Geoff Bullock article take two
A while ago we gave a heads up to an article about Geoff Bullock which was due to be published in the Australian back in October. They apparently changed their minds for a while (because he was uninteresting or something) but Geoff mentions that it is now due to be published in the Weekend Australian this weekend. We will try to link up or scan a copy for overseas commenters when it comes out.
Geoff has graciously agreed to discuss the article with us here at signposts. This is pretty vulnerable of him given that, as many of you will realise, Geoff has been pretty circumspect in the media about the fallout of his time at Hills Christian Life Centre (although on this site he has already been graciously open).
UPDATE - the full text of the article is here
May 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Homer, I worry about you, I seriously do. Do you not have anything else to do with your time than sit at a keyboard and write about sexuality…whoops, not even that! Men having sex. That’s all you’re intereseted in, it seems…
May 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Yes, it appears that EP is a closet case.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Bec, grow up.
I am merely standing up for the gospel.
No more no less.
I have merely stated homosexuality is condemned in the bible.
I asked for biblical support for the contrary position and got none.
not surprising since there is none.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I asked for biblical support for the contrary position and got none.
That is not true.
Jesus’ encounter with the centurion and his ‘pais’ has been previously presented as a contrary position.
You may disagree with that contrary position, but you can’t say that biblical support for a contrary position hasn’t been presented.
Well, actually, you can say it because you’re a hypocrite Homer.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
yes well only Lance would consider this support.
pais is used in what context?
May 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
pais is used in what context?
Strange question (how unusual) to ask when you’ve previously rejected outright the proposition that it has any relevance to homosexuality.
Are you suggesting now that when you rejected the passage’s relevance, that you hadn’t yourself asked any questions about it and hadn’t studied it properly?
How unusual for a conservative to reject something they hadn’t researched.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
EP said, “love cannot be against the law”.
Jesus did not always obey the law (e.g. Sabbath). Was he not loving when he did this.
I believe the reason he did it was to show that we are not bound by the law. The law and Biblical morality are general expressions of love, but there are times and cases where they are not the most loving action. Whenever there is a conflict, the law of love must prevail.
I will admit that in the majority of times, morality (Scripturally upheld lifestyles) and love are one and the same. But that is not always the case. So how do you know when they are in conflict?
One clear way of determining is to journey with the person and understand them. Through this process of understanding, one is in a better position to judge the most loving action. This is the action that should be taken.
The reason then that homosexuality does not have to be justified scripturally is because there are times that the higher principle of love overrules. In fact, it is very difficult to justify homosexuality scripturally. But the higher principle of love sometimes overrules.
I believe this is what Jesus was saying when he says that He came to fulfill the law, and what Paul was saying when he says that love fulfills God’s requirements.
Because of love, Jesus can live in a world of tension between moral rightness and loving action. Let’s not go to scripture to try to prove any actions as right or wrong, let’s turn to scripture to help us discern what is gracious and loving.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
from now on I will not respond to anything Homer writes
“Without wood, the fire goes out”, somewhere in proverbs I think. Mind you, I’m no expert at doing that, and still have many lessons to learn. It isn’t easy ‘not replying’, but I _think_ it will work in this scenario.
I’m humbled by the honesty of brothers and sisters here. Knowing that God’s grace is more than sufficient for the sins I will (no doubt) commit today, tomorrow and in the future (where sin abounds, grace does much more abound) ‘prevents’ me from going back under law.
I read a book ages ago “Grace abounding to the chief of sinners”, and that was a real revelation of His grace, and very timely, because I thought I had “blown it”.
Anyway, the ‘wood/fire’ proverb usually works.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
For the last couple of years….I’ve been trying to work out how conservatives view the Pharisees of the bible.
That is…. when Jesus is so obvious in his denunciation of the Pharisees’ mindset, how does a conservative mentally process that……so that they can continue to act as Pharisees?
I think I at least now understand how Homer processes it.
He believes that someone who is a Christian but doesn’t live by the law is a Pharisee..(based on Jesus saying ….’do as they say…not as they do’.)
Several times Homer has referred to me as a Pharisee…(which would make me Australia’s 2nd gay Pharisee……after Dreadnought).
That doesn’t stand up because I’m not prescribing that people should live by a certain sets of laws and ideals in order to be Christian and to be saved.
(I’m very strong on people not being dickheads or wankers, but that certainly doesn’t in any way affect their salvation, which is by grace through faith…..although in some ways, it shits me that they get away scot-free with their dickheadedness and wankerism…and are unable to extend the same salvation courtesy to ’sinners’).
