A visit to Hillsong

19 thoughts on “A visit to Hillsong”

1. Do people in Bible believing/teaching churches defend Hillsong? I really haven’t come across much of that.

2. 1. Why do believers stay at a church that doesn’t teach the Bible? If the sheep know Jesus’ voice, does the fact they stay show that they are not sheep?

   Because churches like Hillsong offer them affirmation, comfort and messages on the love of God – a lure for anyone, especially those in pain.

   In the same vein, Christians often leave churches to join Hillsong because their church – Bible believing and faithful it may be – doesn’t offer <i>any</i> of these things. They get badly burnt and react by going to the other extreme. I did this very thing five years ago, and have seen other christians do the same since.

   2. Why do believers at good Bible teaching churches often defend Hillsong so strongly? Is that just the pseudo-charitable tolerance fad, otherwise known as lack of discernment?

   I”m not sure that believes at “good Bible teaching churches” defent Hillsong, so much as they oppose Hillsong-bashing. Although I disagree with some of its teachings, I find the arrogant nature with which some evangelicals criticise the church distasteful. Maybe that’s what some christians are reacting against?

3. I think Sophia raises some good points. I do wonder how many of the people who ‘bash’ Hillsong have ever been and experienced Hillsong first hand. I went recently and wrote quite critically about it at the time – http://talkingtiger.org/2008/05/26/no-hope-at-hillsong/. The speaker was atrocious.

   However, I went again a week ago to one of the evening sessions of the Hillsong conference and had a great time. I really enjoyed the time of worship (can I call it that?!) loved being in a room of 10,000 Christians praising Jesus, found the prayers to be edifying, and much of the talk (by Joyce Meyer) to be an encouragement to me as I seek to follow Jesus.

   I’m not sure what to think of Hillsong, particularly because I was genuinely encouraged by my time at the conference last week. In the past I would have been one of the first to jump on the anti-Hillsong bandwagon. I’m just not sure how helpful this is for anyone – for those who go there, and for those who don’t.

4. 1. Often they find that more conservative churches lack potent and passionate preaching, that the feeling of fellowship is limited, that the members seem to lack joy and conviction when talking about their faith, and that the teaching gives them little guidance or comfort for the life they are living now. These are some of the comments I’ve heard from pentecostal friends.

   2. Defending a particular aspect of Hillsong doesn’t mean you are defending the whole thing. I’ve often defended Hillsong on the SydAng forums when I believed the criticism was wrong. It doesn’t mean I’m endorsing everything they do or say.

5. In response to Q1. Why do believers stay at a church that doesn’t teach the Bible? If the sheep know Jesus’ voice, does the fact they stay show that they are not sheep?

   I would say the following based on my own experience: When I was in a Pentecostal church I was hurt by the legalism and manipulation, so leaving it and going to a church that had great music, a positive message and a large congregation whereby you could remain anonymous would be appealing. In Pentecostal churches the Bible is used so sparingly that learning to read a passage in context is nearly unheard of, therefore people don’t learn to discern.  Another factor is that the Pastor is seen as having the authority of God, so to question him/her is seen as “touching the Lord’s anointed”, so no one wants to do it.  Leaving a Pentecostal church is seen as leaving Christianity for some people.  Pentecostal churches had painted mainline churches as being so dead that I thought I’d never find a decent church when I left it.

   In response to Q2. Why do believers at good Bible teaching churches often defend Hillsong so strongly? Is that just the pseudo-charitable tolerance fad, otherwise known as lack of discernment?

   I think that a lot of us as Christians struggle with the true nature of love.  We can easily see graciousness and forgiveness as love, but correction and rebuking looks too much like arrogance, abuse etc.  Even the rebukes Jesus hands out to the disciples and the pharisees is something that I think a lot of us hard to automatically see as “love”.  Too many of us have suffered from angry sinful people, and just want everything done “nicely”.

6. Last summer I attended a well-known “mega-church” here in the USA. The pastor had just gotten back from a trip to Israel and was preaching a series on eschatology. I was stunned that so many people seemed so enthralled by such shallow preaching. My favorite line: “Do you realize that USA is right in the middle of JerUSAlem?” People cheered. When I told the story to my own congregation a few weeks later, my people laughed.

