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 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
AngryMan you sound like you base your belief in God (or lack of as you say), and conversion to “science” on the actions of your old church. Maybe God did not let you down. Maybe your church did. Sometimes we let the organisation run our spiritual lives, rather than God. The Actions of a “church” do not sum up God. Satan likes to corrupt, and divert from the truth. Churches and religion in general are a feeding ground for him. For me I separated myself from my church, and just concentrated and getting to know God and listening to him. It is my relationship with God that is important, and that guides me. Not a church, nor what “christian music” is being played at various churches around the world. I am so sorry that your old church has left you so angry.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
AngryMan, there are better reasons to doubt the veracity of Christian belief than crappy music played in churches. Here are some:
The Bible is obviously not the word of a supernatural agent. Hence the Bible is no more authorative than any other collection of books.
Faith does not lead to improved behaviour or greater insights into life. Look at this website for evidence. Do the authors or commentators on this site display greater wisdom than your average man off the street?
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
angryman
Bit unscientific to blame Geoffs music to your new skepticism
Mostly people who leave church and become skeptics is related to their own emotional issue and hurts - no science involved at all
Science is then used to justify their decision - they hate admitting they were making an emotional decision so conveniently use science
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Angryman, you probably need to move through athiesm and rationalism to detox from the church and your experiences there. But be warned… move deep enough into science and you’ll stumble into mysticism and paradox from a completely different angle. Peer deep enough into the atom, to the cell, or to the universe, and something near to awe just might touch you.
Detox as much as you need to… but don’t be too shocked if one day your heart looks for something more… I don’t think rationalism alone has enough to take a person “healthily” through the whole journey of life.
James Fowler wrote an interesting study on this in his book “Stages of Faith: the Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning” (faith in the broadest sense, as a set of beliefs that give meaning, including athiestic rationalism) If you don’t mind a bit of an academic read, I think you’ll see yourself in it, and understand why it’s been a growth experience for you to leave the church. And why one day you may itch for a little more food for your soul… even though you can never return to the naivete of your early church experience. M Scott Peck explores some of the same ideas in a more low-brow and accessible version.
Best wishes in your quest!
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Jesus: So Angryman what do you have to say for yourself. Why do you reject me?
Angryman: Because I didn’t like Geoff Bullock’s songs.
Donald Duck (jumping up and down, hand up in a me too gesture): Oh I can do much better that that. The Bible was written by humans. And I behave better than anyone else!
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
He probably thought Geoff’s songs were sexist because they were hymns!
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
LOL.. i like your reply EP at LP
No alas despite my flippant post i can only blame myself for my apostacy and fall from grace. The music being played at church was a symptom of the greater problem. As far as Im concerned im a lapsed agnostic and a non practicing aethist. I have taken my grandfathers view of life which is you cant go too wrong being a good bloke. I prefer being more accountable for my actions rather than relying on the god eating mystery religion to give an out for my bad behaviour. Also I think if Gods filled with love then he should have room for me there, hey he lets all the womanisers, drunks and homosexuals from what ive read here!
Ill have to listen to the rewrites Geoff.. I must have been stuck with the older love songs
But i appreciate the suggested reading Janet.. sounds like a good read.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
1 Samuel 19:23-24 Saul left for Ramah. But as he walked along, the Spirit of God took control of him, and he started prophesying. Then, when he reached Prophets Village, he stripped off his clothes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He dropped to the ground and lay there naked all day and night. That’s how the saying started, “Is Saul now a prophet?”
Question: Is saint now a prophet?
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Angryman… ah mate, the songs just aren’t important. Really glad to hear your story. Even if you close all the doors, at least leave a window unlocked.
It’s taken me almost 11 years to begin to trust again. It was God’s love that began the healing. It’s a the best place to start. All the best
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I thought it was Hillsong that had the prophet motive
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Geoff, do you know who the directors of Hillsong Church, Ltd are? And did you ever have an opportunity to participate in ownership of the company. I would have thought, back in your Hillsong days, you had a good case to make as another director. You must have missed out on loads of cash.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Good on you Angryman. That openess and honesty will serve you well.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Thanks for your grace angryman… not that angry with everyone!
“The Road Less Travelled and Beyond” is a good summary in a way of M Scott Peck’s reflections on personal growth, society, religion etc… if you can get hold of it. I quite like all his stuff… except his book on golf. (Yawn.)
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 am
Oh Janet, Peck’s book on golf was awesome
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
DD… Hillsong is not a company. The “directors” are elders appointed by Breian Houston. I was on the eldership for all but two years of the first 12 years. There is no ‘ownership” and “dividends” I assure you. The personal finances of the pastors are a totally seperate issue to the financial administration of the church. I would be amazed if there was an underlying misapropriation of funds or fraudulent activity. It just wouldn’t happen. Yes, the way the may distribute offerings and earnings may raise questions, and there is the ethics of the charitable status over everything they do, but that is the governments decision, so the questions need to be asked of them as much as HS.
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
HILLS CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE LTD, ACN 096 748 766
Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee
Locality of Registered Office: Baulkham Hills NSW 2153
HILLSONG CHURCH LTD, ACN 002 745 879
Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee
Locality of Registered Office: Baulkham Hills NSW 2153
HILLSONG EMERGE LTD, ACN 003 698 726
Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee
Locality of Registered Office: Baulkham Hills NSW 2153
Geoff, are any of the above companies related to the Hillsong that you know.
