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 24th, 2006 at 3:00 am
I had dinner last week with someone who’s immersed in the corporate world.
His company is at the centre of litigation involving corporate regulators..
One thing I asked him was about the abilities of financial and company watchdogs to adequately investigate dodgy stuff.
I suppose I had this picture in my mind of public service nerds who rarely ventured outside their offices having a tough time keeping up with the boys from the big end of town.
He assured me that the corporate and financial regulators are the best guys and girls in the game…and they are very much on top of their game.
It would be very unwise for any Australian church.. to be pulling a fast one…and thinking they could bullshit their way through it..
May 24th, 2006 at 7:52 am
It would be very unwise for any Australian church.. to be pulling a fast one…and thinking they could bullshit their way through it
I don’t think ASIC is interested in churches, only companies and other entities that it has legislative power to regulate. And as we have seen, this includes Hillsong. Because Hillsong is a company (or a series of companies), contrary to the lies proffered by Geoff Bollocks.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Hey DD… what lies? Do not descend to name calling. If you wish to put an opinion forward have the character to do it without the shallowness of throwing a unsubstanciated insult. Where do you think I have lied. Surely Mr Duck I have been rather honest, don’t you think.. unusually honest for someone with my profile.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:28 am
It also bothers me that, once again, pastors feel free to make comments about my character and intentions from the power, position and trust of their pulpits. I know that Hillsong reads this blog.. hi guys… so, have the integrity to stop the side taking. I am simply trying to tell the story of my family’s involvement with a church that has become Hillsong. If HS feels the need to defend themselves against a few people that have been hurt by their practices then they must have a sense of their own weakness. How on earth could I make a single dent in the enormous walls surrounding this unprecendented institution… .If the leadership has a problem with what I am saying, write to me.
geoffbullock@bigpond.com
Finally, again to DD… mate, I was an elder untill 1993, and part of BH’s “Vision Team until 1995. At that time the church was called Hills Christian Life Centre Incorporated. I feel pretty pissed off by your post. Pissed off and hurt.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:31 am
525 DD… Hillsong is not a company.
It appears that those in leadership at Hillsong develop an ability to deceive and mislead people. Examples have been presented on this blog demonstrating the dodgy theology inconsistent comments made with respect to financial dealings, and shocking disregard for the personal welfare of employees and church goers. People immersed in this leadership culture of deceit could develop a habit that is hard to shake off even when they leave.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Yes DD, but, where did I lie? Also, you do realise that I have not been in ‘leadership’ at Hillsong for almost 11 years
May 24th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Ok… just read throiugh the posts… obviously I am wrong… sorry… but, DD, why the heck would I lie… I simply made a mistake. I was tring to be a minister, and a pastor, I thought I was serving God, the business stuff was something that the finacial side of the board was working on. My understanding was that we were setting a a non profit framework to allow us to be more effective and to build a structure that would allow for good governace and transperancy. Do not tar me with their brush, please.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Geoff says DD… Hillsong is not a company
ASIC says:
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
Who do we believe Geoff or the Australian Securities & Investments Commission?
May 24th, 2006 at 8:43 am
DD… why do you think I am trying to protect HS? You don’t need to fight me. I am simply answering you from what I thought was the situation. The point I was making was that, when Hills was incorporated there was no ‘ownership’.. no one was deemed to own the place and reap the rewards. Ok?
May 24th, 2006 at 9:00 am
So DD, have I cleared that up sufficiently? Was I lying? or simply misinformed? Is this conversation where grace leads us? Attack, defence, accusation, clarification, insult, hurt.. is this the answer for all Hillsong’s wrongs? The problem is that as soon as one feels they are ‘right’ they sense the ‘rights’ to blow those who are wrong out of the water with insults and name calling. Tell me, what is the diffence between Hillsong’s attitude and the attitude of “contrary to the lies proffered by Geoff Bollocks”?
May 24th, 2006 at 9:07 am
You have cleared this up with your usual integrity, Geoff. I do understand you are now far removed from Hillsong and what Hillsong has developed into.
Apologies for any offence caused.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Reading How on earth could I make a single dent in the enormous walls surrounding this unprecendented institution… I can’t help but get the, perhaps inappropriate thought that “Joshua fit the battle of Jerico”… and David got Goliat right between the eyes!
So, maybe it is the mouse against the lion - but we do have the word of Jesus that “there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light”.
Also, for anyone having been involved in “covering up”, the promise of Eph 5,19 is real: all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light (sorry, that particular verse reads better in Danish -but NKJV is the only English Translation I’ve got)
Anyway, whatever our former stand, abuser or victim, we are always welcome to become a part of the exposure of the “dark deeds, done in secret”, and join in the “bring light, bring hope”-movement!!