   I have concluded that if one says something with strength and sincerity—and if one quotes from the Bible from time to time—at least some Christians will be impressed!

7. Great points David Roberts… especially this.

   <i>“Pentecostal churches had painted mainline churches as being so dead that I thought I’d never find a decent church when I left it.” </i>

   That is so true! Sophia — please don’t ignore the fact that the criticism cuts both ways — and us Reformed Evangelicals can be even more typecast, patronised, demonized and plain misrepresented. I remember a charismatic family member loudly exclaiming that I was “In a conspiracy against the Holy Spirit!” because I dared to read the Briefing. That was an ‘interesting’ moment.

   David R then wrote:
   <i>“to read a passage in context is nearly unheard of, therefore people don’t learn to discern.”</i>
   Again too true.

   I recently had a Hillsong contact tell me that I should visit his church because we both believed the same stuff. As we talked over the coming weeks he revealed his views on Revelation and his Premil theology, the place of Israel, and of course Guidance — visions — dreams and ‘nudges’ from the Holy Spirit, and healing.

   He assured me that we all believed the same stuff and that I should visit his church, but even after about an hours conversation on an Amils approach to Revelation still did not seem to understand how I saw apocalyptic writing. Let alone ‘Guidance’ verses the ‘Sufficiency of Scripture’

   Critical thinking and the fact that one theology can actually contradict another theology and — horrible as it might seem — a CHOICE must be made all seems to be missing. ‘Discernment’ becomes ‘judgement’. Careful theology becomes criticism… and we all know what terrible, judgemental, critical, unloving arrogant people us Sydney Anglicans are!

   But we both believe the same stuff — really!

8. Hi Kryger,

   Good to see your comments on this site. Hope all is well with MTS. I was a bit surprised to see that you found Joyce Meyer’s sermon encouraging as I (unfortunately, embarrassingly) own a few of her books. Is Joyce Meyer ‘live’@Hillsong any different to her books?

   After seeing your comment, I had a look again at one of her books ‘The Confident Woman’. It starts with bits about having confidence in God but is juxtaposed with achievement-centric, Disney ‘believe in yourself’, happiness and fulfilment oriented stuff. She says we shouldn’t settle for an average mediocre job, we should ignore our weaknesses, and everyone should strive for ‘10s’ (greatness). The main thrust was that if you have confidence in God and yourself, you can be ‘courageous, respected, admired, sought after and loved’ and achieve amazing feats. It then points towards examples in history of people who have achieved amazing things because of their confidence in themselves (specifically noting people such as Walt Disney, Michael Jordan and Fred Astair as examples to follow).

   In particular, the way she uses the Bible is quite concerning (eg her chapters on women in teaching ministry and self-doubt). The passages used are often out of context, confused and self-contradicting. For example, she uses Heb 10:38 and James 1:5-8 to prove that self-doubt is a sin (in the context of having confidence in yourselves and achieving great feats). Anything she disagrees with prima facie (eg 1 Tim 2:11, 12) is often trivialised as a relative truth of Scripture (as opposed to ‘absolute truth’) and presented as merely cultural or situational. 

   Oh, and worst of all there doesn’t seem to be a decent explanation of the gospel in the book.

   YSIC,
   Naomi

9. I think there are good comments above from everyone, and I thank Dave Lankshear for his response. 

   I think people may jump to defend Hillsong also because there are some things they do very well, like their music production and the enthusiasm of the people to connect sincerely to God during singing.  I wonder if other Christians sometimes wish like I do that their church was more like Hillsong in these good ways.  I have been at Hillsong and was amazed at how enthusiastic and fervent people seemed to want to connect to God emotionally during the singing.  It contrasts sharply with my own church where sometimes the person leading the service on stage stands in front of the congregation with his hands in his pockets during the singing!  It just looks terrible, even though I know the people who do this live their lives for God with sincerity. 

