From time to time we have alluded to the fact that we have copped a bit from people in real life about the real and perceived impact of this site. This of course then prompts people to guess just which prominent identity has objected to the way that they have been discussed by commenters on this site. Quit it. Anybody you would love to imagine getting upset over this site hasn’t.

We have been amused by those who have expended great energy being offended on behalf of some other organisation or individual. These are the typically anonymous complainants who have threatened lawyers and even vague intimidation, told us they are taping us or all manner of imaginative threats. Those ones have been fun.

We have been torn by an unexpected side effect of the popularity of this site. From time to time we have received requests in relation to (often throwaway) comments in our threads which are negative about particular churches or individuals and which have a higher google rank than the organisation’s own homepage. We have had sympathy for these requests and as a result one of our actions on closing this site will be to limit so far as possible the search engine examination of this site and particularly its comment threads.

We never set out to create what signposts has become - we were just looking to write some stuff. But a couple of decisions to keep comments largely unmoderated has created a new experience of virtual community. We have observed a large number of people who have formed a community with each other. Sometimes these people have been aggressive, pissed off, disillusioned, doubtful, betrayed, caustic, bitter and all the things that go along with that. Sometimes these people have just been tools, but you get that as well.

And yet, it appears that for good or ill, for a season there was a place in community here for people that needed to debrief and grieve and rage and deconstruct about their experiences of the insitutional church. We hope that there was some healing in that and based on our observations I believe that there was.

We know that this is awkward because it is a public space. And we know that a lot of people feel really uncomfortable about criticism in a quasi-christian environment (though as we have pointed out, we don’t think that some of those commenters would always have described themselves as such). We understand that. And most people who don’t quite get this site or don’t agree with the way that we operate it have done the mature thing and decided to just not read the damn thing and instead connected with us in other ways. For that we thank you.

However, even as we post this last post, we are tempted to change our minds. If only for those people who advocate being open to all, connecting with the marginalised and creating a place of belonging and safety and then have the nerve to tell us that we have been wrong to offer the same welcome and acceptance to the people who comment here in a virtual environment. We don’t mind defending this site and our policy to dickheads. We are prepared to go through the process of trying to deal with people who have legitimate complaints about how the comments here impact on their own virtual identities. That comes with the territory. However, we resent having to defend ourselves and our belief in the value of community - no matter how disfunctional or confronting that might be - to those that profess to believe the same thing.

In our experience, if we were to tell a story about trying to hold in tension someone with a history of violent or criminal behaviour being a part of our community at NCCC, this is held up as a great example of being missionaries in the modern context and the challenges that go with it. When we refuse to prevent someone from typing words on a screen which people think are mean, that apparently reflects badly on us. In response to our decision to shut down this site - and in the face of the reflections by many of the value that they have found in the community here - some people have told us effectively “I’m glad you are shutting it down, I hated it anyway”. Well, we REALLY don’t like that.

If we were shutting down a church plant, nobody would ever say “good decision guys, those people you have over there were idiots and not worth it” but that sentiment has been expressed here. We like this place. We like these people. Maybe not all the time and maybe we don’t agree with everything that is said. But we like the conversation. And while the conversation may not happen here anymore, we will continue to encourage it in other contexts, along with the chaotic confronting spaces that it occupies

And that’s where we leave it. May the conversation continue.

This is just a quick marker to thank some people that have helped out with signposts over the years and whose contribution that we want to recognise. Most visible are those that have posted guest posts or even just considered guest posting. You have managed to keep the posts coming around here when we have been unable to, and have been willing to bring some different insight and perspective. We thank you for what you have done with no more reward than our appreciation and the ability to jump on your own soapbox.

As many of you know, we have never used advertising or any other means to cover the costs of this site. And the costs of maintaining this site could have been prohibitive for us. With the number of comments and page refreshes here every day, our usage at time spiralled out of control. We are therefore very thankful for the support of our good friend Carl at Bluestreet Internet. He helped us to both install every upgrade we needed, charged us very cheap rates and didn’t smack us around when we went over our limit. I doubt that we could have continued in the way that we have without the support of our internet host.

We have also had a whole heap of people help with the design, coding and prettiness of the site. In addition to Carl, Doug (sometimes referred to here as “the Lodger”) has often been the one stuck with the task of rejigging a plug in or page format so that it meets our exacting requirements. Joseph and Stephen and others have from time to time contributed design work in the various headings and banners that we have used over the years. And there are many others in our friends and community who have given technical or other advice as we have needed it. We thank you too.

Mostly, we want to thank the commenters here. It is truly you that have transformed this site into something that we didn’t anticipate. It has been our most powerful experience of virtual community and we thank you for it. There are many people here that have, either under their own names or psuedonymously, posted very raw details of your experiences and thoughts. Some of you have trusted us enough to reveal yourselves even more to us personally. We thank you. Even if you haven’t been a member of the signposts anonymous club, we thank you anyway. To all those that waded in advocating their own point of view and defending it even when shouted down, we thank you. There would have been little discussion or dialogue on this site if all of our commenters agreed with each other. And for all those that thought hard, considered their positions and tried to impart insight, we applaud you. We know that we have had our viewpoints pushed, prodded and stretched and we hope that others have too. Finally we thank those of you who made us laugh. The funsters and the running jokes at times were a great relief of tension in talking about serious issues.

While we are confident that this is the right decision for us now, we feel like we will be losing something out of our lives and our ministry when we say goodbye to this bunch of screen names and IP addresses who have been joining with us over the last years.