May 24th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Thanks DD… much appreciated… I am rather hypersensitive, and I am sure that it shows from time to time.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:23 am
I agree with Geoff DD. Leave him out of it.
I know “Companies Limited by Guarantee”, where the company was the legal authority that had legal right to own buildings, open bank accounts, make investments and take out loans etc. This company then operates a totally separate organisation - in this case the “church”. Those involved with the church have NO input into the company, or in most cases, knowledge about what the company does, unless they are a member or director. Geoff has stated he was NOT a member of the company, and in all liklihood, knows NOTHING of its activities.
Why do they set up as a company? Any and every church MUST (by that I mean organisation, not just groups of Christians who meet together) have a legal entity to function in today’s society. Some churches are incorporated associations which have a membership, and are run by a duly elected committee - just like the P&C or netball club. Others are monstorous organisations like the Anglican or Uniting church - and all assets are held in the name of the organisation, and each local congregation has the right to make local decisions, and in other ways have to “obey” the dictates of the organisation.
Other churches go the route of being a Company limited by guarantee. They will have written into their articles of association that their purpose is to establish and run a church, and in the case of the other companies you have listed - I believe (I may be wrong) that Hillsong Emerge runs the social action part of the church. I suspect that the Hillsong Church Company runs the church functions, and the Hills Centre runs things like the music, books. But I do not know this for sure. Actually, if you go to the http://www.asic.gov.au site, and do a search for company by name, you will find that there are many more companies who use the name Hillsong.
The information that these companies are required to submit to ASIC each year is public information, and you can (for a fee) ask for this information from a large number of companies on the net who provide this service. Let me assure you, I have seen the documents that get lodged, and they are boring, and simple. Names of directors, statement that the AGM was called at the right time, statement that the AGM was conducted, the minutes of the AGM (now that was boring and short) and probably the annual return prepared by the accountant. How much of that information you can access, I don’t know.
This *is*all legal and above board. But let me tell you, you will *not*find the juicy information that I suspect you are trying to find. While they are public companies, the information is public to the *members*of that company. They are not publicly listed, and nor do they have shareholders. They are *not* subject to Freedom of Information laws (those laws are only relevant to *government* organisations), and your legal right to access inside information on these companies is probably very limited.
They *cannot* sell up the assets of the company and distribute it among themselves, they can *only* distribute the assets to *another* not-for-profit company/organisation which has the same basic intention as the original company - that is the legislation in being a not-for-profit company.
OK - in case you are wondering - I have nothing to do with Hillsong, I have never lived in or near Sydney, and nor am I associated in any way with the Assemblies of God. Nor am I a lawyer. However, in some of my previous work I have written policies and procedures for a Company Limited by Guarantee, where I had to do a great deal of research about how a company runs, and what legal requirements they had to undertake.
May 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
jannet - thanks. As I have said before, I am sure Hillsong, like Scientology or any other cashed up cult would comply with their *minimum* statuatory obligations.
They know exactly what they can get away with - and their successful formula would have been honed and refined over many years.
There is too much at stake not too … particularly losing priveldges like taxation expemtions on operating companies and music sales.
The problem lies with the eway that they leverage the privledges that the enjoy as a *religious organisation”.
It is difficult if not impossible to legislate on dodgy theology, (eg. prosperity theology, tithing), manipulative fund raising activities (like stirring up a frenzy with talk of a coming revival whilst asking for money above and beyond the tithe), having a secretive business model where undisclosed *unjustifiable* amounts of money exchange hands, and hvaing a governance structure where members are reduced to *spiritual consumers*.
There is a distinction between ‘doing the right thing’ (nudge, nudge) and ‘Doing the right thing.
May 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
The http://www.asic.gov.au national names index, shows the above three companies plus HILLSONG CHURCH INCORPORATED, which is a Registered Australian Body. The remaining usage of the Hillsong name appears to be in business names registered in NSW.
Note the use of the “Ltd” (or Limited) in the name of the these companies. Quoting from the ASIC website:
A company limited by guarantee may also be registered without the word “Limited” in its name. This is only possible if its constitution:
requires the company to pursue charitable purposes only and to apply its income promoting those purposes; and
prohibits the company making distributions to its members and paying fees to its directors; and
requires the directors to approve all other payments the company makes to directors.
Question: Why do Hillsong use “Ltd” in the names of their limited-by-guarantee companies?
Lionfish, have you purchased further information on the directors and members of these companies. You may also be able to purchase historical data. If so, looking at the relationships between the directors and members may offer some insights. Obviously there is not much that can be done with the publically available information.
