Welcome to Crikey subscribers
Well signposts copped a mention in today’s crikey subscriber’s email for some of our recent discussions about the articles published by the Australian newspaper about Hillsongs, featuring one of our commenters Geoff Bullock. If you have come here via there, welcome. Have a look around.
[PS how cool are we?]
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
What did it say?
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
An excerpt from the piece in question:
Since Sexton’s article appeared, debate has raged on the internet about Hillsong’s method and philosophy. Signposts has had plenty of discussion, with Hillsong dissenter Geoff Bullock, a central figure in the story, weighing in.
It went on to reference a number of other sites and blogs who commented on the depression issue. I think that we should make up some sort of icon for those card-carryin “Hillsong dissenters”.
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Thanks!!! Really interesting site - the Crikey link brought me here but I will visit again.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 am
I am not a Hillsong Dissenter. I am simply a man who has a sad story that should be told so as to provide others the comfort of empathy. In the end, grace can only be defined and appreciated in the light of our failings.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:33 am
you truly are cool! nice work…
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Can a cool site engage in heated debate?
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
I came here from Crikey and have found it enlightening to say the least.
Geoff Bullock i have been wondering where you have been….
Steve, i have been reading your posts wondering who you actually are….
I have just got out of Hillsong’s clutches after about 5 or 6 years. I was in leadership there in the Worship and Creative Arts Department and was a some time singer on platform based in the City and worship leader at the Miranda extension service. I almost completed the two years of Hillsong international Leadership college.
Hillsong is basically blessed to be blessed. It preaches a lot of things but does not actually walk out the walk.
Brian talks about integrity but allows himself and the church to perpetuate half truths (which are merely deceptions by any other name).
It is true, Hillsong takes in a lot of money. But what is actually spent in the community helping people? Very very little and never without a camera present.
The website claims “Children sponsored by Hillsong Church so far: 2957″
http://www2.hillsong.com/church/default.asp?pid=172
Well as a collective of Christians called “The Church” yes the people of Hillsong Church sponsor that many kids but Hillsong as an organisation does not sponsor one kid. So where does the money go?
For a church of 19,000 people they employ Patoral Care staff of 5 or 6. How could they possibly be able to pastor 19,000 people? Easy, you are not supposed to have a problem!
I used to head up a “Street Team”. We would go out into the Waterloo community to try and help people and build relationships with them. When we tried to fix people’s houses in small ways, do you think there was a budget? No! What ever we did we had to resource ourselves.
The only time money materialised was when we painted a house for some people and Brian turned up to paint with Assistant Commisioner of Police Andrew Scippione, oh and the cameras!
So what happened to the “Hope” ministry serving breakfast to homeless people in Surry Hills on Saturday mornings? Oh, that is not in the vision of the church….That was another ministry funded by the people not the church.
As for the worship team….wow! Where do i start? Firstly, I stopped attending Hillsong in February. I did not tell any one, I just didn’t turn up anymore. Has anyone called? Of course not!
You see, i broke off an engagement to one of the other singers because she was violent and abusive and smashed windows in my house and tried to run over me several times in her car. My problem is that i am a sole parent of three kids and I have limited time and financial resources.
My Ex has been embraced by Hillsong, while I have been cast out! She is still in ministry even though pastoral care and the W&CA leadership have been told about her behaviour and abuse.
I worked closely on the “For all you’ve done” CD arranging vocal parts in a little room with Darlene, Marty, Reuben, Ray Badham, Miriam, Steve Macca and Steve Ollis among a few others. But no one has even picked up a phone.
I try to think the best and think that all of my ex friends are busy, “doing the Lords work”. But i do realise that in Hillsong when someone goes they just disappear…..
It is true, if you question anything you are looked upon as something of a freak!
Hillsong is a church that preaches behaviour modification not heart transformation.
There are some very weird things going on in Hillsong! Pshycological techniques are used to manipulate people in their most vulnerable times. Everyone is called to be loyal to “the vision” not Christ.
Who’s church are you really building Brian?
And despite what George may have told you Steve, they do reallocate finances!
A few years ago Brian Launched the “Kingdom People” giving program saying that ‘he had received fresh revelation from God to raise 5 million dollars during the year. 5 million for 5 ministries. No longer would most of the money go into building the temple out at Norwest!’
We guess what? God blessed the giving program and they raised over 6 million dollars….and where did it go? Oh 5 million retired debt on the Conference centre and the Ice Rink…(What the Hell is the church doing with an Ice Rink that can’t make money?) so much for the community programs and other things the 5 millions were supposed to go to.
So did God change His mind or did Brian disobey or did Brian just make it all up?
These are some of the reasons why i have left Hillsong but the main one is that Church is supposed to be a place of community. There is no community in Hillsong Church, even when you think you have made it into the inner sanctum.