But last time I looked, I’m not telling people here where they shouldn’t dip their wick, and as for the Leigh Cartwright thing, I’m using that as an example of Homer’s hypocrisy and rubbing Homer’s face in his own bullshit; Leigh’s a big boy and he can do what he likes as long as he isn’t hurting himself or anyone else (I think he is hurting himself and the church, but Gladesville Anglican, one would hope, would be grown-up enough to deal with that constructively).
It never even occurs to me to prescribe what someone else should do in their life, except when conservative boofheads like Homer or Focus on the Family or Fred Nile rear their ugly head…..and then yes, I love reminding them of their own situation and their own failings, because they seem to be unable to recognise that themselves because of their abomination (proverbs 16:5) of pride.
Homer being a prime example.
But who is the real Pharisee here?
Isn’t it the one who constantly haughtily argues ex-communication as a form of punishment (instead of Paul’s intent of it being a method of redemption).
Isn’t it the one who believes law is supreme over grace and faith in Christ?
Isn’t it the who can’t even acknowledge personal sin, and who fails to display any growth towards the merciful and compassionate embracing of ’sinners’ that Christ taught and demonstrated.
Who is the Pharisee here, who lays down the law but doesn’t apply any of it in his own situation?
Perhaps I haven’t been clear that I don’t actually believe a lot of the stuff I write, I’m just repackaging Homer’s exact argument and throwing it back at him..and seeing how he likes it…….(and he doesn’t like it…but he hasn’t figured out yet, that that’s why you don’t do it to other people…)
If you haven’t figured out yet after 2 years though Homer that I’m re-packaging your own stupid arguments and sending them back at you…so you can personally feel what it’s like being on the receiving end of your stupid arguments, then you must be particularly thick Homer.
(Well done to the other Signposters who’ve spotted the hyperbole)
May 18th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
You see Homer, most normal people would have said long before now….’gee…is that how I come across to people…I need to change’….but no….not you Homer, 2 years down the track ..and you still don’t get it.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Anne - as far as we know those figures are correct - and they are outrageous. I can’t see that any church needs to spend money at the rate they do on property. Just imagine what they could do if they divested themselves of all their propoerty and spent all their money on the poor - 50million a year! Shit, in a few years time they could wipe out poverty in Australia and then work on the rest of the world - or do it the other way wold probably be the better way! But no…they’d rather buy themsleves exensive cars, live in flash houses, travel around the world singing and speaking…and of course making more money.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
EP @ LP
you say
abtruth, you do not understand the difference between repentant sinful people and unrepentant sinners.
i understand quite well but still i would like to ask you is it possible for a person to be a Christian and have doubts over the veracity/interpretation of the Bibles comments on homosexuality??
May 18th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I’m going to put forward a theory.
I’ve realised today that the reason why Homer won’t take a realistic view of himself is because he can’t.
He physiologically can’t.
My hunch is that in conservative narcissistic church people, there is a lack of a neurological pathway in the brain, that connects general awareness with self-awareness.
It’s also been highlighted for me by transcribing the two Brian Houston sermons.
His first sermon, let your yes be yes and your no be no…was clearly and unambigously contradicted by his fibbing about how much money he really earns, and various other aspects of Hillsong that he’s outright lied about.
After that sermon I thought …hmmm…maybe there’s a blind spot with Brian in that area….but with his latest sermon on ‘intimidation’…and he can’t see the connection between intimidation=bad, and his own intimidation of staff and church members.
I think in the same way as Homer can’t see his own hypocrisy, neither can Brian because their brains are not wired that way.
A comment was made that Brian can be self-effacing.
My experience is that people can learn that behaviour, because they see it as a trait that is acceptable and positive in our culture, but it’s not a way of thinking for them from day-to-day….(same way that you put on a posh voice when you do a bible reading in church…or read a news bulletin on the radio).
I now believe there is enough evidence to point to both Homer and Brian having the same ’self-awarenessless’ dysfunction, and therefore should not be held responsible for that brain dysfunction (in the same way that you would not hold someone responsible for having autism or Tourette’s or Alzheimer’s or whatever).
But the church should be on the lookout for those kinds of brain dysfunctions in individuals, and while offering them a place at the table…should not hand them the carving knives.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Homer writes: “I am merely standing up for the gospel. No more no less.
I have merely stated homosexuality is condemned in the bible.”
How sad that for Homer the gospel is about telling gay men not to have sex.
Homer, I would like to suggest you return to the gospels and read again. This time make yourself put aside your focus on homosexuality and see what good new of Jesus you encounter. I wish you all the best for your journey.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Do the AOG and other denominations actually test their pastors for psychological problems ..before giving them the keys to the baptismal font?
May 18th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Homer writes: “I am merely standing up for the gospel. No more no less.