Geoff, I am surprised that you were kept out of the “inner sanctum” (so to speak) of the corporate structures. This suggests a certain level of secrecy.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
[Further information from the ASIC website:]
Company name must indicate its legal status
A company name must indicate the company’s legal status. A proprietary company must include the word ‘Proprietary’ or the abbreviation ‘Pty’ in its name.
A company must also indicate the liability of its members in its name:
if the liability is limited, the company name must end with the word ‘Limited’ or the abbreviation ‘Ltd’.
if the liability is not limited, the company must end its name with the words ‘No liability’ or the abbreviation ‘N.L.’
However liability doesn’t have to be shown if we have given the company an exemption under section 150 of the Act. We only give this exemption when the company has been formed for non-commercial objectives, such as a charity or benevolent organisation. [My emphasis]
[Definition of limited by guarantee]
Limited by guarantee means the liability of the company’s members is limited to the amount the members undertake to contribute to the property of the company if it is wound up.
[Change of company type]
During the life of your company, you may decide to change your company type.
The activities or nature of your company may have altered so much that the existing company type no longer suits you.
Changing company type is a serious step to take so we recommend you seek legal advice if you are considering making such a change.
[It goes on to say that a company limited by guarantee can be changed to the following]
public company limited by shares
unlimited public company
proprietary company limited by shares
unlimited proprietary company
[This means, subject to legal advice, the above companies could become pty ltd companies at any time]
May 24th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
DD, this sort of stuff really doesn’t make any difference. Most companies limited by guarantee will show themselves as “LTD” in their name. To avoid it is an exception which you have to apply for. So I don’t know that you should draw anything from the fact that they use the term in the names of their companies. It is standard practice.
May 24th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Hello again Geoff,
I have been trying to keep an eye on The Australian since the article came out. I noticed a few reader comments in the Weekend Magazine (of the Australian) the following weekend, but I have missed seeing the paper a few days. Has Hillsong made any response to the article in the Australian or any other newspaper that you know of? Or has it made any public response outside the church that you know of? Have you been offered any kind of apology?
Thanks in advance.
May 24th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
DD,
Please don’t feel the need to have a go at Geoff or anybody else . If you wish to have a look at the Hillsong accounts they are filed with AISC - you can get a copy for about $25.00. There is nothing remotely exciting about them - Hillsong files their accounts every year and they employ an auditor like most people .
The fact that Geoff doesn’t know everything about the corporate structure means exactly that - it doesn’t suggest a level of secrecy - that was a long time ago . I attended the church for a number of years and I had absolutely no interest in the corporate structure .
May 24th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Hi Ann, other than a few writers who felt the need to defend HS, there has been silence. Not a word.
May 24th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Thanks Janet (and I too don’t live in Sydney, have nothing to do with AOG etc). I think Lionfish has summarised the issue here.
I don’t think HS set out to become what it did in the way it did. It’s just gotten to this point, as have most “corporate churches”, by being based on shallow theology and blinded by its own “success” (even though we would question the measure of “success” - most of it is marketing 101 except they are marketing shyte).
Sure lots of businesses operate legally but not ethically (eg by exploiting loopholes in laws to effectively get tax free loads) or peddle junk but the people of God are not called to swallow the ethos of the world. That would hardly make us salt and light. The OT for example is full of admonitions about justice - not just to the poor, the widow, the orphan and the resident alien - but also to those who trade and do business: let you weights and measures be fair.
The more I have looked at this in the last couple of weeks, particularly with the mad networking frenzy HS has become not just a promulgator of a false gospel but more akin to the pyramid selling scheme that characterizes Scientology.
Also I thought DD’s attack on Geoff was a cheap shot. I read Geoff’s statement too and thought he was referring to public company (issuing shares, paying dividends etc) in which case his statement was true both when he was there and now. Glad that got sorted but now with DD’s carry on about LTD as well, I still wonder if DD should be a fundie given his continual literalist, contextless interpretations.
May 24th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Geoff - I cannot believe how you respond to people who ask you to defend yourself. To me it shows your willingness to be open and forthright. i know there is no such thing as a christian celebrity (in heaven) but this is the earth and you seem to have that status. Can you imagine Carman or Twila Paris writing on this blog to any tom, DUck or Harry who makes inquisition ( as in Joan of Arc type). I like to read your posts - what would YOU like to have a blog about -issue wise, what is on your heart?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:59 am
This might give some perspective as to where I have been coming from with regard to my earlier comment:
“ I am sure Hillsong, like Scientology or any other cashed up cult would comply with their *minimum* statuatory obligations.
