Tags
Batterham, Bloomfield, Branham, David Batterham, Frank Houston, Gospel of the Kingdom, Hazel, Hazel Houston, Hillsong, NAR, NAR cult, New Apostolic Reformation, New Apostolic Reformation cult, New Order of the Latter Rain, New Order of the Latter Rain cult, NOLR, NOLR cult, NZ AOG, NZAOG, Ray Bloomfield, William Branham
Many people assume that the origins of Hillsong originated from Charismaticism, Pentecostalism or the Salvation Army. This is not true.
Hillsong’s roots were founded in the Canadian New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) cult. Today, this is internationally recognised as the New Apostolic Reformation cult.
This series of articles looks at the history of the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) and how it overran the AOG in NZ, the AOG in Australia and how this was done through Frank Houston, the founder of Hillsong/Christian Life Center. In this article we will explore how Frank Houston climbed the ranks of the NZ AOG and how he influenced and changed the Pentecostal ecclesiastical structures of the AOG and Australia to the totalitarian NOLR leadership structure. You will notice many of these ideas present in Hillsong and the Australian Christian Churches model.
You can read our articles to see how Frank Houston was influenced by the NOLR cult through the teachings of false prophet and fraudulent healer William Branham and other New Zealand Latter Rainers in his church:
THE NEW ORDER OF THE LATTER RAIN RE-CAP
In our first article, we mentioned the fact that in the beginnings of the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR), they attempted to take over Pentecostal churches and fellowships in Canada. The NOLR have never stopped their aggressive campaign to take Pentecostal denominations in their attempt to spread their Gospel of the Kingdom.
Remember – according to the NOLR and NAR, there is dead or religious Christianity and then there is a living or true Christianity. They believe Christianity before them preaches a dead gospel but they claim to preach a living gospel. Their Gospel of the Kingdom proves God is alive by having their gospel message itself manifest signs, wonders, healings and miracles.
We would like you to keep this diagram at the forefront of your mind as we explore the paradigm of the Houston’s progress to power in this article:
This means one is recognised as a leader, apostle or prophet of the Latter Rain if they demonstrate in power, this NOLR/NAR ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’. They have the ability to prophesy, bring miracles, healings and supernatural signs and wonders into gatherings or manifest answers, abundance or material wealth for the benefit of the advancement of the Kingdom of God here on earth.
THE NOLR TAKEOVER OF THE NEW ZEALAND AOG
In New Zealand, the NOLR was clearly in full swing, usurping the Pentecostal denominations through the New Zealand AOG. It was an easy target considering how lax their ordination methods were. Hazel Houston records how Frank Houston became the Superintendent of the entire New Zealand Assemblies of God.
Hazel Houston wrote how Frank Houston became “ordained” as an AOG minister in 1956,
“After the service Ray put his arms round Frank.
‘You’ll do. I would like you to be my associate pastor.’ When Ray made this unorthodox approach Frank asked what he had to sign. Ray smiled.
‘Brother Frank, God has a wonderful record book in Heaven. That’s all we need.’
He never did sign anything but on the spot he became an Assemblies of God minister. This was eventually ratified by the Executive Council, and two years later they discovered he was not even a member of the Assemblies of God. Frank often said a piece of paper didn’t make a minister, although he does not recommend this unorthodox approach.” pg. 76-77, Being Frank.
Who cares if Frank Houston and his wife were booted from the Salvation Army and were involved in a financial scandal earlier? (See previous articles in series.)
A few years later after “pastoring” Ray Bloomfield’s church (called Ellerslie-Tamaki Faith Mission), Frank Houston was asked to pastor a church in Lower Hutt. This request caused Houston to fast and pray until he found “the mind of God” (pg. 110). When Bloomfield responded to Frank Houston’s news from Canada, listen to how Hazel Houston records how her husband responded to Bloomfield and “God”:
“The umbilical cord was broken. As Frank put the letter down he glanced out the lounge room window. The sun was shining on a field of ripe cocksfoot grass. Suddenly it appeared to be blown by a gentle breeze. Every seed head seemed to turn into a human being.
‘I saw a multitude of people praising God,’ he told me.
Like a deep inner prophecy, God said: ‘I will cause you to raise up an evangelistic centre in Lower Hutt that will finally have an outreach to the world.
‘It will touch a multitude of people.'” pg. 112
When they moved to Lower Hutt in December 1959, Hazel wrote of an important event that shaped Frank Houston’s ministry:
“Christmas already broke into an already busy schedule. For the first time, Frank had decided we should go to the annual Christmas camp and national business conference. The business sessions, held in the afternoons, were enough to deter any newcomer. Pastors sat with a copy of the constitution on their knees and their tongues ready to argue irrelevant points. For five days the delegates wrangled over, what Frank decided, was inconsequential to the lives of people.
For a whole week they argued and there were only thirteen churches represented. Delegates were asked to nominate men for the executive council, the controlling body of the Assemblies of God. Frank was amazed that someone should nominate him. Unknown, though he thought himself to be, he decided to let his name stand. He was surprised to be elected.” pg. 114
Why did this happen? How did this happen? The only thing that proved his legitimacy at this point was his associations with Ray Bloomfield and David Batterham and that he received Bloomfield’s mantle of “double portion”. The only thing that seemed to qualify Frank was his “supernatural” power and the church growth numbers. All Ray Bloomfield did was put his hands on Houston and sweep him in AOG’s backdoor without anyone knowing what Frank Houston actually believed.
However, this is the way a prophet and apostle are recognised and established in the NOLR/New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) cult. Think of William Branham. And more recently, think of Todd Bentley of the man-made, Lakeland “revival”. Bentley automatically qualified as an “Apostle” by the NOLR/NAR because he was supposedly used by God to bring revival and was operating in healing, signs and wonders.
It is our opinion that electing a Branham-man like into the NZ AOG was inevitable. The Latter Rainers in the New Zealand AOG would not have considered the policies, regulations, rules nor bother looking at the credentials of Frank Houston. They would have elected him because of his “prophetic” William Branham-like ministry and qualities.
Hazel then highlights an element of the Latter Rain ideology emerging in Houston’s direction in the AOG,
“Then the feeling was replaced by a sense that God would use him to bring the movement into greater evangelism than it was pursuing. He would accomplish more than that. God would use him to release the fellowship into freedom in praise and worship.” pg. 114
The Latter Rain was HUGE in pushing “intimacy” in God and freedom in their worship experiences. Jack Hayford, a NOLR and NAR leader, was also trying to reform and restore the global church into TRUE “freedom in praise and worship” (see his latter work ‘Worship His Majesty’, 1987). It is possible to claim that Frank Houston was “Apostollically Reforming” the New Zealand AOG to the “New Thing” God was doing on the earth.