I would like to here more of Geoff’s story. The name Geoff Bullock is surrounded by silence ans gossip and inuendo in Hillosng church! I would love to know the real story of the man who wrote such beautiful songs.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Welcome Neil. I’m so sorry that you have walked the journey that some of us others have also walked. The silence IS deafening isn’t it when one disagrees or walks away- it is as if they never existed.
I’d love to talk to you some more - please get my email from Dan if you wish.
We have alot in common.
Bless you.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:09 am
“The name Geoff Bullock is surrounded by silence ans gossip and inuendo in Hillosng church!”
Gossip certainly gets around in churches, for better or worse. Increasingly more people will be hearing about the discussions on this site, and we can expect an increase in the traffic here.
The the new information age brought on by the printing press was one thing which helped the reformation of Luther’s day along. The advent of the internet is another leap to a new information age - thinkers around the world are brought together in a way that didn’t happen in the paper era. This is one reason that the missional revolution and other emerging trends are happening in the church so much in this generation.
The complaints about some of the practice of much of the Church sit on this blog and elsewhere like Luther’s 95 theses posted on the cathedral door.
We must pray that God brings about the right kind of reformation. Now and in the coming weeks, members of megachurches are going to come here and read these interminable threads which hold up a mirror to their churches. There’s a lot of sad honest stories, a lot of evidence of investigation, a lot of taking the piss. Hopefully these visitors will see through the latter.
No doubt the big-name leaders we’ve discussed will have had a look.
(My church history is vague, I hope I get this right)
In Luther’s reformation, there wasn’t much of a Protestant church for people to escape to, whereas now there are plenty of churches around if anyone wants to fellowship somewhere else. But Luther’s aim wasn’t to call people into another institution, but to call the Church out of error. And we want to do likewise, though the laity will sooner move to a different structure than the clergy fix the structure.
My parents’ church gets many of its new people from the “revolving door” of a megachurch 4km away - I wonder how much this will continue.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Oh Neil - my heart goes out to you.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:11 am
That truely sucks Niel - welcome to signposts. Ho does Brian sleepo at night? Probably very soundly and doesn’t give the people his empire has hurt another thought. We shuold organise a group to go and confront him and his leadership. Not that that would do any goo -we;’d all be labelled lunies and carted off by their security gaurds
May 4th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Hi Neil, welcome to the church of the dispossessed; or as urbanMonk might say, ‘welcome to the church of the disenfranchised’.
You said: “Everyone is called to be loyal to “the vision” not Christ.”
This touches, methinks, on the very essense of the problem; Paul said, “we preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified.” Any other message that purports to be the gospel - no matter how wonderful the “vision” - is nothing less than “a different gospel”.
Hi Eric, you bring to our attention the spread of the disease:
“But Luther’s aim wasn’t to call people into another institution, but to call the Church out of error. And we want to do likewise, though the laity will sooner move to a different structure than the clergy fix the structure.”
This is what my wife and i have found. We removed ourselves from the church denomination where the pastors’ vision has (hopefully not in all pastors hearts - can only speak of what we know) superceded the message of the Cross. After some time wandering as members of the church of the dispossessed, we found ourselves in fellowship with some Churches of Christ folk - we felt “almost” at home, contributed in various ways and regularly shared in the ministry. This continued for over 2 years, but … just as we thought our sojourn among the church of the dispossessed may have come to an end, the church appointed elders decided it was time get with the program. “We need to run this church more like a business, we need to get a ‘vision’, we need to look to HS and do more of what they are doing …” I don’t want to be harsh or judge the motives of the elders; but we could feel the chill winds of a “different gospel”. I spoke as i believed was in keeping with Scripture to do so, then we quietly continued our sojourn … We have been in fellowship with some Baptists for some months now; nice sincere God fearing loving, trusting folk. When we first visited, the gospel was preached without compromise. Just a few weeks later and the retiring pastor announced that the church council had made the decision to appoint an Intentional Interim Minister who would lead the church in a new direction; lead us into Covenant Agreement … The wind is blowing, i have spoken a warning to the pastor; he has some concerns with the current push for church growth at the expense of truth …. but you have to understand James … At least we know now that we belong to the church of the dispossessed, so when the time comes for us to leave (or be pushed), the pain of separation may be a little less intense. … sorry if this just sounds like drivel
The tenticles of the New Paradigm heresy, in the guise, inter alia, of the pastors “vision” for church growth are reaching into the hearts and minds of church leaders everywhere.
A thought come to mind; is it the “structure” per se that needs fixing, or is it the message itself …
May 4th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Welcome Neil, thanks for sharing.
James, a bit of a journey for you too and good to hear some of what you have been experiencing. Hang in there, while the church growth success and shiny lights paradigm shift is a popular one in established churches, some of the paradigm shifts going on around the place are different.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
James:
“You said: “Everyone is called to be loyal to “the vision” not Christ.”