   Another point I want to make is that a lot of us have things about our churches that we think is off or dislike, but we have to be gracious and put up with them or stop going to church altogether.  No church is perfect.  I am amazed that a lot of churches and leaders teach the Bible well generally, but teach Genesis 1-3 so poorly, saying it doesn’t mean what the text obviously says.  This includes The Briefing.  I’m faced with the choice of canceling my subscription because of their unbiblical teaching on this issue and missing out on good teaching on other parts of the Bible, or putting up with their stance on this issue and continuing to receive their teachings on other issues.

   Before leaving Pentecostal churches I had never heard a preacher work through a text to explain what it means in context.  I’d be surprised if many Pentecostal/Charismatic preachers had heard this done well.  I’d like to see more done cooperatively between mainstream and Charismatic churches so they could be taught how do do some things better.  They obvious connect to peoples emotional needs very well through their music and through their preaching, which is part of the reason why they are so successful in terms of numbers.  Maybe mainstream churches could learn some things from them?

10. In response to Gav’s first question: I think Soph’s comments are on the money. Contrary to what many of us evangelicals instinctively feel, the punters out there are not happy just with correct exegesis. They want affirmation, and Hillsong gives it in bucket-loads. One thing I’m having to correct in my own pastoral approach is that I’m making more of an effort to be intentionally encouraging at church and to give voice to the Bible’s message of comfort (as well as it’s message of warning and judgment…Hi Gordon!).

    The other reason they like Hillsong is the activism that the church is involved in, both on a social justice level and in an evangelistic sense. One of my friends asked members of another large Pentecostal church why they hang around given the preaching is so woeful…“Because there is a real sense that the church is going somewhere and that things are happening” was the reply.

    Re question two: The reasons people defend Hillsong so strongly are as follows (as I hear it):

    1. Their songs are really good. (and I have to say, I’m agreeing with this more and more) However, questions can be raised as to the way music is used in their gatherings. Are people responding to the music or the promises of God? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

    2. Their people show the fruit of the spirit (in a Galatians 5 sense). And – having seen the patient, kind and gentle way their volunteers handled a very stressful night session at their conference a few years back – I have to say I was impressed with this as well.

    3. You will always be able to point to a ripper of a sermon preached on the Hillsong platform (I’ve even heard a theology lecturer at the theologically conservative Moore College quote a Hillsong sermon approvingly). But here lies the major flaw at Hillsong as I see it. Sometimes the preaching will be unbelievably good, and other times it will be unbelievably atrocious. Their messages are just too varied in quality to warrant me suggesting anyone attend there regularly. They fail to adequately guard their platform so you get the good with the awful, and this is not good for the flock.

    Can I suggest that we pray that their preaching might improve and develop (as their music has done), so that they might become an even more potent force for Christ and his Gospel in our city?

11. I enjoy the music of Hillsong. There are several songs that are Christ-centered, but what I’ve often thought what good that is if the sermons are not?

12. In view of Marty’s helpful call to pray for our friends at Hillsong, I think this raises a larger issue about evangelicals and their interactions with Pentecostals. For some time now, I have wondered how Sydney evangelicalism regards Pentecostals, and in particular, Hillsong. Sometimes, they are treated as our wayward brothers and sisters in Christ. At other times, the rhetoric we ‘flame’ them with leads me to believe that the author/orator believes them to be heretics. There is a large distinction between these two categorisations. I believe firmly that they are the former (wayward brothers). If so, can I ask what attempts people are making to positively influence our precious brethren in Christ. Are you praying with them? For them? Are you seeking to start reading groups with them? Have coffee with them? Enjoy their company outside of any kind of theological discussion? None of these require you to endorse what Hillsong is doing, nor to abandon your theological stance. Conservatives in Sydney are notorious for their restricted access to events where Hillsong will be involved – instead we have (on occasion) black banned their music, blogged ceaselessly about their utter uselessness in exegesis, proposed running a parallel conference at the same time as Hillsong, and often looked with suspicion on anybody who even sounds like them. This is hardly the stuff that is likely to cause our friends at Hillsong to listen to our critiques. For me, this is an issue of contextualisation for the sake of correction. And are we picking our battles with them, focussing on the issues of “Mere Christianity”. A full-orbed, you aren’t Calvinist-cessationist-amillennialist-complementarian etc, etc, critique, is again unlikely to be very well heard. Are there “matters of orthodoxy” we can agree upon, as at least a first point of call to open up conversation. My own take is that Hillsong’s preaching and their lyrics are showing a significant disconnect. Their preaching is far less Christ-centred than their singing. Maybe we could raise that with their leadership personally, over dinner, rather than via a journal or a blog. I realise many of you have friends in Hillsong, but how many of the senior leaders of Hillsong ever hang out with, pray with, have dinner with, the senior leaders of Sydney evangelicalism. I genuinely do not know the answer.