Hazel continued,
“He determined that he would also work towards getting the business sessions streamlined so that less time would be taken up with unnecessary argument. His opportunity came when he was appointed superintendent some years later.” pg. 114
Word got back to Ray Bloomfield about Frank Houston’s promotion. Hazel writes,
– Hazel Houston, Being Frank, pg. 115
“God’s desire is signs, wonders and miracles?” Ministers are to preach a “power-packed message of deliverance from sin, sickness and disease?”
The Pentecostal movement in its beginnings preached the gospel that the Apostles preached. Branham introduced the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ “power-packed message of deliverance from sin, sickness and disease.”
This is the classic Latter Rain “Gospel of the Kingdom” gospel which Branham claims to preach:
“So I believe that we’ll take God’s Word as the Rule and to go into all the world and preach the gospel. The gospel came not in word only but through power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit. So the gospel is demonstrating the power of the Holy Spirit.
I went into nations where they say, “Now we don’t want missionaries. We know more about it than you do. But the thing we want to see is somebody who’s got faith enough to make God’s Word manifest.” That’s what they want to see.
And that’s how they get converted. That’s how they find Christ. It’s because they believe in that manner.”” [Source] (Emphasis ours.)
This is not Pentecostalism. Here we can see Ray Bloomfield pushing the NOLR agenda through Frank Houston to newly reform the New Zealand AOG.
In response to Ray Bloomfield’s letter, Hazel writes.
“Sometimes Frank wondered if the movement could revive.
Yet when pastors of independent churches tried to persuade him to also go independent, the awareness that God had some special purpose for the Assemblies of God kept him where he was. The antagonism towards these independent groups by some of his fellow ministers left Frank puzzled.
‘How can you fellowship with pipe-smoking ministers in their fraternity when you will not associate with born-again men from other Pentecostal streams?’ he’d ask them. ‘Many of those ministers are not even Christian.” pg. 115
Notice Frank wanted the AOG movement revived and saw that the answer to revival was founded in unity, not division. And also notice his dig at some ministers for being “not even Christian”. This is the typical Latter Rain revival paradigm where unity is emphasised over doctrine. You are either spiritually on board with what God is doing or religiously dead and getting in the way. Don’t forget that there were heretical sects emerging from the Pentecostal churches such as Oneness Pentecostalism (who deny the trinity) and extreme Full Gospel/Foursquare sects.
THE NOLR MAKEOVER OF THE NEW ZEALAND AOG
On pages 115-116, Hazel gave valuable insight how Frank Houston progressed from pastor to prophetic visionary leader. She documents how Frank Houston “presented his vision for Lower Hutt” to the executive:
“There seemed to be no satisfactory reply. He is still puzzled by the narrowness of such a point of view. Although the work of the executive would require much time, Frank’s main vision was still the church. At the February board meeting, Frank presented his vision for Lower Hutt, a city of eighty-five thousand.” pg. 115 (Emphasis added.)
Notice the emphasis on ‘vision’. Houston claims to the board, “I’ve been asking God for direction and I feel we must take the town hall for a crusade” (pg. 115). Now he is prophetically dictating what needs to be done. He is now putting the hat of a governing Latter Rain Prophet on himself in the NZ AOG.
When people asked questions how this could be done, Hazel writes,
“Frank knew he had to bring them to the point where they shared his vision. Without that there could be no success. Seed thoughts dropped into the discussion took root until the whole board agreed to fully support the plan.” pg. 115 (Emphasis added.)
This is frightening insight into how NOLR Prophet Frank Houston manipulated the board to agree with his “vision” from God. And this is exactly how the Hillsong church and the Australian AOG operate to this day: you don’t question the Apostle, Prophet or leaders vision.
And of course, Prophet Frank got what he wanted, bringing together a number of churches from all denominations in his first Hillsong Conference “town hall… crusade”. Frank got his critics from other denominations and he put them in place with fallacious arguments. (e.g. “We don’t steal sheep, we grow grass.” pg. 118.)
Frank Houston also started seeing himself as the only authority to make final decisions as the “man of God”. In looking for a new church property for his congregation, Frank,
“… could hardly contain his excitement. There had been no time to consult the church board. Nor did he want to for the moment. He’d come to feel that God never works through committees: he chooses a man (though the man may need committees to help him.)” pg. 119 (Emphasis added.)
And when Prophet Frank Houston found a building he liked, how did he present his idea to the board members?
“It’s for sale and I believe that God wants us to buy it.” pg. 120. (Emphasis added.)
Prophet Frank has spoken.
Why would the board members question him? We hope you can start to see the New Order of the Latter Rain manifest itself through the authoritarian methods of Frank Houston at this point. Who can question God wanting Frank and the board to buy this church?
And this is what Prophet Frank Houston did,
“Frank phoned the mayor on Monday.
‘We’ll take the church,’ he said.
‘You had better make an appointment to come see me,’ the mayor said. He was an astute businessman. ‘It will cost you $60,000. Do you have that much money?’ the mayor asked.
‘Yes of course we do.’ Frank didn’t tell him it was still in the bank of Heaven. He believed God had shown him the city council would carry the finance themselves.” pg. 120-121.
Later on Frank Houston had to be honest with the council,
“When we had to tell the council the money was not forthcoming, they were in a predicament. If what they had done became known there would be a public outcry. If they evicted us the same thing would happen. They carried the finance for five years.”
We will look more into this scandal in another article. However, this is the god of Frank Houston and the New Order of the Latter Rain.
Touch not God’s anointed.
This was the aura Frank Houston created around himself in the New Zealand and Australian AOG. The NOLR “Prophets” and “Apostles” were climbing the ranks and swiftly destroying and redefining the Pentecostal institutions and churches of Australia and New Zealand with their totalitarian spiritual regimes.
Here Hazel writes how Frank Houston became Superintendent of the AOG,
“The executive council was not a body of men who agreed on everything, but they were in agreement when they needed a new superintendent. Ralph Read, the current superintendent, had accepted a call to a church in Australia. He was a gifted organiser who had given strong leadership to the movement in New Zealand. The Lower Hutt church wondered anxiously who could replace him.
Our board offered to pay his salary if he’d stay as superintendent in a full-time capacity. Ralph felt that would be out of the will of God. Frank, now assistant superintendent, found himself elevated to the position. Neither of us wanted that. There was already so much to do in the ministry but we yielded to what was assuredly the purpose of God. We knelt in dedication while Ralph Read prayed for us with laying on of hands. Both of us were aware of a special sense of God’s calling into a phase of ministry which would release the fellowship into a period of growth.
It grew from fifteen to forty churches as the bonds of traditionalism were broken by spontaneous praise and worship, often accompanied by dancing.” pg. 125-126. (Emphasis added)
Once again the NOLR paradigm is overriding orthodox Pentecostalism. And Frank Houston made sure that his paradigm was caught by others:
“The ministry in New Zealand was suffering from a lack of trained people. It would also be part of the vision to reach the world.
