursday night (or late Friday morning his time) regarding allegations that he was promoting “Chrislam.”


Twitter/Hillsong Church
Hillsong Church tweeted a link to Pastor Brian Houston’s statement regarding allegations that he preached ‘Chrislam,’ a blending of Christianity and Islam.

“The spirit of the message was exactly the opposite of what some critics are claiming. If you listened to the message in its entirety, my point was that; who a Muslim extremist believes God is, determines what they believe God does, and what they believe God loves,” Pastor Houston insists in the statement, titled “Correction of Misinformation,” which can be read in full below.

Houston attributes his remarks about Muslims and Christians serving the same God made during the 2013 sermon, titled “Living for the Master’s Well Done, Part 1,” to a flubbed delivery. He also expressed doubt that critics would accept his clarification.

“Those propagating these false statements have taken one sentence from an entire message out of context. I realize that some critics WANT to believe their interpretation, but my prayer is that reasonable people will take my comment in context, accept my acknowledgment that I did not explain this sentence as I intended, and judge me on 40 years of pointing people to Jesus – not one sentence,” explains Houston, who recently joined U.S. megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes at his annual Pastors and Leadership Conference in Miami, Fla.

Original uploads of the Pentecostal pastor’s sermon appear to have been scrubbed from the Internet, although severalcopies were still easily found during a Web search. The troublesome part of Houston’s sermon has him stating:

“Do you know – take it all the way back into the Old Testament and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah to a Muslim, to us Abba Father God. And of course through history, those views have changed greatly. But let’s make sure that we view God through the eyes of Jesus, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the beauty of a Savior, the loving open inclusive arms of a loving God. And that way we’ll lead out of that and you’ll be purposeful about your leadership and you’ll draw people just like the Lord Jesus always does through the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Hillsong Church Leader Brian Houston Teaches Chrislam from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.


Hillsong Church founding pastor Brian C. Houston suggests Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

Critics have been questioning Houston since early last week when videos of his sermon started circulating. Houston’s accusers claim his remarks on Muslims and Christians indicates that the Assemblies of God leader preaches a Gospel other than the Christian one.

“If Brian Houston does indeed preach the Christian gospel as he claims, then he would know that the Muslim and Christian faiths are incompatible,” states the Hillsong Church Watch website in a viral post on Houston’s sermon. “But we know that he can’t preach the Christian gospel because he doesn’t know it. Brian Houston’s comment is just as offensive to Muslims as it is to Christians and is essentially doing more unjust damage to both faiths.”

The “watch” website, part of several self-declared discernment blogs targeting high-profile Christian leaders and their churches and ministries, states that it was started by “a group of concerned leaders, pastors and elders from various denominations around Australia on Facebook.”

While Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet, the Quran denies His deity as well as His crucifixion, an event essential to the Christian teaching on salvation. Despite other theological conflicts, such as the Christian confession of Jesus as the Son of God, advocates of “Chrislam” insist the two faiths are compatible.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., also has been denying allegations for years that he practices or promotes the syncretistic teaching of “Chrislam,” a movement which reportedly started in the 1980s. Warren, calling the allegation “a lie that won’t die,” occasionally points concerned supporters to documents meant to clarify his fidelity to the Christian faith.


Twitter/Rick Warren
Rick Warren points a concerned supporter to documents challenging accusations that he practices in ‘Chrislam.’

Hillsong Church, founded in 1983 by Houston and his wife, Bobbie Houston, welcomes about 30,000 worshipers every weekend at 11 campuses scattered around the world, with a 12th in Los Angeles in development. In Australia, Hillsong has six campuses and twice as many extension services. The megachurch, also known for its mega-popular and award-winning worship band Hillsong United, states that its mission is “to reach and influence the world by building a large Christ-centered, Bible-based church, changing mindsets and empowering people to lead and impact in every sphere of life.” The Houstons, whose Hillsong Church is affiliated with the Australian Christian Churches (the Assemblies of God in Australia), have three adult children, also involved in ministry.

Read Pastor Houston’s full statement, available at, below:

Correction of Misinformation
2014 March

Recently there have been false claims on social media that I believe Muslims and Christians worship the same God. This is incorrect. Those propagating these false statements have taken one sentence from an entire message out of context. I realize that some critics WANT to believe their interpretation, but my prayer is that reasonable people will take my comment in context, accept my acknowledgment that I did not explain this sentence as I intended, and judge me on 40 years of pointing people to Jesus – not one sentence.

For further clarification, here is the context of my message:

King David said about His God in Psalm 119:68, “you ARE good and you DO good”. Who David believed God IS, determined what He Believed God DOES.

The spirit of the message was exactly the opposite of what some critics are claiming. If you listened to the message in its entirety, my point was that; who a Muslim extremist believes God is,determines what they believe God does, and what they believe God loves.

I was contrasting their harsh perspective of (their) god, with who I believe God is – (a Loving God,the Father of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ) and therefore what I believe God does and what I believe God loves. The ONE sentence that critics are drawing huge conclusions from was clearly a(clumsy) way of me explaining that though both Christians and Muslims believe they serve the God of Abraham, they are very DIFFERENT ‘entities’ or ‘deities’ in both nature and action.