I have merely stated homosexuality is condemned in the bible.”
How sad that for Homer the gospel is about telling gay men not to have sex.
Homer, I would like to suggest you return to the gospels and read again. This time make yourself put aside your focus on homosexuality and see what good new of Jesus you encounter. I wish you all the best for your journey.
But that’s the thing, I bet in Homer’s mind he thinks he’s a brilliant conveyor of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though that is at complete odds with reality, because there is no link between his general awareness and his brain, and self-awareness.
It’s the same with Brian Houston. In his intimidation sermon..he said that his staff would be grateful for not having an intimidating boss.
Now, there’s one of two things happening there, that Brian is just plain lying to cover his tracks…or the more likely explanation, that he has no neural pathway in his brain between general awareness, and self-awareness, so previous instances of intimidating staff (self-awareness) would be completely absent from his general awareness.
It’s after a sermon like that, that an elder should be pulling aside Brian and saying…’hang on Brian…..’ (but of course they wouldn’t because they’d be intimidated by Brian who has no self-awareness that he intimidates people)
May 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Actually…I’ll ask the former Hillsongers, do you think Brian Houston just completely lacks self-awareness, or is a deceitful liar covering his tracks?
May 18th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Been reading all these posts between Homer and Lance - tis very funny to say the least.
I think the problem here is that many believers take an approach to the scripture whereby they believe nothing applies to them. It’s the “I’m saved, got my life together, don’t smoke, drink, fornicate etc etc…”
My belief is that God’s word has an inward application first before anything else.
Did Christ reprimand the Pharisees? Of course.
We all need to see ourselves as the Pharisee being reprimanded by Christ.
Likewise, we also need to see ourselves as Christ reprimanding the Pharisee.
In the book of Revelation Jesus tells us that he ‘Is - was and will be’.
In my mind this is how we need to interpret scripture.
It has an ‘Is’ component first and foremost, then a ‘was’ and lastly a ‘will be’. If we go thru life thinking that most of the bible has no direct inward ‘is’ application then we decieve ourselves and try to pin everything on others.
Homer, forget taking the 1 Cor scripture and shoving it down Lance’s or Reve’s throats.
It has an inward application that applies to you first and foremost (and me as well).
The man in question was doing what exactly?
Getting it on with his fathers wife yes?
So what is the inward spiritual application we can draw from that?
What is the spiritual type and shadow of this physical thing that actually happened and how does that concern me?
Don’t take this as criticism Homer but if all you see if the letter then you miss the point (2 Cor 3.6). This is what the Pharisees were guilty of…
WIGGY
May 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1 Cor 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
It says “do not be deceived”because if you think you can do thises things & still be “saved” then you are deceived.
Lance is a homo, greg is a fornicator & they are both deceived.
It says :”And that is what some of you were.”
“were” because this is written to people who were homos & fornos & all the other things listed. They were, but are not any more. In other words, you dont HAVE to be a homo, its a choise.
So, lance & greg are deceived if they think they are “saved”. Their sin is deliberate:
Heb 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
Heb 10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Grace is not a licence to sin.
You people can “grace on” as much as you like & “support” each other as you harbor your hurts but it isnt going to cut the mustard on the other side of the grave. This place is a place where the blind are leading the blind & is like the proverbial crabs in the bucket.
Wake up from your deception, acknowledge your sin & repent & flee the wrath to come!!!!
May 18th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
China Plate you are a perfect case in point.
So ready to point the finger and ever ready to brandish the scriptures…
Forget Lance and Greg China, what is the ‘IS’ component of the scriptures you just fired off and what is the inward application of them to you? That is your primary concern China Plate.
Do you think God is unable to change someone’s heart in an instant if he so desired? Does he need you as his mouthpiece and his tool of retribution?
IS, then WAS and lastly WILL BE China; look for the IS in scripture and forget about the was and will be for now…
WIGGY
May 18th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
How exciting, I’m a fornicator. My life just gets cooler and coller and cooler.
How about this me old mate (which is rhyming slang for china plate) you demonstrate how fornication and a monogomous three year relationship are the same thing and I’ll let you have the life that get’s cooler and cooler and cooler. Homer help him out.
Shit, I said i wouldn;t engage Homer…Phil/Dan, delete that remark.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Lance,
re #435
Have a friend who used to work for Teen Challenge he was non- AOG but was basically told he had to apply for AOG Pastorship if he wanted to get paid more because of the special rights of the clergy relating to tax or something. So he applied. He had to go to an interview with his wife but although they were apprehensive before hand they said the interview was routine not very hard to get through. Not overly rigourous. The classic outcome was that his official AOG Pastor Card thingy came through on his last day having resigned because of “differences in opinion” with the AOG oversight of the organisation.