‘Lord, give me one hundred men. One hundred men dedicated to you at whatever the cost. Then we will make a real impact for the kingdom.’
The aim of the college would be to train young people to evangelise the world. Academic excellence would be important but secondary to the development of their spiritual lives. No way must the fire of the Spirit be doused, although education must not be despised. Students came from Samoa, Fiji, Indonesia, Australia and Sri Lanka.
‘These are your spiritual sons,’ the Spirit whispered.
‘They have laid aside fears and frustrations for the hopes and challenges of faith, but they know God is their partner,’ Frank declared.” pg. 126-7
We want to make it clear. We are not against goals and accomplishments being achieved in the name of Jesus. The issue is that people blur the lines and claim that God gave them a “vision” to achieve something, thus making themselves out to be infallible men. Frank Houston was clearly a man who controlled the New Zealand AOG as God’s vision-seeing prophet and restructured it accordingly so that he was accountable to none. That is incredibly dangerous.
It is clear Frank Houston considered himself to be above church boards and various forms of governing AOG and church infrastructure. And what is concerning is how the AOG executive board and his own church board seem to be more than willing to submit to his prophetic direction.
If you think we have come to serious erroneous conclusions of Frank Houston and his relation to any form of accountability structures in the AOG because of his prophetic delusions, we would please ask you to consider the articles that are still to come in this series.
Hillsong Church Watch 
ChurchWatch here is another article or theme that is misleading in it’s representation of the founding of Hillsong Church. You have also called Brian a liar because he claims to be the founder of Hillsong, the truth is Brian Houston is the founder of Hillsong not Frank.
I know this because I attended HCLC Baulkham Hills when Baulkham Hills acquired the City Church. Frank was leaving the City Church and the HCLS (Hills) were working out what to do going forward, Brian and both leadership teams decided the best thing for everyone was for HCLC (Hills) to take over the City Church into another branch of the church (NOT the other way around).
Because the City Church was a separate church it would also mean a culture shift for those who attended the City Church and some big changes. The City church had to change certain aspects of there service because they were becoming one church under the leadership of Brian.(Not the other way around)
A few years later HCLC (Hills) decided to change there name to Hillsong Church largely because the music (Hillsong Music generated from HCLC Baulkham Hills) was more famous than the church name HCLC. Both the Hillsong music and conferences had become famous and people were getting confused by the different names.
Therefore Brian the founder of HCLC (Hills) who acquired the City Church and later changed the name to Hillsong was the founder of Hillsong. It was HCLC Baulkham Hills that was famous for it’s Music and conferences not the City Church prior to takeover.
If Hillsong had not acquired the City Church then today Hillsong would still be Hillsong with global Church’s, Music and conferences. And the City church would be separate entity. Clearly Brian is the founder of Hillsong.
“B.Layeckmeyer – in all fairness we don’t assume David attends Hillsong, neither should you unless he says he does.”
Looks like I was right all along in assuming David is/was part of Hillsong. I knew it. He’s just another case of someone coming here with all kinds of ideas stuck in his head due to his involvement with Hillsong the king of cults.
BL: Something to consider – a lot of those who comment here are looking for answers. If they are truly His, they’re probably experiencing a bit of spiritual discomfort, probably at a place where some of us were before we finally left these movements. I’m one who lived in denial for a long time, asking, questioning, rejecting (the facts presented here). Just as David is now.
I said I attended HCLC years ago when it acquired the City Church. I did not say I attend now. Don’t take things out of context.
“Looks like I was right all along in assuming David is/was part of Hillsong. I knew it. He’s just another case of someone coming here with all kinds of ideas stuck in his head due to his involvement with Hillsong the king of cults”
How about responding to my points as opposed to having a swipe. I was there I witnessed this no one gave me weird ideas.
“How about responding to my points as opposed to having a swipe.”
And how about quoting me ACCURATELY. I said “is/WAS” meaning your involvement WAS in the past and might still be now.
David, when you say “the truth is Brian Houston is the founder of Hillsong not Frank,” are you being honest? Is that what Brian Houston called his church when he started it?
Im not sure what you mean for the record I have been entirely honest in everything i have stated. Brian called the church Hills Cristian Life Centre when he started it.
“Brian called the church Hills Cristian Life Centre when he started it.”
So why did he call it Hills CLC?
I’m curious. How does one “acquire” a church? Surely, it isn’t an open market thing. I’m not sure about Australian Law or how AoG works in your country. But if either was incorporated shouldn’t have both congregations have to vote in agreement. Their should be records open to the public for both votes. Shouldn’t there be? I mean both church records should even state the debate that went on with the major parties listed that objected prior to the vote.
Isn’t it sort of unethical that a Pastor and/or Elder Board decide this behind closed doors in some sort of secret meetings? This is a time before either was a Corporate Structured Money Making Institution selling plastic Christianity. There should be records that are available. The “Church” organization belongs to the congregation and the church Elder Board can’t act without specific consent of a vote. Am I wrong? So there should be written material on the proposal so the congregation could study it prior to the vote in BOTH Congregations. Am I wrong? These proposals should be floating around from both churches.
I hope this wasn’t done with a handshake and a wink. Then it would not be Christ’s church we are talking about. It would be about building a Houston father and son business..
Ezekiel 34 comes to mind.
ASIDE NOTE: I appreciate the work that Churchwatch put into this. Especially exposing the NAR Heretical infestation. It is hard to find a church board in the larger AoG Fellowships in the United States without some members being active participants in the NAR. It seems that the card carrying “Druckerites” (Seeker Friendly gang) that are also involved have no problems with the NAR influence. It is hard to find a scripture loving follower of Jesus sometimes.. It isn’t “Sola Scriptura” has been replaced by “Soma Scriptura Soma da Time”.
Bless you all. Again, I really appreciate your work.
humbly,
Frank
recovering Pentecostal and exiled sheep
“ChurchWatch here is another article or theme that is misleading in it’s representation of the founding of Hillsong Church. You have also called Brian a liar because he claims to be the founder of Hillsong, the truth is Brian Houston is the founder of Hillsong not Frank.”
We were keeping this for another article – but this is the reason why we stand by our claim: “Frank Houston, the founder of Hillsong/Christian Life Center”.
Brian published his book ‘You Can Change the Future’ in July 2000. This book praised the life, ministry and legacy of Frank Houston and portrayed Frank as an example for others to follow. We observed it was promoted even up to February 2002.
This book suggests that Brian Houston is currently rewriting CLC/Hillsong history. Please read what is highlighted in the below pages:
You might also want to read the interview Bobbie Houston praised in Women’s Weekly. She says something similar above.
So who should people listen to regarding Hillsong’s history? Brian or Brian? Bobbie or Bobbie? Should they listen to you? Or should people try listening to us since we are trying to sort out this mess as best we can?
The sad reality is that there should not be this confusion if Hillsong were upfront with their history.