They know exactly what they can get away with - and their successful formula would have been honed and refined over many years.
There is too much at stake not too … particularly losing priveldges like taxation expemtions on operating companies and music sales”.
A close relative of mine was ripped of by some very charismatic con-men some years ago in an elaborate swindle which was perfectly *legal* … along with 14 other families across Australia.
These guys went to great lengths to deceive people to buying into a Business franchise.
They had a flash office set up (in the same office block as a notable movie star) in Sydney - complete with office staff, ran a training course, has sample equipment, had slick branding and advertising … and then when he mortgaged his house and handed over $100K to buy into the Business franchise – they disappeared. (My relative lost one of the smallest amounts of money in the gig!)
The ACCC has been trying to prosecute the same operators for years (the consistently rerun the same scam) – but cannot due to loopholes in Corporations law (i.e. do a google search on “Phoenix Companies”).
The operators were friendly and charismatic, and as my relative remarked they ”made you feel as if you were their best friend”.
He now knows why they were like that and why they asked certain questions….like how much your house worth is, what car you drive.
The Business really appealed to my A close realatives desire to be successful – so he was prepared to be daring enough to take some risks and have the ‘right attitude’ to ‘dream big’ and to achieve something with his life. They spoke fast and smart and knew all the “right” lines…
My relative’s error was that:
1) he did not act on his intuition that some things JUST too seem too good to be true - and something may be wrong … as much as he did not want it to be.
2) he did not do a due diligence on the directors
3) he was too proud to ask for an external perspective and
4) he did not really analyze how the operators were ‘making their money from the deal (Like in Amway the only people who make money are the owners of Amway and those on the motivational speaking circuit and sell the tapes and CD”s). (I was told by one Senior Pastor that “Amway was how Pat Mesiti had made his money”.
5) He was far too emotionally engaged in the Dream that was sold to him!
I am a Business Analyst by Profession – (ie. I develop and implement Business models) and can see how some of the mega-churches appear to be operating.
I am not ‘emotionally’ tainted by my relatives own deceit so that I am “looking for reds under the bed” – it’s just that I have learned that not all thieves break into people houses or rob Banks. It has opened my eyes.
I have read much on swindles and stings and the mind of the swindler is such that he has little (if any) conscience of concern for his target … he will believe that it’s just a Business transaction, or a game.
In fact the swindler has a different perspective – and does not really know right from wrong! (I believe St Paul warned that there will be those after money that are deceived and will decieve.
I tell you this, because swindlers go to great lengths do deceive – as do false teachers.
Mark 13:22 “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect ”.
“Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion” Ron L Hubbard (Scientology Founder) Reader’s Digest, May 1980. Source: http://www.skeptictank.org/readdig.htm
And what could be better than setting up a Business operation that people ‘do not know that they are being deceived’ – but the operators deceitfully obtain (using dodgy theology and emotional manipulation) 10% of pre-tax income as well as resources over a lifetime into a tax-free entity and syphon the proceeds into other tax-free entity via a lucrative networked speaking circuit!.
All perfectly legal –but all so very wrong!
It’s a case of (spiritual) buyer beware!
“Avoid as you would the plague – the clergy man who is also the man of Business”. - St Jerome
I urge you to do your own homework people … separate the emotion from the facts. Be like the Beraeans in Act 17:11 and study to see if what we say is true! Don’t just trust Lionfish … Don’t just trust your Pastor! Find out what the scriptures and the facts do say and make your own decision!
Here are some questions to help you on the way!
-Where are the detailed financials of these Churches? Why will they not provide them upon request?
-Why are Members/Partners not even mentioned on the articles of association of these types of Churches and given no rights - and why are no AGM’s or elections held with input from Church Members/Partners? (All rights are handed over to “Trustee Members” who are the people on the Board –elected by the Board and the Senior Pastor).
-How can Churches in one networked denomination so easily be handed down from Father to Son?
-What is the process for electing Church Board Members?
-Is John Bevere’s “Shepherding” theology still operating in these Churches that ‘anointed leaders’ cannot be questioned?
-Why do Pastors (and direct family members) not declare their incomes from the Church like most mainline Churches do?
-Why is there so much secerecy of the newtorked speaking circuit?
-How is it that “unjustifiable amounts of money” are exchanging hands on the speaking circuit when there are so many community needs - even within their own Churches?
http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/web_2.jpg
-Why will these teachers refuse to communicate to honest requests for information on the (false) doctrine of tithing?