This touches, methinks, on the very essense of the problem; Paul said, “we preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified.” Any other message that purports to be the gospel - no matter how wonderful the “vision” - is nothing less than “a different gospel.”
Thanks James…..I think you finally got something right. And this, I believe, is the foundation of what brings all of us “spiritual misfits” together.
We’ve made the mistake of recognizing and calling into question those “different gospels” and now we bear the wounds and scars in our bodies as a witness.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Hi Neil, mate, what can I say, it must sting so deeply. Feel free to email me:
geoffbullock@bigpond.com
May 4th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
TABY wrote, “Thanks James…..I think you finally got something right. ” I shall soon be deeply grateful, just got to stop laughing … i’ll keep reading your posts and, if and when it becomes possible, return the compliment
Dan, thank you for your encouragement! Wonder if you and others are aware that a “Paradigm Shift” cannot occur. No such thing. Change the paradigm, by definition, you have a new paradigm. Those with a mathematics orientation will know this. Its not my intention to play semantics and i realise the word “paradigm” is the new buzz word. But do you think that clever rhetoric could be used as a means for the surreptitious infiltration of a different gospel?
Anyway, TABY and Dan, thanks for the encouragement!
May 4th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
James you said “But do you think that clever rhetoric could be used as a means for the surreptitious infiltration of a different gospel?”
Yes, yes yes!!!
There have been certain buzz words throught the past couple of decades of church history which have been loaded with meaning that went far beyond the
surface: eg “vision” “loyalty” “giving” “leadership”……..
I hear some of these words these days and shudder involuntarily!
May 4th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Jane, are you trying to push our pain Buttons? ” “vision” “loyalty” “giving” “leadership”……..” What about “submit” “obey” “first fruits” “miracle offering” … You push my buttons, ill push yours …
Seriously tho, are you familiar with Neuro Linguistic Programming NLP; if not, and you can tolerate some further outrage, you might find a google search on the term … more food for involuntary shuddering!
May 4th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
AAuugghhh - “submit” “obey”…….I’m writhing in agony…..
And yes, I do know what NLP is :-O
We seem to be speaking the same code ….er….language
“equal sacrifice” “attitude”
take that!!
May 4th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
“apostle” “prophet” “RESISTER”
May 4th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
My experience of Forge… a key organisation in the emerging missional church phenomenon in Australia… is that it is committed to “Jesus is Lord” at the core. It is looking to rediscover ways to do and be church in the cause of the mission of Christ… not to be trendy for the sake of it, or to promote a different gospel. From where I sit, I sense the wind of the Spirit is blowing… and those dispossessed from the institutional church just might be being swept up in a “God thing”. Early days I know… that’s my gut feeling for what it’s worth.
Some branches of the institutional church are looking to copy the Hillsong phenomenon for their own survival. Very sad… if only they’d listen to the Spirit, and look for ways to serve their local communities, I think we’d see much more life and growth and health in local churches. As it is, the house church movement, and number of the dispossessed in general, seem to be growing as many local churches decline.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
My final shot……
“Super Apostle!!!”
May 4th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
You win! How would you have us think? o mighty Supper Dish
May 4th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Don’t think - just “show me the money!”
May 4th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Phil & Dan, just read the unveiled threat on the HS thread. Thank you for your courage in providing a forum for the wounded. We shall pray!
May 4th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
“Don’t think - just “show me the money!” ” Hey Jane, that’s just what my wife and daughter both say … is this some sort of a feminist conspiracy
Found your comment sooooo funny, yet poignant too!
May 4th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“is this some sort of a feminist conspiracy”
possibly…..or simply a legacy of my aog staff days….
May 4th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
its coming clear … just trust you …
May 4th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
doh…something happened to my post?!
Bull…something tells me that you’re not interested in engaging on this, so I’ll skip over the “GOD IS NOT MALE!” bit and tell you that I found you interpretation of Genesis down right sexist and patronising.
Genesis Chapter 3 has been used to prove woman’s inferiority to man and her responsibility for evil in the world. The ‘proof’ of this is that the serpent, the spirit of evil, realized that the man was too strong to overcome, and so approached the woman who was weaker, less intelligent, and more easily seduced. As Swidler suggests, this reading is illogical, as it assumes that the serpent was superior to the woman and able to lead her astray, but that the man was superior to the woman even though it was she that led him astray. Trible points out that any reading of the text is mere speculation, stimulated by the silence of the text as to why the serpent speaks to the woman and not the man. In light of this silence, speculations supporting patriarchy point to the mind that conceived them rather than anything that is found in the text. Elsewhere, she notes that the serpent addresses the woman with plural verb forms, suggesting that she is the spokesperson for the human couple. This feminist mind speculates that the woman is able to discuss theology with a snake, and that she is regarded by the snake as the spokesperson for the human couple. The woman is practical for she is able to see that the tree is a good source of food, she is able to perceive beauty, and she hungers after knowledge:
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it (Gen 3.6)
Meyer argues that woman is “the first human being to utter language, which is the utterly quintessential mark of human life” This is incorrect because man clearly has the first word in 2.23, but as Kimelman notes, the woman is the dominant speaker in chapter 3 and it is her presence that renders the human eloquent.