Again it appears that David regardless of ‘what YOU saw’, YOU are not a reliable source of information.
I think I understand what you’re getting at.
Would a clarification like “….and how this was done through Frank Houston, the founder of a Christian City church which LATER became known as Hillsong when son Brian Houston took over (or words to that effect)”?
I still think you’re splitting hairs though. A woman who changes her maiden surname to her husband’s surname when she gets married is still the same person.
Churches can change names, locations and pastors but remain the same church. Same beliefs, same people, same system, same songs.
Put it this way. If the City Church (Frank was the founder) acquired HCLC Baulkham Hills and then Frank became the senior pastor of both churches, if HCLC Baulkham Hills had to come under the leadership of Frank, if HCLC Baulkham Hills had to go through big change under new leadership and if the Church became known as HCLC Waterloo then I would agree that Frank is the founder of the movement.
The facts are it was the exact opposite, HCLC (Hills) acquired City Church and came under the leadership of Brian. Brian was the founder of HCLC (Hills) which later became Hillsong Church. They changed the name because people in the states were confused because Hillsong conference and Hillsong Music were becoming famous hence the decision to change the name of the Church to Hillsong Church.
I’m not splitting hairs this speaks to the truth as to who the founder of Hillsong Church was. You claim Brian is a liar because he claims to be the founder, calling someone a liar is a big deal. I think I have clearly demonstrated that Brian is telling the truth.
David, I personally have no problem with Brian Houston claiming he is the founder of the current Hillsong church itself. However surely you can also agree that he did not start a church from scratch by himself, like the apostles did in the Book of Acts?
Brian Houston’s church would not have been formed unless his father had been very already closely involved in planting churches, including the one that eventually developed into Hillsong. A church had already been formed by the father, in the process it changed location, pastor, and became known as Hillsong.
Here is an ABC article where Brian Houston in which he said he saw his father flying off to preach and said to himself “one day I want to do that”. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1428533.htm
That statement is very revealing. His example was his father. He aimed to do church like his father. Do you see why it can be argued that Frank Houston was the *real* founder (of the church which later became known as Hillsong under his son’s leadership), not his son Brian?
Brian wants to separate Hillsong from Frank as much as possible so that he is not open to being sued by the victims of his pedo father. Everyone who was associated with the deal in the early days knows that Frank planted the Hills CLC church with his son as pastor. If there hadnt been a Sydney CLC, there never would have been a hillsong.
Hi Thinker I agree with many of the things you have just stated. What I find frustrating is that ChurchWatch have blatantly called Brian a liar because he has stated he is the founder of Hillsong when clearly it’s not that black and white. A reasonable person would understand that Brian’s statement is perfectly reasonable.
This is just one example on this website where statements are made that are not accurate and are misleading. I have no issues with balanced criticism but when things are distorted you loose credibility.
Forgive us for “appearing” to be misleading, David. In all seriousness, did you attend the Royal Commission hearings (or livestream them)? Some of us attended, others live streamed. Have you any idea the depth of investigation that has been done by the author of the articles? “Lying” about this is hardly an agenda we subscribe to. You’re not the only one who attended the movement in its early days.
David – just to let you know that the ‘victim’ has responded to your comments over at https://hillsongchurchwatch.com/2016/01/10/another-hillsong-paedophile-scandal-brian-caught-lying-and-trashing-victim/#comment-26691
Furthermore HCLC (Hills) and City Church Waterloo were not the same church prior to the acquisition. Frank was the founder of CLC Waterloo. Brian was the founder of HCLC (Hills) two completely separate entities. They had separate names, finances, pastors, leaders, cultures and attendees. The only similarities were that they were both under ACC movement.
Frank spoke at HCLC (Hills) perhaps once a year and he was introduced as Brian’s father a visiting speaker from City Church Waterloo. Frank did not establish or was not the founder of HCLC (Hills) Brian was.
David, you are incorrect.
Frank Houston founded Sydney CLC, Sydney CLC planted Hills CLC with Brian at the helm. Hills CLC changed its name to Hillsong Church.
Hillsong Church had a bronze plaque out the front acknowledging Frank Houston as its founder until Brian removed it after his father was outed as a paedophile. Both Frank and Brian used to refer to Sydney CLC as “the rock from which Hillsong was hewn”.
When the allegations against Frank began to surface in 1998, Brian assumed leadership of Sydney CLC as per the provisions of Sydney CLC’s constitution.
Brian can say he founded Hillstench as much as he likes but it doesn’t change the fact that Hillsong was planted by Frank Houston.
Brian likes to try and change history to protect Sydney & Hillsong from litigation. End of story
Terry you are wrong.
Answer this question Terry. If Frank was indeed the founder of HCLC (Hills) and Waterloo then why was there a need for an acquisition or amalgamation when HCLC(Hills) acquired Waterloo? I don’t think the same entity has to acquire itself especially under the same founder.
Frank founded Sydney CLC agreed. Sydney CLC did not plant Hills HCLC (the church was called Hills Christian Life Centre). And even if it was a church plant it does not mean Frank was the founder, he released the founder Brian to start a knew church.
In some cases church plant’s are designed as an extension of the actual church like Hillsong does internationally today. This was completely different they were completely separate legal entities etc.
Why there was so much cultural change and when HCLC acquired the Waterloo?
Frank gave Brian his blessing to start a completely separate church. The facts are Sydney CLC and HCLS (Hills) were run as two completely separate entities with difference finance, leadership, legal entities, worship etc.
I was there when all this happened and HCLC Baulkham Hills was run as a completely separate church and legal entity. When Frank was invited to speak he was not introduced as the founder he was introduced as a visiting speaker from a separate church.
David you are missing the point but Ill answer the question anyway,
They had to be amalgamated because they were 2 separate incorporated bodies with separate boards, constitutions, staff, colleges, leadership teams and styles.
It was always understood that Brian would assimilate Sydney when Frank finished up for whatever reason, thats what happened in 1998-2000. It just wasn’t old age that took Frank out, it was a number of criminal sex scandals.
Nothing you say changes the fact that Sydney CLC planted Hills CLC. Hills was initiated by Sydney.
Now, you answer me this, if Frank didn’t plant Hills, why did Brian have a bronze plaque on the Hills church acknowledging Frank Houston as founder? It disappeared pretty quickly once the old rock spider was outed though.
Brian wants to divorce himself from his pervert father for the sake of protecting himself from the possible compensation claims that are going to come his way after he is convicted of protecting a paedophile.
Thats what the lies and cover up are on who founded hillsong story are all about, no amount of spin from you or anyone else can change that.
BTW, why are you supporting a person who sheltered and protected a child molester?
“Thats what the lies and cover up are on who founded hillsong story are all about, no amount of spin from you or anyone else can change that.
BTW, why are you supporting a person who sheltered and protected a child molester?”