God bless you, whereever you may be or go.

*update*
Sorry meant to turn off comments.. so, have removed the last couple of comments - ah finally censorship at signposts

We have both really enjoyed reading the comments in the thread announcing our impending shut down. Some of your comments have been very touching and have affirmed some of what we have been trying (albeit clumsily) to accomplish with this little old site. We see that a new site has started and some have chosen to migrate for future content. We won’t have anything to do with that site or its content, so people can put someone else’s email address on their speed dial. So just wanting to let you all know that we think that the beginning of Spring is a good time to start getting on with something else.

So this site will shut down on 1 September 2007. On that date we will post a couple of posts, which will remain on the front page of this site for the immediate future, but comments will (probably) be turned off. The first is a chance for us to acknowledge some of the many people who have helped us out with this site behind the scenes. Many people have helped us with a whole range of things and we would like to acknowledge them. Secondly, we want to post a bit of a reflection on the experience of running this site, including some of the offline friction that this has caused.

Anyway, if you want to say your goodbyes, do so in this thread because in less than a week comments will be turned off. Otherwise head over to signposts2 (which may possibly become known as the blog with the greatest and most amusing array of sub-titles ever) and get stuck into Lance.

“Youth is not a time of life; it is a state of mind; it is not a matter of rosy cheeks, red lips and supple knees; it is a matter of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions; it is the freshness of the deep springs of life.

Youth means a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity of the appetite, for adventure over the love of ease. This often exists in a man of sixty more than a body of twenty. Nobody grows old merely by a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals.

Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. Worry, fear, self-distrust bows the heart and turns the spirit back to dust.

Whether sixty or sixteen, there is in every human being’s heart the lure of wonder, the unfailing child-like appetite of what’s next, and the joy of the game of living. In the center of your heart and my heart there is a wireless station; so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage and power from men and from the Infinite, so long are you young.

When the aerials are down, and your spirit is covered with snows of cynicism and the ice of pessimism, then you are grown old, even at twenty, but as long as your aerials are up, to catch the waves of optimism, there is hope you may die young at eighty.

-Samuel Ullman (Youth) “

For those who may have missed it—Hillsong was named as a cult amongst others including Scientology and exclusive Brethren in this video:

http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?g=ad204a6d-3a51-47f0-af65-24f5b5986f4b&f=&fg=email

What do you think? Is it fair to lump Hillsong alongside the exclusive Bretheran and Scientology?

(Hurry up not much time left to lodge your final comments!)

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.

Today, wikipedia, features an article entitled ‘Backmasking‘:

“Backmasking (also known incorrectly as backward masking)^[1] is a recording technique in which a sound or message is recorded backwards onto a track that is meant to be played forwards. Backmasking is a deliberate process, whereas a message found through phonetic reversal may be unintentional.

Backmasking was popularized by The Beatles, who used backward vocals and instrumentation on their 1966 album Revolver. Artists have since used backmasking for artistic, comedic, and satiric effect, on both analog and digital recordings. The technique has also been used to censor words or phrases for “clean” releases of songs.

Backmasking has been a controversial topic in the United States since the 1980s, when allegations of its use for Satanic purposes were made against prominent rock musicians, leading to record-burning protests and proposed anti-backmasking legislation by state and federal governments. Whether backmasked messages exist and whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural are in debate, as is whether backmasking can be used to subliminally affect listeners”

What do you think…? Noting that many popular tracks do in fact have backmasked messages - does the phenomenon have any credibility whereby Christians should be concerned? Or is it out dated Christian kitsch from a bygone era which we are destined to cringe at for years to come ?

And what are you Church/personal experiences/memories of all of this?

If you are having difficulty viewing this email, please go to www.hillsong.com

Dear Friends,

It has already been a few weeks since Bobbie and I left for our overseas trip, and as always, we are missing home!

We have had a busy, and yet refreshing time (as I described in my last email to you). This time as I write, we are on the Eurostar - the train from Paris to London. It is a sunny day as I look across the countryside of Northern France…now remember, envy is a sin!

On Thursday night we had the joy of taking part in the wedding of our Hillsong Paris pastor, Brendan White, to his beautiful French wife, Camille. Gary Clarke conducted the wedding in an old church beside the Seine River and I also had the chance to speak and pray. This was followed by a reception which was held on a boat on the river. It was so very romantic as we launched off from beneath the Eiffel Tower. Even though it rained a little, it was a fantastic experience and mix of cultures. The French definitely know how to celebrate!

(more…)

And very soon, Tanya Levin’s new book “Glass Houses” will hit both the boookstores, and the words contained within will be discussed and debated across the Blogosphere.

Recently, the Bulletin published a positive article on Hillsong, and to be more specific, the closing sermon:

“Skinner addressed the crowd with a blunt message: “You can’t separate God in his awesome power in heaven from the snotty, bloated kid with the fly in his eye in the ditch. God is not impressed by the size of our church. God is not impressed by how many times we go to church but by how much we become like Jesus. The world is on an accumulation binge - give me more and more and more - but God is a giver.”

We have all discussed the ‘what needs to change’ - but I am now left thinking.

1) Is real Change possible within Hillsong and other contemporary Churches?

2) What will be the real driver for change in the Contemporary Church (that includes Hillsong) - Critique or the Gospel?

3) Is reconcilliation without compromise really possible between the Contemporary Church and those overwhelmingly disenfranchised by it?

Why Al Qaeda Supports the Emergent Church