I have always believed and will always believe that there is only one Way to God and that is through His Son, Christ Jesus. I also believe that anyone – irrespective of their religious upbringing, culture or background – can find grace, peace, freedom and eternal life through Christ.

Brian Houston

Source: By Nicola Menzie, Hillsong Church Pastor Brian Houston Denies Promoting ‘Chrislam;’ Says Sermon Taken Out of Context, The Christian Post,, Published 28/03/2014. (Accessed 29/03/2014.)

The deafening silence of Brian Houston (silence now broken)


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Edit: Houston has now responded.

Before reading this article, please read these below articles first.

Brian Houston: “the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God”

Brian Houston & Chris Rosebrough Offering Corrections

Thank you Brian Houston for your response but please clarify further

Brian Houston’s silence is deafening. Recently, Chris Rosebrough explained why,


Click Here to Download this episode

Program segments:

• When Jezebel’s Witchcraft Keeps You Up at Night
• Brian Houston “Clarifies” His Muslim Comment
• Twenty Former Mars Hill Pastors Seek Mediation With Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church Leadership
• Proof that Beth Moore is NOT a Sound Exegete
• Sermon Review: Daredevil by Troy Gramling

Source: Chris Rosebrough, Daredevil, Fighting for the Faith,, 24/03/2014. (Accessed 25/03/2014.)

His lack of further clarification is actually confirming our suspicions that Brian Houston is pushing a secular agenda to expand his own personal Hillsong empire and his master’s domain. He has given us enough evidence to suspect this to be true.

For a long time now, Hillsong has not been showing the signs of tolerating the Christian gospel, the proper handling of God’s Word nor tolerating Christians who try to correct those in error the way the bible instructs them to do so. Will Hillsong remain God’s Church or the People’s Church?

If secularism is against Christianity, then a secular church is also against Christianity.

Thank you Brian Houston for your response but please clarify further


, , , , , , ,

Before reading this article, please read these below articles first.

Brian Houston: “the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God”

Brian Houston & Chris Rosebrough Offering Corrections

We are very concerned with the liberal-secular trends and language emerging from Hillsong. People are now dropping the word Chrislam and associating Brian Houston’s behaviour with his friend Rick Warren and Warren’s controversial Chrislam agenda. This may be true. This may not be true.

The important thing is this: We need Brian Houston of Hillsong Church to properly clarify some serious issues surrounding his recent statements.


We hope that Houston responds to our below questions,

Dear Brian Houston

We really appreciate you commenting on our blog. It’s a relief to know that you are keen to clarify this error.

There seems to be confusion among members in your church what the difference is between Islam and Christianity. We believe this is a wonderful opportunity for you to address the differences between the two faiths.

While you seem to have clarified the issue, you seem to strongly suggest that “the loving open inclusive arms of a loving God” includes both Christians and Muslims in light of your statement, “the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah to a Muslim, to us Abba Father God”.

You’ve supposedly addressed the first issue over Muslims and Christians worshiping the same God but you didn’t clarify where you implied the inclusivity of God in that context. Do you believe that Muslims can be reconciled to God without knowing Christ’s substitionary punishment for their sins? 

Lastly, is there anything else in that particular sermon that you feel impelled to publicly repudiate since you said “my allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ alone”?

We do not wish to misrepresent your words.



Why is it so important for Brian Houston to respond publicly on such matters? Chris Rosebrough from Fighting for the Faith recently commented on our site which we thought was worth reposting.

Brian Houston’s clarification here and on Twitter will be discussed on Monday’s episode of Fighting for the Faith… And here are the problem’s with it:

1) Because of the seriousness of Houston’s gaff (since that’s how he’s treating it) is so great that what is absolutely necessary for him to do is to issue a public statement, preferably both in writing and from his pulpit. It is not sufficient for him to have left a comment on a blog post or make a brief statement on twitter.

2) The brief clarification that Houston has given only adds more confusion to an already convoluted statement. This is due to the fact that Islam DID NOT originate from the descendants of Ishmael. Islam didn’t even show up in human history until 2,700 years AFTER Ishmael was born.

3) To clarify his statement by saying that Islam claims to worship the same God as Abraham is, again, a statement that causes even more confusion. Mormon’s claim to worship the same God as Abraham and so do Jehovah’s witnesses. Yet, the gods that they worship have nothing in common with the YHWH the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

In order to properly repair the breach that Houston has created by his statement he MUST PUBLICLY, in a high profile way, repudiate his own statement and must make it clear that Islam does NOT worship or serve the same God as Christians OR Abraham. He must make it clear that Allah is an idol and a false god and that salvation cannot be found in Islam but only in repentant faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Until Houston does that, it is my opinion that he’s only attempting to engage in political damage control.

Source: Chris Rosebrough (@piratechristian), Brian Houston: “the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God”, Hillsong Church Watch,, March 22, 2014 at 2:53 pm. (Accessed 23/03/2014. Spelling errors in original comment correct.)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers