All good things…
When we first started this site way back in February 2003, we never imagined the way that it would morph and develop to ultimately become what it is today. What started out as a means for us to share and workshop some of our writing has turned into a site focussed much more around a community of people. It has certainly been illuminating.
But four and a half years is a long time. In that time our RL profiles have changed, and to be honest, Phil and I have both lost a sense of energy for this blog (something that would not come as a surprise to regular commenters, who have become accustomed to the fact that we aren’t around as much as we once were). That energy includes monitoring comments, responding to inquiries and requests to change/delete references, and so on.
We have spent several months now discussing what we would do with or about this site. This is what we have come up with. We recognise that the people who comment here have become a community of sorts and we want to give every opportunity for that to continue in some form. We toyed with allowing someone else to take over this site entirely. However, we want to maintain our existing archive as it is a bit of a scrapbook for us. And therefore relinquishing control over signposts isn’t something that we are comfortable with.
So for now we propose to just close the site. The content will remain but we will close the comments on all posts. Closing comments will be a bit of a lengthy process and will commence in the next couple of weeks, starting from the oldest posts. It is possible that in future we will start something new at this site. We might even get six months down the track, decide that we can’t bear to be without this blog and bring it back up - we don’t think so though.
We encourage commenters and others who might wish to maintain the “signposts community” to make some plans in the comments of this thread. It might be starting a group blog or a forum which reflects the same sort of open conversation which takes place here. We are happy to assist in whatever way we can, including directing future visitors to whereever you want.
We will publish a “last post” when we come to finally close off all of the comments, but for now we just wanted to thank our readers and commenters for the last 4 and a half years. To those that have helped with guest posting, and to those that have engaged in conversation and have in some way had their thinking or questioning as a result of this site, we thank you.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Why you laughing Bec? I think it’s a suitable alternative =)
August 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
errr… a spiritual blog run by… Lance?
Kinda like a childcare centre run by paedophiles!
August 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“errr… a spiritual blog run by… Lance?
Kinda like a childcare centre run by paedophiles!”
—
“Matthew 12:43-45 “Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it said, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. Then it goes, and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”
—-
Yep..that’s Signposts2. Thought you’d like it.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I forgot to add…
Muahhhahhaaaahhaaaaa!
Actually…I’ll probably operate Signposts2 (get it while it’s hot) more from my ‘work persona’ (the responsible, balanced journalist act) …than the Roy & HG style persona of Signposts…
However, if homophobes or wanker pentys try it on me….then I reserve the right to swear and carry on.
The ‘no defending the indefensible’ rule from Signposts will still apply.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
This is win for HillSong and a blow to the Deadmergent movement.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
turtleneck - I’m gonna assume you’re joking, and if you are, that’s one of the most appalling jokes I’ve ever heard.
Lance, would you allow freedom of speech to prevail there as it has here?
August 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
If anyone does decide to create another blogsite then please let it be known here. I have found my time here, though short, to be very interesting.
There needs to be a blog of Pentecostals and/or ex-Pentecostals to allow them to speak their mind on issues and to critique (as well praise) individuals and movements within Australian Pentecostalism. This is the only site I’ve found so far. Are there any others out there that people know of?
August 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Lance, would you allow freedom of speech to prevail there as it has here?”
Well, I kinda set it up as a semi-joke..not expecting anyone to take any notice..but there appears to be some kind of mass migration happening.
I’m not sure whether I like the idea of being a responsible media proprietor.
Regarding freedom of speech, then yes, even if Homer and Facelift find their way over there they are free to have their say, in the same way that I am free to tell them they are dickheads, if they act like dickheads.
I should point out that there is a special link for the new blog for Homer and Facelift only.
http://www.disney.com
The only restriction I would envisage relates to defamation law…and I would have to edit posts that infringe.
I may be volatile and hey, out there on the edge, but I’m not Jason Akermanis.
Even so..if I see enough evidence that something that is potentially defamatory can be demonstrated to be true (usually someone’s own personal experience of a church) then I would leave it there.
I mean it’s hard to have a full and frank and open discussion about some dodgy churches, without straying into discussions about potentially illegal behaviour by those churches.
Of course, any church that’s doing the right thing has nothing to worry about.
I’m of the view that the existence of the blogs and media coverage is forcing some churches to clean up their acts, thereby negating the need in the future to express potentially defamatory concerns about some of their dodgy behaviour…
I’m always told that a spotless bride is the aim..not some two-bit floozy from Sin City with her legs wide open, ready to be consumated by some fast-talking American with a bible in one hand and the keys to a BMW convertible in the other.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Not joking bec. I was inferring that it might be as dangerous. Dan & Phil were, for the most part, unbiased observers. Lance, well, he may as well call the blog F#%k You Brian & Bobbie. I really doubt there will be balance to the new forum if it is mediated by Lance.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
By the way…just for the record…I haven’t ‘taken over Signposts.’
I just thought of an entirely original name (Signposts2)…went to the wordpress site….figured out a template…and had the basics of it up in 15 minutes.
I actually like the idea of ‘competing Signposts’….someone else can set up ‘Signposts 3′…’Signposts 4′…’Signposts 5′.
The ACCC would be getting a woody (*sigh*…last days of unnecessary juvenile sexual references on a pastor’s blog) with all the extra competition in the blog market…
Mine is http://signposts2.wordpress.com/
I would hope Signposts 3 is being produced in Lionfish’s pool room as we speak.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
What about Signposts brought to you by the letter H - as in Signposts run by Hillsong . How different would that be?
We could have posts such as Kingdom women love and value their sexuality and why any Tanya Levin is way too much Tanya …
August 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
turtleneck - it’s a disgusting analogy because a blog called “F#%k You Brian & Bobbie” has absolutely NOTHING on the sexual abuse of children.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
err….psycho alert.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
This has actually been a good indication of what will happen when they switch off analogue TV in Australia in the near future..and nobody will quite believe it…or know what to do when it happens.
Just as some people have already made the switch to (new although not improved) Signposts2 http://signposts2.wordpress.com/ .. many won’t bother…and I think many won’t bother buying a digital telly..
August 13th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“errr… a spiritual blog run by… Lance?
Kinda like a childcare centre run by paedophiles!”
I’m serious turtleneck. One of the most insensitive jokes I’ve ever heard. Not funny and completely stupid.
Or maybe you’re right - p’raps I’m a “psycho” who can’t see the parallels between Lance and a bloke who rapes kids…
August 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I’m sad - Signposts has been a big part of my Christian fellowship for the last half year or more. Thanks to Dan and Phil for running this and all those who have contributed - it is good to get kicked in the butt and challenged occasionally. I’ll miss that and the sense of family that has come with that from time to time. It has been good to be exposed to and challenged by different and differing views, and still know we share Christ in common.
God bless and may be we’ll run into each other ethereally again before we reach that Blessed place in the future.
MN
August 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Bec, I’m ok…it’s like being jibed by Homer. Turtleneck’s someone whom I don’t respect and never taken seriously.
For old time’s sake..I’ve posted a fresh transcript of one of CCC’s Simon McIntyre and his dodgy tithing mini-sermons.
But not here.
It’s at ……..Signposts 2!
http://signposts2.wordpress.com/
August 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Even so..if I see enough evidence that something that is potentially defamatory can be demonstrated to be true (usually someone’s own personal experience of a church) then I would leave it there.
I really would advise against that, Lance. Unless you have the ability to accurately determine what content is actually in the public interest, legally speaking, the truth of a comment won’t save you from defamation law.
I don’t know about creating a Signposts III blog since I am not a product of the Pentecostal movement and have had only the most limited contact with Hillsong, but I’d be most interested in running a “Sydney Anglican Watch” blog - you know, like Media Watch? My current blog at http://ministryofincompetence.blogspot (yes, another shameless promotion!) is already set up for that primary purpose, although I have been relatively diplomatic thus far. My editorial policy has always been extremely liberal and I would strive to maintain that liberality. Are people interested in that kind of project?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Even so..if I see enough evidence that something that is potentially defamatory can be demonstrated to be true (usually someone’s own personal experience of a church) then I would leave it there.
I really would advise against that, Lance. Unless you have the ability to accurately determine what content is actually in the public interest, legally speaking, the truth of a comment won’t save you from defamation law.
I don’t know about creating a Signposts III blog since I am not a product of the Pentecostal movement and have had only the most limited contact with Hillsong, but I’d be most interested in running a “Sydney Anglican Watch” blog - you know, like Media Watch? My current blog at http://ministryofincompetence.blogspot.com (yes, another shameless promotion!) is already set up for that primary purpose, although I have been relatively diplomatic thus far. My editorial policy has always been extremely liberal and I would strive to maintain that liberality. Are people interested in that kind of project?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
There are lots of churches around, but we missional types take our hats off to those churches who open their buildings up for the ratbags who play rough games, swear, break windows and make a mess, and we applaud the hospitality of the church folk who, though this wasn’t what they had in mind when they opened the hall, still clean up and keep such a place going.
Likewise, there are many Christian blogs, but most hosts haven’t the patience to supervise the robust dialogues that have gone on here. Dan & Phil, we’re really grateful that you’ve kept your church open for us, even though it’s been more than you’ve expected, and you’ve been blamed for what’s happened on the premises.
I’ll keep watching to see how Northern gets along, because my church is following behind you on a similar path. And there’s a bit more in the “money jar” category that I’d like to see discussed, and maybe we’ll raise it at David’s blog some time.
So, off goes the crowd to party and make a mess of someone else’s place…
August 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I think Danni and Phil have run an amazing blog that has pushed boundaries and provided a unique and safe place for people to express themselves freely without suppression and prejudice. They have remained fair and unbiased in the midst of sometimes absolutely ridiculous comments from people.
I love that signpost has been a healing place, a venting place, a safe place for those who have in some (lots) of cases been hurt and shafted by the church. I know people personally who have been in this category and have entered into discussion on signposts, I am personally very grateful for Phil and Danni and Signposts. I have moved so much in my theological and philosophical thinking because of Signpost. I am sad that some people have had such bad experiences of the church. I know we (the church) treat people we don’t understand or fear with contempt even hatred and I hate that. For that I am truly sad signpost is finishing.
For the minority who have monopolized and dominated the comments section of Phil and Danni’s blog-SUCKED IN. Some of you are intellectual bullies-big mouths who love the sound of your own voice (I am convinced you read your post out loud to yourself) and I think its great that you will have to go write your own that no where near the same amount of people will read. Again SUCKED IN how will you cope without the attention? I can see it now searching the web for Christian blogs trying to get a rise out of someone, pouncing on them, stuffed no matter how they respond. Go bash yourselves to death. Some of you need to get a life. Turn off the computer; go for walk and learn the lesson sometimes there were others who wanted to enter the discussion, learn, hear from someone else other than your repetitive dribble, yet you few couldn’t help yourself, Signpost had become your blog.
Well no more.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
“I really would advise against that, Lance. Unless you have the ability to accurately determine what content is actually in the public interest, legally speaking, the truth of a comment won’t save you from defamation law.”
I suppose the perfect example of what I thinking about was Geoff Bullock re-counting what happened to him at Hill$ong.
There was no way Jose that Hill$ong would sue about Brian Houston’s bullying behaviour to be revealed (easily proven with numerous witnesses)…and the fact that Hill$ong have embarked on a significant marketing exercise to convince people what caring and sharing people they are…
I mean it’s always a calculated risk and each situation is unique.
In the same way…I was of the strong view that the player alluded to by Jason Akermanis as an EPO cheat..should NOT be named…because of the unreliability of the source of the allegation (aker) and that just because one media organisation had bizarrely named the player…didn’t mean all media outlets had to lose their minds and named him.
I was also of the view that when Laurie Oakes broke the Gareth Evans-Cheryl Kernot affair story…(don’t try and imagine it…you just…..can’t..) that we shouldn’t name either of them until one or the other admitted it. The lawyers said ‘don’t wait…go for it (naming them)…and eventually..as it turned out…naming them forced them to confirm the story was true.
With Hill$ong, part of the problem is that they don’t understand what defamation is. Like when the Labor MP was threatened for stuff he said in the NSW Parliament.
They’re threatening action over things said under the protection of Parliamentary privilege? Excuse me? That’s a lawyer who doesn’t understand the very basics of law and how the Parliament operates.
So that’s one thing to take into account…if Hill$ong’s threatening legal action then it’s probably not got even the slightest basis in law.
Also, if there’s a defamation case..then what you’re doing is giving a free kick to the person who allegedly defamed you, to say anything they want about in a court..with the nation’s media watching on and freely able to report every word of it…(unless they got a supression order which would be unusual) Bad idea if you don’t want more bad stuff about your church to come out.
Now if you take ‘People in Glass Houses’….and I have just finished reading it…(including the very interesting bit about Phil Baker’s political views) then the only potentially…underline potentially..defamatory thing is the claim that Hill$ong is a cult.
However, the case for that is well-reasoned out..it’s not just a throwaway line…and it’s fairly clear that it’s just one person’s opinion who’s been there in the midst of it.
And if Hill$ong’s going to sue for one former member’s well-reasoned opinion ..then they would deserve to be labelled a cult.
Has Hill$ong’s reputation in the community been damaged by the book?
I doubt it, because Tanya was just putting into words what the community already strongly suspected.
So that alone ain’t grounds for defamation.
Mind you..there COULD be grounds for defamation for Bobbie Houston labelling ‘negative media’ as the ‘anti-Christ’.
If Hill$ong ever give me any trouble..I might just keep that little card up my sleeve.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Mind you..there COULD be grounds for defamation for Bobbie Houston labelling ‘negative media’ as the ‘anti-Christ’.
Well, not really, since there was no specific party mention and hence no actionable damage. Mind you, it’s a pretty stupid thing to say - but then again, that’s Bobbie.
You’re probably right though about Hillsong declining the opportunity to pursue litigation under those circumstances - it would only serve to undermine their credibility in the minds of the public and possibly even some of their congregation. Still, it was interesting that to read that Pat Mesiti threatened litigation if he was mentioned in the book - I wonder how he will proceed from here now that he has indeed been mentioned?
August 14th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Thanks Dan and Phil. Signposts has been fantastic and you two deserve an enormous amount of credit for the positive things that have resulted from this little blog.
Where to now?
Well, something MUST continue somewhere. For the benefits of discussion I prefer the format of a forum … like Whirlpool: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/
It’s easy to track different topics, and keep up to date with the latest discussions. The difficulty with something like the comments in a blog is that it can be difficult to follow a particular line of discussion when everything tends to get jumbled in together in one post (Exhibit A: http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/04/10/hillsongs-the-next-installment/ — now with over 4500 comments).
However, a blog is perfect for the presentation of articles, and they get a great result in Google searches. This blog would be the public face of Signposts.
So I’d like to see a Signposts blog for the articles, written by a select few, but have the comments about those articles (and anything else) appear in the message board, where anyone can start up a new thread of discussion. In my view that kinda gets the best of both worlds.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am
signpostsisnomore…your post is bizarre. It starts beautifully, talking about the significance of open spaces where all can have a voice, and then degenerates into a rant that suggests that some should be excluded. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that because “we (the church) treat people we don’t understand or fear with contempt even hatred” they might come somewhere like Signposts…at least they get a fair hearing here…
Darryl, I’m with you - I think a forum is more appropriate than a blog. I also think it has advantages in that it’s not so closely associated with any one individual (or even several individuals). Dan and Phil have surely copped a lot for keeping Signposts open and allowing the sorts of discussions that occur here, and a forum might have avoided that to a degree.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Signpostsnomore … thank God you obly posted (I cannt use the word “contributed”) one comment to this Blog … unless of course you were posting as Facelift, SIlentBob or the like.
Yes, Signposts has given us a voice. We have had to spend years listening to the didactic drivel of Senior Pastors, the manipulative pre-tithe minsermons of their off siders and see their faces on TV when the kids get us up early … now our reserach and opinions backed up with fact are out ther ….
So people who type in “MegaChurch Pastor Name” or “Churchname” or “Tithing” in google come up with a whole host of information on how the model works and how these guys enrich themselves- that I perosnally wish was avialable before I became involved in a megaChurch.
Have a great day.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:31 am
btw Lance…I wasn’t wading in ‘cos I thought you needed any sticking up for…you’re more than capable of doing that yourself!
It was more that I was just stunned that someone could use such a horrible analogy…paeophiles in child care centres?? who thinks up such things? Who compares the potential impact of THAT to running a blog?
Maybe I’m a psycho, but that kind of comment just seems to turn paedophilia into the subject of jokes, and I don’t think it should be treated in that way…
August 14th, 2007 at 8:53 am
maybe I will get my book written now!!!
Understand the decision, will miss signposts, but not greg, his is an idiot and his karatay is juvenile
rev
August 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Maybe I’m a psycho, but that kind of comment just seems to turn paedophilia into the subject of jokes, and I don’t think it should be treated in that way…
Well, maybe I’m a psycho as well, because I found the joke incredibly offensive too - paedophilia is not an appropriate subject for a joke or an analogy.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:05 am
aww, poor offended people. You missed the whole point, but that’s par for the course here. Bec, I told you I wasn’t joking.
Good riddance to signposts I say. Its a hemmoroid on the anus of christianity.