Meaning is actualized through the reader’s response, and these readings are therefore valid ones, however they overlook the social and historical context of the narrative. Gardner notes that the mythological background to chapter 3 suggests that the tree is to be recognized as the goddess, and that worship of her is in conflict with that of Yahweh. The narrative is in fact a warning against worship of the goddess, and history indicates that women were attracted to the worship of the goddess and introduced their menfolk to her cult.
Bal, for whom character is central to understanding the text, notes that woman’s disobedience is the first independent act. By contrast, the man might be seen as acquiescent, taking the fruit from the woman (3.7). While woman acts first and puts another god before Yahweh, man is not absolved of blame. Westermann says that the man is ready to avoid a decision, where possible, and allow others to decide for him. Trible is far more blunt, describing him as “belly-oriented”, acquiescent, and without initiative. She says;
If the woman is intelligent, sensitive, and ingenious, the man is passive, brutish, and inept.
Trible is not a misandrist however – she recognizes that men and women are portrayed differently not so as to make universal statements about men and women, but to communicate that “[b]oth activity and passivity, initiative and acquiescence, are equal modes of lawlessness”
This perception of the man is only fueled as the narrative goes on. Yahweh, seeking out the couple who are hiding among the trees, calls out to the man, “where are you?” (3.9) While Yahweh’s address of the man could be interpreted as indicating the headship of the man, Trible suggests that that it is individual treatment that indicates the increased tension within the unity of the couple. When Yahweh asks the man whether he has eaten from the tree (3.11), the man says, “the woman you put here with me, she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it (3.12). Difference is now a source of division – man’s feminine complement is no longer “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” but “the woman.” The man firstly betrays woman, then blames God, only after that does he confess. The feminist reader sees the man as either too foolish to remember the commandment given by Yahweh to humanity, or too quick to claim, as a child would, that “she made me do it”. Interestingly, Yahweh appears to accept the man’s account of the woman’s role in his disobedience, and accuses her, asking ‘what is this you have done?’ The woman responds similarly to the man, accepting responsibility only after she has blamed the serpent for deceiving her (3.13). Trible notes, however, that the woman does not blame God; she does not implicate man; and she confesses more quickly than the man.
Having questioned the man and the woman, Yahweh delivers judgment. Like most modern-day judges, Yahweh’s judgment is structured to consist of the charges against the party (“because you…”), observations as to the socio-economic impacts of those transgressions (3.16, 3.17-19) and determination of punishment (3.22-24). Although the serpent and the earth are cursed (3.14, 3.17), the woman or the man are not. God instead says, “I will increase your pains in childbearing” (3.16) and “through painful toil you will eat of [the ground]” (3.17). Although it is by God’s action that the man and woman suffer, they are not cursed by God, they are merely told what will in fact happen in the future. God is not prescribing the way things should be, but is describing what will be due to humanity’s disobedience. While man and woman were created equal (chapter 2), because of their transgression all of nature becomes disordered: the natural world and the human world are now in opposition (3.15, 3.17-18), the woman’s body in childbirth is no longer under her control (3.16), and woman and man are no longer equals but are sub- and super-ordinate to one another (3.16) and are confined to different areas of work (3.16 cf 3.17). A woman’s subordination to man is not an ideal, any more than pain in childbirth is – it is the result of sin, and a fact of existence. Trible says that the woman desires the original unity between male and female, but that the man will not reciprocate – woman’s subordination is not a divine decree by the result of shared disobedience. She notes that the man does not name the woman until verse 20, evoking the exercise of dominion over the animals in 2.19-20.
Meyer disputes that 3.16 is connected with the act of disobedience, noting the discrete character of the oracles in 3.14-19. She recognizes that the narrative contains myth, aetiology and wisdom teaching that must be understood in its social and historical setting. For Myers, 3.16 is addressed to Israelite women living and working in the harsh Canaanite highlands, in a situation demanding intense agricultural labour and the need to significantly increase the population. Myers explicitly rejects a canonical reading of the text, and says that the oracles are discrete and have an independent etiological force. God’s pronouncements are independent, divine sanctions for societal conditions.
Yahweh then punishes the couple, banishing ha adam from the garden of Eden to “work the ground from which it had been taken” (3.22-24). The source of woman is not mentioned, and Trible argues that the story not only reports the post-Fall subordination of woman, but actually embodies it.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Hey that looks like a Lance-post.