And what Terry said is one of your weird ideas David. You put your spin on the whole story. And you support a person who sheltered and protected a child molester. You act like none of this happened and/or you have no problem with it. That is weird.
Hi Terry,
Do you know anyone with a photo of that plaque?
Another way of looking at it: Frank was the original founder of the church in sydney – he sent out his son with his blessing who founded another church – the two churches were of the same spirit. Frank would have provided much guidance and input into the new venture making the churches connected by many bonds. Franks founding church morphed over time into a new form with amalgamation with Brian’s church. It was Franks spirit and Brian’s sonship which morphed into Hillsong. It’s a spiritual bonding and mentoring.
I remember my old pastor saying how he wished he had a father like Brian’s so that he could have had all that teaching about church growth in his life.
I wonder if he still says the same thing……
.
ChurchWatch are making the bold statement that Brian is liar because he said he started Hillsong when his father did. It’s a bold statement and needs to be backed up with more than this.
“Frank was the original founder of the church in sydney – he sent out his son with his blessing who founded another church”
You have just made the statement that Brian founded HCLC (Hills) which he later changed to Hillsong.
“the two churches were of the same spirit”
This has nothing to do with who legally found HCLC (Hills). Many separate church’s have the same spirit.
“Frank would have provided much guidance and input into the new venture making the churches connected by many bonds”
Once again this has nothing to do with who legally found HCLC (Hills) Just because someone gives another guidance does not make them the founder of the institution.
“Franks founding church morphed over time into a new form with amalgamation with Brian’s church”
Frank founded Waterloo, it was not amalgamated it was acquired by HCLC (Hills), my prior arguments clearly point out who the acquiring party was.
“It was Franks spirit and Brian’s sonship which morphed into Hillsong. It’s a spiritual bonding and mentoring.”
This sounds very fluffy and does not prove Frank was the founder of HCLC (Hills).
A response to Terry Towelling is where you should be heading David.
David,
“That sounds very fluffy”.
I was talking about spiritual things -not legal entities. I would not use legalese as I’m not a lawyer.
However I do use the word ” Spirit” as I’m a Christian and it is usual to be talking about spiritual things when we discuss churches. The word spirit is used in the bible 523 times.
I’ve never heard a Christian speak that way (” fluffy “) about a spiritual statement. I’m wondering what they might be imparting to you at your church?
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness to him. (1Cor.2v14).
I wonder if someone can help me out here? Did the RC state, imply, or infer that they believed Brian changed the names of the churches to create new legal entities that would not be able to be sued by Frank’s victims?
David, from 7 October 2014 Royal Commission transcript:
http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=7b858a18-966e-40a1-8e48-87170456a7c1&type=transcriptpdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-86)&fileextension=pdf
Frank Houston was ordained as a Salvation Army officer in New Zealand in his early life. However, he moved from the Salvation Army and, in 1960, established his first
Assemblies of God church in Lower Hutt, New Zealand. From 1965 to 1971 he rose to occupy the position of superintendent of the New Zealand Assemblies of God.
Frank Houston came to Australia on occasion during those years in order to preach.
In 1977 Frank Houston established the Sydney Christian Life Centre and was based in Australia.
In 1978, Frank Houston’s son Brian and daughter-in-law Bobbie joined the ministry there. In 1983 Brian and Bobbie Houston founded the Hills Christian Life Centre and the two churches merged in 1999, renaming itself Hillsong Church. Today Hillsong Church spans 12 countries, including Australia. (p. 9037-9038, paragraphing added).
According to Royal Commission, Frank Houston started a church, later Brian worked with his father’s ministry. THEN Brian Houston started a separate church in same city*, the father and son merged their two churches into one in same city. If you could have proved the Royal Commission wrong on this matter why didn’t YOU contact them ASAP?
—
*NOTE: Brian never formed a separate church in another city away from his father. If it was a mother-daughter relationship or mother-son relationship it could be said that the umbilical cord was NEVER cut.
Thanks for the information Thinker.
Debra, further information for you:
Frank Houston announced on 14 February 1999 that the church would come under the leadership of his son Brian Houston after he confessed to sexually abusing a teenage boy 30 years earlier. This same person he admitted to abusing also believed there to be other victims, and was repeatedly ignored by those in the Australian Christian Churches leadership (formerly Australian Assemblies of God). [1][2] Sydney Christian Life Centre then merged with Hills Christian Life Centre to form Hillsong Church. Sydney Christian Life Centre is now known as the “City Location” of Hillsong Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Life_Centre
Thanks Thinker. I don’t disagree with commission’s findings at all.
“THEN Brian Houston started a separate church in same city”
“1983 Brian and Bobbie Houston founded the Hills Christian Life Centre”
This basically prove’s Brian started Hillsong. The point being the merged entity came under the leadership and ministry of Brian, and CLC waterloo was merged into one church Hills Christian Life Centre which later changed it’s name to Hillsong to align with Hillsong conference and the music ministry.
“Brian never formed a separate church in another city away from his father. If it was a mother-daughter relationship or mother-son relationship it could be said that the umbilical cord was NEVER cut.”
The issue isn’t an issue of distance it’s an issue if being a separate entity this prove’s it was. Of course Frank had influence in the early days. he was his father.
I don’t think we disagree Thinker.
Thinker,
What is recorded in the RC about the origins of Hillsong is simply Brian’s version of things which were carefully constructed by his legal advisers at Mallesons to limit his liability in the event of victims making a claim against the assets of Frank’s old church. Brian’s account of history serves his pride, arrogance and convenience, not the truth.
Hillsong and Brian Houston personally should still be liable for compensation to the victims because they were the recipients of the cash and assets of CLC Sydney, founded by the pedophile Frank Houston.
Originally you use the RC to support your argument now you are backing down? I thought we agreed.
“What is recorded in the RC about the origins of Hillsong is simply Brian’s version of things which were carefully constructed by his legal advisers at Mallesons”
This is your opinion and is not based on fact. If you are going to use the RC to support your arguments then you can’t choose parts that are inconvenient and wright them off.
“Hillsong and Brian Houston personally should still be liable for compensation to the victims because they were the recipients of the cash and assets of CLC Sydney, founded by the pedophile Frank Houston”
I disagree. If I buy a fish and chip shop and it’s later found that the past owner abused children, I’m not liable financially. The police / courts will go after the past owner and charge him, he is responsible for the crime.
But if you covered up the past owners crime…
“But if you covered up the past owners crime…”
It appears that David’s defense mechanism toward facing these issues is to remain in denial.
I agree with you SS. That is going on what the Royal Commission says, which relied on witnesses to tell the whole truth. I don’t remember much interrogation occurring in fact.
I think we agree only on the surface. I agree with you AND Churchwatchers simultaneously.
Brian Houston started the Sydney church which came to be known as Hillsong in 1983 – the outward institution itself, as seen with physical eyes – yes. That is correct technically.