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Phil, I just couldn’t get into it. The appeal of golf remains a total mystery to me. But I’m glad you liked it.
I’m happy to post Angryman a copy of Fowler’s book if he’s really interested… whereas you can order any of Peck’s stuff through Borders or Dymocks or whoever, Fowler’s is harder to track down. Give him my email address if requested.
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Dear DD
Yes, these are ‘companies’ for all intents and purposes. ie they are a separate legal entity as distinct from it’s directors/shareholders/members. It means it can sue and be sued in it’s own name etc.
As I understand it, I think we’re talking here about incorporated associations. Again, the benefit of corporatising an association is to limit the liability of it’s directors and members in the event the association goes broke. It’s also a way of legally separating associated entities or companies so they can be seen (at least on the face of it) as being at arms length from each other…ie separate set of accounts, transactions etc. It also allows the association to operate outside it’s home state.
Do you know when these names were registered?
If anyone’s interested, you can find more info here:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic_pub.nsf/byheadline/Registering+not-for-profit+or+charitable+organisations?openDocument
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
A “Company Limited by Guarantee” is a publicly company listed with ASIC. It is by definition a “not-for-profit” company which cannot pay its director’s fees, and is required to make certain reports to ASIC each year. It does NOT have shareholders but members and directors, and the membership can be as low as 3.
It is the legal entity that allows the church to claim grants from the Government, purchase property, and restrict the liability of the company on its members in the case of it ‘folding’.
The company is subject to the same standards of governance and management as any other company.
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“The company is subject to the same standards of governance and management as any other company”.
So where are the detialed audited financials that are distrubuted to its Members…
When and where are the AGM’s and who attends … ?
Who elects the Board … ?
How many Charities are handed down from father to SOn … and allow the CEO to become a multi-millionairre ?
These guys get away with poor givernance - it would appear that Members are not truly Members, rather they are spiritual consumers with little or no rights.
Not even (spiritual) consumer protection!
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Lionfish - the reality is that the company can be established with as few as 3 members, who are all then elected as directors. The people in the ‘church’ are not necessarily members - that would be an incorporated association, not a company limited by guarantee
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Janet McK
Yes, you are right. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. Point being of course, as you say, it is a separate legal entity.
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
That’s intriguing Janet - as I have the Hillsong Church Financials … you are correct in that Hillsong Church is referred to as “Hillsong Church Ltd - a company Limited by Gurantee”.
So Hillsong is infact a company and not a Church ?
In addition I notice that there is Hillsong Church Inc from which Hillsong Ltd hires the auditorium … is this the organisation to which members belong? Then where are the financials?
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Tonight met an associate on the train who periodically attends John Finkelde’s Church in Hepburn Heights.
According to my friend - John revently informed his congregation (paraphrased) “that these well publicized issues (ie. Hillsong etc) are purely a the views of a small number of disaffected people “who have not had their needs met by the Church” … but there are 19,000 ‘happy people in Hillsong”.
I guess people must be talking and its all having an impact!
May 24th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Lionfish: These guys get away with poor givernance
Is that another typo? From what I’ve read here, Hillsong has excellence “givernance”!
May 24th, 2006 at 12:13 am
“……………but there are 19,000 ‘happy people in Hillsong”. ”
They may be happy and clapping, and I sincerely wish them well, but if they are being taught the wrong message about what they must do to be acceptable to God, then, I’m afraid they won’t stay happy for very long. And this is the whole point that Geoff Bullock was trying to make in this article in The Australian.
I hope someone from Hillsong is reading this blog.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Actually, I would like to add something to my last post. I have read some transcripts of interviews with Brian Houston, where he is questioned about some views put forward by former Baptist President Tim Costello (who now heads World Vision I think). Tim believes Hillsong preaches prosperity teaching and that the church is not sufficiently accountable and transparent about how much the pastors are paid. Brian’s answer was that Tim was jealous. Oh dear…… Firstly, the Baptists are a well established and highly respected denomination with good community services in Austalia and good overseas aid. Plus theyare recording good growth.
Jealousy? I don’t think so. Seeking truth? Absolutely……
It troubles me that Brian is seems so dismissive of other church leaders views. I am also troubled by the fact that he was so motivated by a car dealership when he was first starting out. What’s that all about????
May 24th, 2006 at 1:29 am
I often get a feeling that people believe more in their church then in God. Could that be where many of the problems lie. My church does this, my church says that, my church tells me I have to do this. Perhaps this is the error of our ways. A church is place to go and worship and gather together - it is not God, nor is it what defines a Christian. If it did, then we should live in much more peaceful world then we currently do.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:05 am
In addition I notice that there is Hillsong Church Inc from which Hillsong Ltd hires the auditorium … is this the organisation to which members belong?
Ho, I’d love an experts opinion on this set up. It sounds like a great tax dodge and if they ever want to fold it’s the directors of Hillsong Ltd (the handful) which can sell the assets and disperse them as they wish while the Inc members (church people???) don’t get a say.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:14 am
Nope I think I got that the wrong way around.