Go Figure.
Grace
May 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Wayne, I think you need to be very clear, does Jesus in fact deny the Sabbath or the Pharisee’s interpretation?
I am afraid you have no biblical support for your thesis of ‘love’ overriding everything else.
Lance,
Err this is the very expurgated version of what I said last time. pais has several meanings .
you still have no idea of what a pharisee is. Why am I not surprised.
sorry old son but a person who doesn’t even acknowledge the law has neither received grace nor has faith.
They merely have made a God in their own image!
Phil, you are implying the gospels send a different message which is lance like in accuracy.
Abtruth,
fortunately the Hebrew in Leviticus is very very clear and leaves no room for doubt.
That is why we we people making up excuses in the N/T to say it is different. however there is nothing in the N/T which contradicts the law indeeds it adds further weight to the claim.
Hence the hostile response.
People are simply ashamed of the Gospel.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
I’m not ashamed of the Gospel.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
EP - My scriptural basis for letting love rule are the words of Jesus as being the fulfillment of the law, and the words of Paul in Romans where love fulfills the requirements of God. I could also add the book of Galatians where the true Gospel is added to by the Judaizers. In today’s world the true gospel is added to by morality.
To China Plate - my loving response in commenting on some of your comments is “Go and get fucked!”
Why is this loving? Because it shows love and validation to the very people you totally insult by your thoughtless comments. If I don’t stand up for these people you are heartlessly slandering I would not be showing love.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Lance - #433
That post was right on. Like my Dad said watching Oz Story “look at his face, he’s completely unconflicted”.
Like Geoff said “i honestly believe he thinks he’s doing God’s work”
Professor Anthony Storr says that charisma depends on absolute inner conviction & certitude. There is no room for doubt.
He also links “guru” behaviour to Manic Depression/Bipolar Disorder & states that their energy comes from the manic phases (order) revolving with periods of depression (chaos) where the inspiration & revelation supposedly occurs.
But there is another mental disorder that can fit the profile too, who is less conlicted & least doubting of the self than a Sociopath?
Does everybody know that Sociopaths exist at eery level of society & are seemingly normal on the outside, even well-liked, but often seek out positions that give them control over others?
Of course here we are not referring to murderers etc but rather those whose purpose in life is to have “psychological” control over others.
Of course someone can justify anything & reach the heights of any chosen field, if they have no real conscience.
It’s not about what they’ve “got”, it’s about what’s missing.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Sigh, … who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’, eh !!
I, for one, am guilty of taking a few scriptures to prove a point.
Having read through
The Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle: Published by “Grace Unzipped” , Frank Viola gives a different approach to reading, studying and using the New Testamant.
I liked this point he made ….
“It has been rightly said that a person can prove anything by taking Bible verses out of context. Let me demonstrate how one can “biblically” prove that it is God’s will for believers to commit suicide. All you have to do is lift two verses out of their historical setting and paste them together:
“And he [Judas] went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Then said Jesus “‘Go, and do thou likewise’ ” (Luke 10:37 b).”
Yes, it’s funny, …. but do we do that with Scripture ?
May 18th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
In Homers case, he may not be a superstar preacher…….but there is definitely a basic emotional intelligence missing.
Oh & one other thing, one of the defining features of sociopathy? ….Glibness, scrape the surface & there is nothing underneath, no depth.
Homer quotes scripture because, …….there’s nothing else there.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Good reading Point:
John Clarke’s (from here in Sydney) “Working with Monsters : How to protect yourself from the workplace pyschopath”.
This is a serious book
Back cover : Does the following sound familiar?
-They work alongside you in many of Australia’s businesses & corporations
- They intimidate fellow workers
- They exhibit manipulative behaviour
- They demonstrate a lack of remorse
- They are glib & uperficially charming.
Check the guy’s website at http://www.drjohnclarke.com/
May 18th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
John Clarke’s (from here in Sydney) “Working with Monsters : How to protect yourself from the workplace pyschopath”.
This is a serious book
Back cover : Does the following sound familiar?
-They work alongside you in many of Australia’s businesses & corporations
- They intimidate fellow workers
- They exhibit manipulative behaviour
- They demonstrate a lack of remorse
- They are glib & superficially charming.
Oh my goodness, how timely is that.
I’ve literally just in the past half hour had an internal message sent by a workplace sociopath who I hadn’t heard from in ages….who is renowned for
- intimidating fellow workers
- exhibiting manipulative behaviour
- demonstrating a lack of remorse
- being glib & superficially charming.
Beautifully timed post. Just what I needed.