Brian Houston started the Hillsong church independent of his father – as seen with spiritual eyes – no. It would never have been formed without his father’s programming. Brian Houston’s words, methods and preaching style are his father’s. Like father like son.
You are looking at outward appearances like the prophet Samuel was told NOT to do. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+16%3A7&version=KJV
Brian can’t escape the fact that he is his father’s son ever and it’s his cross to carry. As soon as we go down the path of spiritual issues we end up having scripture verse war which can go anywhere.
You can’t escape the fact that (like the Royal Commission said) Brian Houston had a severe conflict of interest. Instead of choosing to seek justice on behalf of his father’s victims, he chose to put his father and Hillsong Church’s reputation first.
Have mercy on the son of an abuser, definitely. No reasonable Christian wants Brian Houston to suffer for his father’s own sins. Let a church leader get away with protecting a pedophile, never.
To Terry (no more reply options on that thread)
“Nothing you say changes the fact that Sydney CLC planted Hills CLC. Hills was initiated by Sydney.”
Just because Sydney CLC helped initiate Hills does not mean they are responsible for the founding of the church. Brian was the founder.
From the royal commission: In 1983 Brian and Bobbie Houston founded the Hills Christian Life Centre. I looks like the royal commission disagrees with you.
“Brian wants to divorce himself from his pervert father for the sake of protecting himself from the possible compensation claims that are going to come his way after he is convicted of protecting a paedophile”
If my father was a pedo I would want to divorce myself from him as well. In terms of compensation claims I know this is sensitive but the truth is non of the events happened at Hillsong / HCLF(Hills) or by a Hillsong HCLC employee or leaders, they simply weren’t responsible for the crimes. IMO Brian won’t be charged.
Regarding the plaque I have no idea what you are talking about but I will take your word for it. If I found out my father was a paedophile I would remove anything in my life associated with him.
The bronze plaque acknowledging FH as founder was on the first building on the Balkham Hills site.
Eventually, Brian will be charged for concealing his father’s sex crimes. He was required by law to do so and he didnt – that has consequences.
Brian covered up his father’s crimes allowing a serial life long paedophile to escape prosecution, he admitted this at the RC.
He is just as evil as George Pell, Tim Minchin should write a song about him too.
Brian will face the same charges as the Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson who failed to report paedophile Father Jim Fletcher in the 1970’s. This is serious stuff, people do not accept protecting paedophiles as good and decent behaviour.
Why do you defend Brian Houston when by his own admission he sheltered and protected his pedo father?
“Why do you defend Brian Houston when by his own admission he sheltered and protected his pedo father?”
This is the same cult behavior that Newtaste used to exhibit on a full-time basis. Newtaste made this website his home away from home. Coming up with all kinds of elaborate explanations / loopholes to Make excuses for various episodes of Brian Houston, Defend Brian Houston, and Perpetuate the fallacy that Brian Houston’s a great guy. In fact, He was such a great guy, he yelled at the victims at the trial. Wow what remorse. Forget any compensation, how about yelling at them instead. Then let your brainwashed followers make excuses for you.
“But if you covered up the past owners crime”
1.He fired his father – this is not a cover up
2.He informed the church board -this is not a cover up
3. He ensured his father was no longer a a danger to kids – no cover up
4. He told the church – no cover up
5. He did not inform the police – This depends on if you believe Brian’s view that he did not want to undermine the victim. If you don’t believe him it’s viewed as a cover up, if you believe him then it isn’t. He stated that he now thinks the was an error on his behalf.
Are you serious?
AHA: “…he avoided using the term pedophilia…. I thought it was corrupt that he had used the term “involved in a minor indiscretion”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/royal-commission-child-sexual-abuse-investigates-hillsong/5795308
If it was truly a minor indiscretion why didn’t Brian Houston simply tell the congregation what his father had done? Hillsongees are told repeatedly not to judge other people because “we’re sinners too, nobody’s perfect”….
“But if you covered up the past owners crime”
1.He fired his father – this is not a cover up
No. The evidence at the Royal Commission suggests otherwise.
2.He informed the church board -this is not a cover up
So you’re saying the church board are also involved in the cover-up?
3. He ensured his father was no longer a a danger to kids – no cover up
No. The evidence at the Royal Commission suggests otherwise. (Personal testimonies on CW suggest likewise.)
4. He told the church – no cover up
Great! Tell us! Because Brian Houston can’t remember what he said, when he said it or to whom he said it too. You can help the Royal Commission out here.
5. He did not inform the police – This depends on if you believe Brian’s view that he did not want to undermine the victim. If you don’t believe him it’s viewed as a cover up, if you believe him then it isn’t. He stated that he now thinks the was an error on his behalf.
David – not even the Royal Commission found Brian Houston’s excuses plausible.
Do you think Brian conducted a proper independent investigation? Do you think he should have confronted his father, given his conflict of interest, without a witness? Do you know what Frank confessed too? Do you know what the allegation was?
AHA: “…he avoided using the term pedophilia…. I thought it was corrupt that he had used the term “involved in a minor indiscretion”.
Brian Houston called it a ‘minor indiscretion’???
That is really SICK.
How can ANYONE support this so-called ‘pastor’? He takes a wicked trainwreck and tries to trick people to downgrade it into a parking violation. He can’t even make it past the very 1st criteria given by Paul.
1 Timothy 3:1-2 English Standard Version (ESV)
Qualifications for Overseers
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, …”
How ridiculous!
“1.He fired his father – this is not a cover up”
After he was aware his father had a problem, didn’t he let it go on for awhile, exposing more children to risk? And so what if Brian eventually did fire Frank, that was expected of him. Doing anything less would have looked pretty unsatisfactory.
“2.He informed the church board -this is not a cover up”
Wasn’t there a big time delay first?
“3. He ensured his father was no longer a a danger to kids – no cover up”
See #1.
David,
“he ensured his father was no longer a danger to kids”.
There are only 2 ways that you can ensure a pedo is no danger to kids. That is castration and gaol. And there is no way that they could supervise a pedo 24/7. It was stated by one of Franks victims that FH used to sneak into his room at night when everyone was asleep and molest him.
Even very old pedos with waning libidos can still offend and they can be very brazen and sneaky at getting at kids. These facts are research based
Look to be clear I detest rock spiders. I have no doubt what you are saying is true the whole issue makes me sick. Don’t mistake my support of Brian as in any way supporting these sick humans. Brian is not the accused here and I think there has to be some level of humanity towards understanding his position. I know he is not the victim but I have no doubt this has effected in deeply.
I do think in hindsight he thinks he could go handled this better and I have no doubt he has learnt from this, I don’t see how dragging this up day after day helps the victims or will make things any better.
If you hate Hillsong I suppose bringing this up all the time helps justify your position I don’t see how it helps anyone else.
“I think there has to be some level of humanity towards understanding his position.”
Where is your level of humanity towards understanding the victims’ positions? How can you say on one hand you detest rock spiders, then in the next breath say you support someone who refuses to compensate the victims? What a contradiction.
“If you hate Hillsong I suppose bringing this up all the time”
It’s worth bringing up until it’s made right, no matter how long of time that takes.
Read the rest of the comments instead of just firing off your views based on one comment.
Yes I have been reading your comments you obviously don’t get the depth of the problems with Mr. Indifferent himself Brian Houston. What you said right there above shows your mindless devotion towards B.H. and your own similar cold frivolous indifference toward the victims which you’ve had to adopt in order to be a slave to B.H. Sad to say. And shameful frankly. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.
Furthermore as has been said many times here…. B.H. would have you believe he simply ‘made some simple judgement mistakes’, however the Bible calls for character which in reality is exactly what B.H. is sorely lacking.
>>>> B.H.’s response to the F.H. situation, even had B.H. never called himself a ‘Christian’, would have still been disgraceful.
To call oneself a Christian as you do and then go on to say you are a B.H. supporter is a contradiction on multiple levels, get that? multiple levels, like it or not.
B.H. calling himself a Christian is awful, it puts real Christians in a bad light and it’s an enormous insult & slap in the face to us real Christians who in contrast really do believe in the Bible and try to live by it (unlike idolator Pharaoh Houston).
There is nothing good I can say about B.H.
“Brian called the church Hills Cristian Life Centre when he started it.”
So why did he call it Hills CLC?
Look instead of asking me leading questions just state the questions it is a waste of time.
He called Hills CLC because the church he founded was a similar church to his father’s. This dos not change the fact he is the founder of Hills CLC.
To use your fish-and-chip shop metaphor: your Dad buys you the shop outright but puts everything in your name so you have complete control of your own business. Only people you choose to tell e.g. lawyers know that he paid for it all, not you.
What would many people say if they learnt about that business in your name was in fact a gift from your Dad? Even if every detail was completely legal, you were truly in control and doing the hard work with no extra direct assistance from your Dad? You or your Dad?
Correction last sentence: who would people say really owns it, you or your Dad?
“He called Hills CLC because the church he founded was a similar church to his father’s. This dos not change the fact he is the founder of Hills CLC.”
Isn’t it more correct to say Brian Houston was relying on what his father FOUNDED to get his ministry going?
And thank you for finally seeing that Franks church was similar to Brians church.
“How about responding to my points as opposed to having a swipe.”
And how about quoting me ACCURATELY. I said “is/WAS” meaning your involvement WAS in the past and might still be now.
Fair point my bad..
David,
Eventually, Brian will be charged for concealing his father’s sex crimes. He was required by law to do so and he didnt – that has consequences.
Brian covered up his father’s crimes allowing a serial life long paedophile to escape prosecution, he admitted this at the RC.
He is just as evil as George Pell, Tim Minchin should write a song about him too.
Brian will face the same charges as the Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson who failed to report paedophile Father Jim Fletcher in the 1970’s. This is serious stuff, people do not accept protecting paedophiles as good and decent behaviour.
Why do you defend Brian Houston when by his own admission he sheltered and protected his pedo father?
David,
Don’t mistake my support for Brian as in any way supporting these sick humans”.
After WWII some of those close to Hitler believed that they would get off scott free. They felt that Hitler was the guilty party – not them. Goering even thought that the allies might install him as head of a new German government ! What a shock they got that the world didn’t view the situation that way! And rightly so. even the German people still fell the guilt and shame to this day.
It’s called guilt by association. God talks about it in His word:
“Come out from among them ” says The Lord “and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you” 2 Cor. 6 v17.
You personally don’t have to be doing anything wrong- but if you’re supporting someone or a system that is, (say supporting a paedophile protector ) you WILL be tainted according to God.
Well said Debra,
David supports pedophile protectors. David sides with those who protect the perpetrators, not the victims. Looks like he has drunk a great big cup of the Hillsong Kool Aid and is blindly following the blind guide. A true devotee of the Cult.
NSW law required Brian to hand Frank over to the police regardless of whether the victim wanted police involved or not. Brian broke the law and protected his pedophile father from the legal consequences of pedo Fran’ks criminal actions.
Brian did everything back then out of self interest and is no different today.
Stoner Sloth – Brian Houston made an interesting comment during his interview with Graham Richardson on Skye News.
“….When I found out about the incidence with my father, the original incidence. The victim was 37 years old and he pleading with us not to go to the police and at the Royal Commission he said that several times. And so yeah, I didn’t actually know, ignorance is no excuse but I didn’t know we were legally bound, you know in Queensland and Victoria, you wouldn’t have had to go to the police….”
That’s a very revealing comment, don’t you think?
Funny that he knows Vic & Qld law but not NSW. Must be because everything he has said from the RC onwards has been carefully word smithed by his high priced lawyer mates at Mallesons.
Brian is a worm and a grub, more slippery than a river eel and on the back foot now because he knows he will be back in the spot light soon, this time in the dock.
Consider the charges against Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson, its the same crime that Brian has committed. If they will drag an Archbishop before the beak for not reporting, Brian has no escape.
“everything he [Brian Houston] has said from the RC onwards has been carefully word smithed by his high priced lawyer mates at Mallesons.”
Which is another thing Hillsong groupies have spent their money on — defending Brian, indirectly Frank, and most of all the unexcusable.
That’s the truth David. If you have tithed and/or given $1 to Hillsong you have helped contribute to their cause. Instead of that lawyer money going to the poor as you and every other Hillsong groupie seems to think.
Stoner Sloth, I always try to be completely fair. 🙂 I had watched some of the Royal Commission in 2014 and I remember being quite skeptical of what was told to the investigators at the time. You’d think of all places – a child abuse investigation – any person with half a conscience would be completely honest and open no matter what. The effectiveness of such an investigation is directly proportional to the honesty of the witnesses.
I have done further reading from other sources and now I will show why I agree even more with you. Many other reputable sources (i.e. ones Hillsong supporters can’t dismiss as biased) directly contradict Hillsong church’s own website plus what was told to the Royal Commission.
Hillsong website (Brian and Bobbie page): When Brian Houston – Global *Founder* and Senior Pastor of Hillsong Church…..
Examples in contrast to introduction page and Royal Commission transcript:
Wikipedia (Frank Houston) – Frank Houston co-founded the Hillsong Church in Sydney with his son, Pastor Brian Houston.
Sydney Morning Herald (13th Nov. 2004) – Mr Houston, who died on Monday aged 82, founded the Sydney Christian Life Centre in 1977 at Waterloo and spent 22 years building a movement that became the Hillsong church.
Daily Mail UK (2014) – Brian Houston, the son of Hillsong *founder* Frank Houston, has told a hearing about the moment he found out his father was a paedophile.