    Of course, if you think Hillsong, and most Pentecostals in general (other than those champs at Sovereign Grace…) are heretics, how are you mobilising yourself and God’s people to stop the incredible flow of people worldwide into Pentecostal type movements. As Phil Jenkins “The Next Christendom” shows, majority Christianity in the Two-Thirds World is Pentecostal in flavour, and only going to become more so. And enough of this Pentecostalism is influenced by the Hillsongs/Bonnke’s/etc for this to be significant. So this is a missions issue, as much as anything else.

13. <i>Are you praying with them? For them? Are you seeking to start reading groups with them? Have coffee with them? Enjoy their company outside of any kind of theological discussion?</i>

    I find it hard enough to make this kind of effort with my unsaved family and friends, let alone saved but dangerously heretical Toronto-blessing, nudge guidance, blindly pro-Israel Pre-mil Tim LaHaye reading Charismatic friends. So I guess it’s a matter of time and priorities, and for reviews on the latest Charo trend doing the rounds I can always rely on good friends at ‘The Briefing’.

    Because I’ve found that when I do engage Charismatics long enough the discussion inevitably moves off theology and onto why I’m so against ‘receiving the Holy Spirit.’ So it’s not just some over-zealous Sydney Anglican’s doing the name calling. Bulverism is rife in emotional, experiential movements that are less about critical or analytical thinking and more about ‘feelings’. And very soon, they ‘feel’ that I’m just stubborn… but hey. They could be right there.

14. Hi Mark

    Heretics or wayward brothers? I have to confess I don’t quite think of it that way. For a start, I think differently about different groups of people: Brian Houston and the other pastors, the average keen Hillsong member, a fringe member or occasional attender, a Hillsong-friendly pentecostal Christian, a Hillsong-friendly evangelical Christian, a fringe evangelical who might be attracted by the Hillsong experience, a keen evangelical wondering what to make of it, and so on!

    How I would relate to each of these sorts of people would also depend on the context of the conversation: whether it was very publicly in an article, sort of publicly in a conference address, in church, in a small group, in private conversation, and so on.

    So three examples: At one level, I have had warm and interesting meetings and conversations with senior Hillsong leaders, and expect to continue to do so as time and opportunity allow. At another level, in places like The Briefing I will continue to critique and oppose Hillsong’s public theology and practice insofar as I think that is important and helpful to do so for the evangelical community (especially for the sake of helping everyday evangelical Christians to be discerning). And at yet another level, as a former charismatic, I often have gentle and understanding conversations with individuals who are at different stages of trying to think through the issues (to do with the Spirit, Christian experience, worship, and so on).

    In other words, like the New Testament does, we need to approach each person and situation pastorally. Public opposition by no means precludes private conversation (and of course prayer).  But public affirmation of ‘wayward brothers’ is not pastorally helpful either for them, or for those who might be led astray by them.

    TP

15. Hi Tony and Dave,

    Thanks for your posts. Just to clarify – I am not interested in publicly endorsing the aberrant aspects of Hillsong’s theology. I am interested in working out whether we can create “third spaces” (not our turf, not theirs), in order to better communicate our critiques, and to also mutually benefit one another. I appreciate Tony’s point about the use of public critique as a mechanism for protecting evangelicals who are being unduly “influenced” by Hillsong. I don’t think anything I have said implies we shouldn’t publicly critique. However, I am asking a pragmatic question as to whether our other, private approaches are sufficient, and, to some extent, whether we are being godly about our personal interactions. It sounds like Tony is, and for this I applaud him (although I am still not sure if we are praying much with Hillsong leadership).
    My own take is that if I believe that the Hillsong leadership are my brothers in Christ, then praying with them, and to some degree partnering with them on things we can agree about, is an important expression of our unity in Christ, however much I disagree with them on a whole host of other matters. Sure, it is complicated, but I think there are better models than the one’s we are presently practising, where we appear to be talking at each other rather than to each other. Put simply, the model of critiquing by journal and blog is good practice for one pastoral application (protecting evangelicals, particularly the young), but I am not sure it is having a demonstrably positive influence on Hillsong’s theology and preaching. That, of course, could simply be because Hillsong is stubborn and unrepentant. Given that I do believe Hillsong is being used by God to bring people to Christ, and their influence on church and society is only growing, I believe it is strategic to seek to influence our brothers in the most persuasive way possible. I am not so sure it is a waste of time (Dave’s personal experiences are noted).

    On a side note, Dave, I tend to reserve the language of heresy for core beliefs which are fatal to one’s salvation. Hence, Arianism is a heresy, but dispensational premillennialism is not (however much I abhor it). Calling every erroneous belief a heresy debases the currency IMHO.

16. Hi Mark,
    too true. Apparently to some I’m a heretic because I tend towards being a “Theistic Evolutionist”.

    Maybe I should write more clearly and less colourfully. I tend to use melodrama for humour. Hence “dangerously heretical” and “Pre-mil Tim LaHaye reading…..”.

    BTW — while we mention Tim LaHaye… anyone ever read the “Left Behind” parody called “Right Behind”? It certainly cracked me up.

17. Thanks all for your comments.
    I have genuinely found this an interesting and helpful thread.
    If you’re interested you might want to see the comments after my American friend’s blog post – http://theosandphotos.blogspot.com/2008/06/ad-yet-expected-disappointment-of.html 
    Especially the analysis of their actual taught beliefs rather than their ‘official’ beliefs.

18. Hi Guys,

    If you want to see how dodgy the Contemporary Church (Hillsong, CCC etc) theology really is (ie. ‘taken out of context’) simply ask any Pastor to provide you with an articulation of their doctrine on Tithing … or ask why so many of these Churches are ‘handed down the family line’ … or ask for a copy of the financials for all related entities … or enquire about how much money exchanges hands between Pastors on the ‘networked speaking circuit’.

    Respectfully, the question must be asked as to whether Hillsong (and its networked associates) really a Church or a family owned event marketing Business …?

19. I’ve come in a bit late to this discussion, but thought I’d put in my two cents.

    There seems to be a distinct difference in how to handle church growth between Pentecostals and Evangelicals. Pentecostals are far more likely to encourage the church to grow in mass numbers within the same church. Evangelicals seem far more likely to plant a new church when their church gets too big in numbers.

    I heard a prominent Anglican pastor once say once a church reaches 1,000 people, it has reached a critical mass and church growth is no longer a hassle, it just keeps growing naturally after that. Getting it to 1,000 people is harder than getting it over 1,000 people.

    I’m not for or against planting new churches or growing a church above 1,000 people. In either approach there will be difficulties. One difficulty with planting new churches once their own church gets too big, is that the young adults group may never get large enough for some.

    I did a survey for my home church once, and one reason a person gave for leaving the church was to be part of a bigger church where she could find a marriage partner. I talked to Peter Brierly (former Director of Christian Research UK) about this issue one time and he had found similar instances in his own research.

    If a young adult moves from a smaller church and regularly attends a larger church and finds a marriage partner at the larger church, is the couple more likely to stay at the larger church or go back to the smaller church? That couple will then have kids and their kids will then likely regularly attend the larger church.

    So in terms of building numbers at church, I think the fact that Pentecostals are all for large churches rather than splitting is an advantage. If the young adults are aware that the church will split as soon as the church gets too large, this might be something not too attractive. If young adults are aware their church wants to keep growing and bringing new young adults into the arena that may be an attractive thing for some.

    The Gospel should shape everything that we do, and growing a church to very large numbers is something I cannot see as against the Gospel.