Hillsong conference 2006
Sorry to be slow on the uptake on this, but Hillsong 2006 is up and running. Anyone who wants to post reviews, discussion or articles about the 2006 conference, do it in this thread (just so we can try to keep things together a bit).
Ta muchly.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Akevin,
I am not sure how much of what passes for ‘church’ these days is actually consumer driven. This is a cynical view but I believe the market forces are driven from within. I can only comment on my own observations over 25 years of movements within Pentecostal culture.
Early eighties influx of new converts into Pentecostal culture, new converts (particularly young people) promised significance to God if - they gave until it hurt, fasted till they were ‘anointed’, prayed till Holy, served others selflessly and ’sacrifically’ within the local church you attended. Those already in ‘power’ made false promises -that of course could not be kept because the doctrine the ‘promises’ were based on was not sound. However many in leadership benefited from many peoples ’service’. Years and years of faithfulness of those newly converted in the early 1980’s. Now we have the second wave or probably more accurately a building on the the first wave, and who will benefit??? The children of the former leaders - most of whom are still in leadership in one form or another, the children who are now moving into strategic positions of ‘power’; it is in their best interests to up pressure for ‘commitment’ and keep the status firmly quo. And so the wheel perpetually reinvents itself to keep religious dynasties ‘powerful’ and ‘prosperous’.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Actually at this stage, many of the grandchildren are also moving into leadership positions….
July 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Daisy, but that is consumerism. It says if you pay this you get that. It says that experts are worthy of payment so they can let us in on their expertise. It means that the cycle continues, people are left unsatisfied with their spiritual lives, and their material lives, and they continue to “search” for real meaning by staying connect to the “empire” by buying the products, paying the taxes (tithes) and continuing a cycle of wanting what they don’t yet have. When the leadership admits that it does not have what they are looking for, and is just like them struggling and bumping their way through life, failing, and impoverished much of the time, they are quickly discarded as they do not uphold the empire.
rev
July 18th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Rev, I can see the truth of what you are saying. I’m not in that place yet.
When I talked about career-burnout I think it can be a positive thing. Ie. I can transition from being “the man” and focusing on what I can do for God, to having more appreciation of Grace and how it works in my life through other people, circumstances etc.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I think my point really is that “church” was a LOT simpler 30 years ago… but then, so was life. It’s not unusual to see people leave a small church to go to a larger one, because they think a larger one can do more. larger churches usually pander to the basic human desire to belong to something ’succesful” it’s just that success is measured by things (full parking lots, cool youth programs to pacify the kids) that are not really success.
Maybe i should say it this way = activity is easily confused for ministry and programs equated with ministry. It’s the appearance of success that, I think, most people want. Some of the reasoning for people that do not leave a facade is because they are addicted to the status of belonging to something succesful. (addicted to religion)
it’s a push/pull thing. The congregants are demanding more fuzzies and the ministry leadership wants to give them what they want. Sort of like - “having itching ears they will heap TO THEMSELVES teachers.”
July 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
There are a huge number of reasons why people might go to bigger, ‘more successful’ churches, among them the recognition that their kids need to be surrounded by other kids (I know lots of people that are fairly unhappy in their big, comfy-suburban churches, but they stay there because they know it’s good for their kids).
I agree that the appearance of “success” might be a draw card, but I know that the ability to “hide” in big churches is a huge one too. Ie you can rock up on Sundays, enjoy some good music (if that’s your definition of “good” music), wave your hands in the air or whatever it is that you do, have a quick coffee afterwards, and then nick off. I know of at least one person that went to one megachurch for years, and yet never knew anyone there…he’d arrive 5 minutes late (on purpose), and leave 5 minutes early…he just wanted to enjoy the “worship” and that was it.
Communities like the Rev’s are smaller and the expectations are much higher because of the philosophical/theological underpinnings. You can’t “hide” and you’ll probably be expected to get involved in some way. Burnout occurs in these contexts too, but in my experience it’s far less common than it is in the very big, very hierarchical/institutionalised churches, for the simple reason that there’s a more genuine sense of community and people are more likely to be able to look out for each other.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Oh…btw…the rocking up and not having to do much thing is also part of the consumerist culture. Ie to be a “good Christian”, all you have to do is hand over money and get a service in return. If you *do* decide to get involved, that’s even better…but your status as a Christian will be determined by how many boards and committees you’re on, whether you lead worship, etc etc. An individual church is sort of a self-contained economy where you give and get stuff in return (this is particularly the case for independent pentecostal churches which don’t really engage in denominational, let alone ecumenical activities).
July 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I think we may have found a fatal flaw of Shakespearian proportions…
Churches ‘expecting’ of congregents - since when did this become Christ’s plan? Why do churches have any expectations of attendees, besides the obvious empire building? Because churches have always had expections of attendees? Or because the church is deeply interested in individuals discovering and then supporting believers their unquie callings/ lives - even if shock horror these callings may be outside of the current box pente, traditional, emerging or otherwise?
Some may serve quietly all week in their secular workplaces; and are not looking for extra spiritual credit for church ’service’.
“You’ll probably be expected to get involved in some way??”
Oh dear, back to works. How revoluntary it might be to ask congregants - “What is it you feel CHRIST has called you to at this point in time?” REST being an option along with many others - Churches then supporting people by being encouraging groups of believers, who care, who have time, who serve Christ out of love and in a spirit of rest, not works. No ’service’ more worthy than any other ’service’, no brownie points for being busy ’serving the Lord’- the hidden parts of the body honoured as well as the seen.
Creative, caring, innovative, authentic, organic body of believers - who believe people are more important than programs or agendas.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
The kids thing is a big issue for me. No one thinks you are funky-missional if you’ve got 3 screaming kids following you around all the time. You are pretty much limited to the standard suburban church.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Well said, daisy, I agree.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Funky missional? Who gives a shit about that? You kids are part of the family bro, we don’t wish to push them out. It isn’t cool that I am looking for, but real.
Daisy, part of the stuff you are expected to “do” in our church is be honest, which means if you are needing a season of rest, then you rest, and we support you in that. It means that we don’t have systems that need to be maintained but rather we seek to empower you to do what you feel called by God to do and be. We are now starting the process of having two open homes, one with girls and one with guys. These homes will be places of ministry, where people will be fed and housed, and loved. I am hoping that some people will come along and start a house or two that will be focused on contemplation, and silence. I believe that within the body we have people with different giftings, and that they help each other. So the activists may need some time of quiet and contemplation, and the contemplatives may need to feed some homeless people. The idea isn’t to start programs, but rather to empower people to be who God called them to be, but providing a place where the imagination is set free to dream of a world where God’s rulership is extended on earth. This isn’t about works making your justified, its about real community which requires all of us to be truthful, and honest, and faithful. It is messy, often painful, but also the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. It is in this very raw, real relational community that we not only get a glimpse of Gods messianic age, but that this gets to be shared with a world desperately seeking for a different way of being.
rev
July 19th, 2007 at 6:45 am
rev, what is ‘real community?’ why does it have to be messy and painful? Why can’t you get a glimpse of the messianic age by walking down the path enjoying creation or reading the bible?
What you said about empowerment is what you could hear at any penty church , specially hs. What you’re talking about is actually a program, hey, it’s only a word.
What is an ‘activist?’ I get what you are saying and appreciate it, eg the works/justification thing, but I personally couldn’t handle such honesty, and I think lots of big church goers are the same, they don’t want to get involved too much. I wish I had been the kind of person who just flitted in and out…ifiknewthen indeed. It’s a kind of put on the church face thing and soon we’ll be at the beach.
I like daisy’s post above, it’s so true, I appreciate your thing rev but i can not imagine how i could ever be involved with that, maybe I’m too hard from hs still, maybe.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:49 am
oh, i get the activist thing on re reading your post, actually a lot of what you say is really just caring for others in the wider community, not just a church community, looking after people and being nice, but it isn’t painful and messy, and you don’t have to go to a church to do it. I’m not trying to be a smartarse.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:54 am
muse muse muse, actually i think my issue is that I do not trust any church leader, i would never tell a church leader my business or let him or her into my life, that’s my hs legacy i guess.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:12 am
#518
:-) 
July 19th, 2007 at 8:33 am
ifiknewthen…
In my experience the most “real” communities of faith ARE messy. Sometimes very messy. Why? For a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that intentional community is…well, INTENTIONAL. I want to be (and have been) a part of Christian communities where the common bond is an interest in Christ - it’s not socio-economic backgrounds, it’s not a common love of Hillsong, it’s not even theology. Working through those differences can be really messy, and really painful - but it can also be the most gut-wrenchingly amazing, beautiful thing. Further, “real” community can be messy in the same way our relationships with our partners and families can be messy…when we’re being authentic, things can get “messy”…people might sob through services, or people might have massive arguments (and if the community is a real one, they will work through arguments the way spouses and families should). There will be heartbreak when a relationship breaks up, and people will struggle to figure out how to care for both individuals. If you’re connecting with people on the margins, as Christ did, things can get pretty messy…People might try to take money OUT of the offering plate rather than put it in. You might have someone charge at and tackle the minister during the middle of their sermon. Someone might rock up to church drunk, angry and disruptive because they don’t have access to their kids. You might miss the church service because you meet up with someone outside and it’s clear you have something more important to do.
I agree that you don’t have to go to church to “look after people and be nice”, but I don’t believe that it’s possible to have a real, authentic community (and by this I mean community where people are consciously committed to each other, and where there is diversity in terms of thought/politics/ideology/theology and demography) without it being messy and painful. I think that the mess and pain is worth it though…
July 19th, 2007 at 9:06 am
ifiknewthen…the problems that you and daisy point out shouldn’t exist if there is a sense of real community…ie hanging out with mates. Of course, my housemates, my family, my friends drive me nuts at times, and sometimes I’m exhausted and I feel like too much is expected of me…but at the same time, my friends look out for me, and there’s a commitment to looking after me as well as working through the difficult stuff in our relationship.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am
The church is a community not a place or an event. I do not believe we can grow in Christ, or live sustainably without this community. In the community I am part of, you don’t need to trust me, but you need to trust the community. If you cannot do that, then you will not share your real self, which means you will never be loved for who you really are, nor will your real issues ever be challenged. The reason why community is messy and painful were explained very well by Bec. When you live closely with people, you get on each others nerves, you see the bad in each other, and you see the good too. It is wrestling with what it means to follow Jesus in community that gets messy, because your assumptions and defaults get challenged. The nice thing about community the way I am explaining it, is my faults get challenged just as often, infact usually more than those that are not considered the leader.
I once had a young person that I was mentoring tell me that he couldn’t respect me as a pastor. After much questioning it came down to he didn’t like my use of profanity and didn’t feel I lived Christlike enough. After much more conversation he discovered that he was holding me to a higher standard than himself, because I was “the leader” and that in his old church, he never actually saw his minister get in an argument with his wife, or spend a lazy day watching rated r action films, because he never actually visited his home. He wasn’t living with that person, but rather being lead from afar. When we live this way, we are forced to come to grips with the ugliness of others and ourselves, and must learn to love not inspite of this, but even because of this. It is in our brokeness that we experience the healing of Jesus.
rev
July 19th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“He wasn’t living with that person, but rather being lead from afar. When we live this way, we are forced to come to grips with the ugliness of others and ourselves, and must learn to love not inspite of this, but even because of this. It is in our brokeness that we experience the healing of Jesus.”
That is so, so true.
It’s my experience that the closer I get to people I admire, the less I “admire” them in the sense of holding them up on pedestals (this is why non-hierachical, close-knit communities can be better for “pastors”, too). Everyone is broken, and dealing with that is not “nice” or “tidy”. In my experience most institutional churches like things to be neat and tidy.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I would argue for Christian community on thelogical grounds… most of the epistles are addressed to “you” plural not “you” singular… Christ said “I will build my church”… church in Greek means a gathering… “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples… that you love one another” etc. etc…. I could go on and on. Individual Christianity is more a product of enlightenment thinking and Western individualism than biblical faith.
But I think we reflect this very, very imperfectly… we are heavily influenced by a Western mindset when we come to the bible… it’s difficult to “change one’s glasses” and read it in a community context.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I have just started reading a wonderful book for helping us to read the bible differently, its called Colossians REmixed, and it is fantastic. Very challenging and inspiring.
rev
July 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I keep meaning to read that!! You should blog notes as you go, Rev!!
July 19th, 2007 at 10:24 am
why so you can use them as cheat sheets? Buy the book yourself you cheapo
rev
July 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Collosians Remixed is a great book
Walsh’s earlier one ‘the transforming vision’ is just as good
July 19th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Rev -
I haven’t bought it yet because it will add to my growing pile…I believe in osmosis.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I refuse to read such a book, because it’s by a theological academic… very suspect, he’s probably just like Bishop Spong.
“Dr. Brian J. Walsh is a Christian Reformed campus minister at the University of Toronto and Adjunct Professor of Theology of Culture at Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology. He completed his B.A. in philosophy and religious studies at the University of Toronto, M.Phil. at the Institute for Christian Studies, and Ph.D. at McGill University in Montreal.”
Ha ha….
July 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I have a friend who used to distinguish between “theologians” and “biblical scholars” - the former being a negative description, the latter being positive.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
That’s funny… but how could she tell the difference?
Maybe a biblical scholar would write things she agreed with, and a theologian would write things she disagreed with?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Janet,
Don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I am angry.
http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/138/1701/hi/hellboy_42.jpg
rev
July 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I have taken dreadful liberties due to your pacifist stance… but now I’m afraid, I will never tease you again…