-And why do so many Leaders in related denominations assert that they do not have enough time to examine the doctrine properly - even though it is a core teaching that gets up to 15 minutes air-time at every service? http://www.signposts.org.au/2005/12/12/on-tithing#comment-137629
-Why are so many mega-church Pastors becoming multi-millionaires? Is it ethical to grow, sell your own products and profit from your emotionally engaged customer base - for which you have a responsibility to “Shepherd” and spiritually nurture … or just might there be a conflict of interest?
-Why does Brian Houston sharing the stage with WOF teachers Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn? Why s Benny Hinn endorsed by Phil Pringle? http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html
-Why is it that a Senior Pastor can be worthy of an CEO equivalent pay-packet – yet cannot recall for Public statements in the media whether “he makes his money as a Property Developer with a couple of guys from Church” or whether “he has never been a property developer”.
-Just who are the money hungry false teachers that St Paul warned us to flee from in 2 Timothy 6:10. How would you identify who they are? What would their teaching sound like? http://glowormdesign.com.au/shop/mesiti/shop-detail.php?productID=8
“If you have leaders there who teach otherwise, who refuse the solid words of our Master Jesus and this godly instruction, tag them for what they are: ignorant windbags who infect the air with germs of envy, controversy, bad-mouthing, suspicious rumors. Eventually there’s an epidemic of backstabbing, and truth is but a distant memory. They think religion is a way to make a fast buck.
A devout life does bring wealth, but it’s the rich simplicity of being yourself before God. Since we entered the world penniless and will leave it penniless, if we have bread on the table and shoes on our feet, that’s enough.
But if it’s only money these leaders are after, they’ll self-destruct in no time. Lust for money brings trouble and nothing but trouble. Going down that path, some lose their footing in the faith completely and live to regret it bitterly ever after”. 1 Tim 6:6-10 (Message)
-Why do you think that you cannot be deceived? Benny Hinn has a devoted following … Marjoe Gortner had a devoted following. Peter Popoff had a devoted following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff … even though he committed a televised fraud http://www.wdaftv4.com/fullstory.asp?ID=13700
…. And he still has a ministry and a following and peddles his books on “Prosperity Thinking” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff
-so then how can you be certain that your Pastor is different from ‘the others’ – yet he is standing in solidarity with others and making good money of the very same lucrative speaking circuit? (Remeber these people have children, friends and barbecues too!)
It’s all just not compliant with good common sense!
So if your Pastor tells you that people making these comments are simply ‘high maintenance people’ that “have not had their needs met by the Church” … tell him “that is True - these people have not had the questions answered intelligently and satisfactorily. Basic needs and basic rights of every congregation Member”.
And you should stop giving until you get answers to some basic questions!
Very, very basic questions … Indeed!
And if it takes to long to get satisfactory answers … then do as St Paul warns and “withdraw yourself from these teachers”.
“But you, Timothy, man of God: Run for your life from all this. Pursue a righteous life—a life of wonder, faith, love, steadiness, courtesy. Run hard and fast in the faith. Seize the eternal life, the life you were called to, the life you so fervently embraced in the presence of so many witnesses”. 1 1 Timothy 6:10 (Message)
That’s all for now …
Goodnight People!
Richard
May 25th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Superb post.
I would have put in a few more ‘fucks’ …but…
Superb post.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:00 am
Well said Lionfish.
Lance - I think I’ve said it before - you are a very naughy boy
May 25th, 2006 at 10:44 am
If you dont like the church you attend you have the right to leave.
Leave, find a good church & get on with life but from the sounds of many here, no such a place exists.
If this is the case then, in these last days, there is nothing for the true Christian but to sit at home isolated, bitter, twisted & hurting & make posts.
Doesnt sound Bible to me.
You all seem to have spotted the Harlot, where is the Bride?
May 25th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Can you imagine Carman or Twila Paris writing on this blog to any tom, DUck or Harry who makes inquisition
tom, Duck or Harry - ROTFLMFAO
May 25th, 2006 at 11:55 am
“…………I have read much on swindles and stings and the mind of the swindler is such that he has little (if any) conscience of concern for his target … ”
This reminds me of how I am feeling about Hillsong’s complete lack of public response to the article in Australian! In fact I am deeply saddened that they have not shown the public that they are willing to meet with Geoff (and the others in the article) to discuss his concerns and to apologise for any harm caused by their practices, even it totally unintended. This is the very least that is expected of pastoral care!
It appears that the church has closed ranks and remained silent. A genuine caring for people will not allow this attitude.
Surely there will be many in Hillsong church who would expect the leadership to at least make some sort of public reconcilation……
May 25th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Hey China Plate you state “Doesnt sound Bible to me”
Does Hillsong and the network of realted Churches sound Bible to you?