From a CHRISTIAN source: Christian Post (18th Sep. 2014) Originally trained as a Salvation Army officer, Frank Houston later became a Pentecostal pastor in the Assemblies of God. He founded Sydney Christian Life Centre, which was in 1999 merged with his son Brian’s church – Hills Christian Life Centre, now known as Hillsong. He is therefore credited with building a movement that became one of the largest megachurches in the world.
Admitting the pedophile Frank Houston was the true founder of the Hillsong church is very bad PR for Hillsong brand.
Thinker,
Frank Houston founded the Christian Life Centre Movement in Australia after he was expelled from New Zealand for child sex offences. The first church in that movement was Sydney Christian Life Centre. Every church Frank planted came from the loins of Sydney CLC.
Every church Frank planted also carried the Christian Life Centre title in its name. Brian’s church, Hills CLC was planted by Frank and supported by Frank until it became its own entity. Brian changed the name of Hills CLC to Hillsong Church.
Brian is an egomaniac, in his mind, his version of the past is absolute unquestionable truth but he forgets there were a lot of other people around that have accurate memories as to what the truth is and was.
I too, followed the RC live and have read the transcripts numerous times. Brian Houston is a lying sewer rat that did his best to keep from drowning whilst in the spot light but all he managed to do was to incriminate himself.
Brian is doing his best to separate the wealth of Hillsong from the movement that Frank started to protect his precious cash and assets from compensation claims from victims. He may as well try and hold back the tide. He is the Cardinal George Pell of Pentecost and will be hated just the same.
Brian may not have abused children but he protected his pedophile father from the police and imprisonment and that in itself is a criminal offence. He even said in the RC that he knew his father would go to jail if the police got a hold of him.
He denied his father’s victims justice, he never gave opportunity for other victims to come forward. He illegally and immorally protected a criminal from facing the courts. He is vile.
Sloth,
You are wrong. Frank started CLC Waterloo as it’s own entity, with it’s own leadership, finances, legal entity and culture.
Brian moved to Baulkham Hills and started a completely separate church called Hills Christian Life Centre. Hills Christian life center was a completely separate church to CLC Waterloo.
HCLC had it’s own leadership, culture (worship music, conferences etc), and attendees, they were completely separate entities. I know because I was there.
It was understood by all that they were completely separate church’s, in fact that was
not an issue it just was it’s own church. People who attended HCLC didn’t even consider the issue because it didn’t exist.
Frank spoke perhaps once a year and was introduced as Brian’s father and the pastor of CLC Waterloo a separate church in the City.
It does not matter how much twisting, google references and historical doctoring takes place the truth will always be the truth. I’m confident in my position because I was there.
ChurchWatch can try and bend history all they like but it will not change historical facts. I agree Brian was influenced by Frank he was his father. I also agree Frank supported Brian in his new endeavor.
HCLC at a point in it’s history decided to bring CLC Waterloo under it’s leadership and amalgamate the church, that new church was not a byproduct of CLC Waterloo it was a byproduct of HCLC. It came under Brian’s leadership and conformed to HCLC (Hillsong) orthodoxy. It came under the leadership and authority of the founder of HCLC Brian Houston.
I know ChurchWatch don’t agree because it does not serve their purpose in painting Hillsong with the Frank brush, But the truth is the truth…
“HCLC had it’s own leadership, culture (worship music, conferences etc), and attendees, they were completely separate entities. I know because I was there.”
I don’t know why you keep saying HCLC had it’s own “own leadership, culture (worship music, conferences etc), and attendees, they were completely separate entities”.
Brian copied the way his father did church. He copied the culture. Of course he couldn’t copy it perfectly and tried exploring a bit. Don’t treat us as though we are idiots.
You are not being honest in the slightest with the Hillsong’s history. We are doing our best to report on the history of CLC because Hillsong have done a fantastic job rewriting it – which is incredibly cult-like, controlling and incredibly creepy.
“I know ChurchWatch don’t agree because it does not serve their purpose in painting Hillsong with the Frank brush, But the truth is the truth…”
We don’t agree with you because you’re assuming we weren’t there in the CLC early days. You are the one who are defending liars and creeps who are rewriting their past. You do realise that is a common tactic used by cults and totalitarian governments.
The more I read David’s posts, the less I trust what he says.
And why he keeps trying to push his version of history on everyone else I am not sure.
“He is the Cardinal George Pell of Pentecost and will be hated just the same”.
Correction (if I may)…
He is the Cardinal George Pell of PentecostALISM.
What happens at HS is nothing close to what happened in the first few chapters in Acts.
“What happens at HS is nothing close to what happened in the first few chapters in Acts.”
Though it is surprising Brian has not used Acts chapter 2 as an opportunity to teach how PenteCOST was related to ‘tithing.’
“Frank Houston founded the Christian Life Centre Movement in Australia after he was expelled from New Zealand for child sex offences….”
I had been under the impression that Frank Houston had been spooked by serious allegations and left New Zealand as a result. http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/van2002/houston2_15.html
“….Since then there have been a number of significant developments, which indicate that the reasons for the Houstons’ move across the Tasman from Wellington to Sydney in 1977 were more ominous than I had previously surmised ….
“In fact Rev Barney Coombes, a minister in Canada telephoned me, while I was in New Zealand, with the information that during one of his ministry visits to that country the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North to Lower Hutt to put it personally to Frank Houston, who denied all wrong doing.There was nothing further I could do except report back to the person who had first made the complaint to me, saying that Frank had denied that he had done anything wrong.”
Houston’s long-term sinful choices has made him seem particularly vile to many people. Only him choosing to ask God to open his eyes (to see the true situation as it truly is) can possibly reverse that terrible self-deception that has infiltrated his whole being. I think he is too terrified to do that in case the false self/ church starts to disintegrate.
Don’t steal our thunder. 🙂
We will be writing on this issue soon.
Just in case Brian Houston/ any other Hillsong leaders have been reading this blog:
Brian Houston, Please for your own,your family’s and your church’s sake truly repent of your role in this whole sorry mess. You need to do that publicly as well as privately. Don’t worry about what the world thinks if you decide to come clean. You are accountable to God, not the unsaved world. Follow King David’s example in Psalm 51, pray that prayer of his.
Remember the Gospel is for the saved as well as the unsaved. Ask for God’s strength to help you face your deep fears of rejection and failure while taking the very hard path you need to walk to get free of your father. If you are a child of God then many promises made to Israel, His chosen people, belong to you as well. Hold Isaiah chapter 43 close to your heart.
Not one of us wants you to continue to suffer for your own sins from the past any more. As Chris Rosebrough puts it so well “Repent, accept God’s forgiveness and bear fruit in keeping with that repentance.” Seek to compensate your father’s victims for what he put them through. It’s only money after all. You can’t take it with you!
Actually when I left the cult I felt a bit sorry for Brian (I don’t now though). I saw him as really stuck in a bubble, shielded from reality, surrounded by synchophants , and all the masses of people and the money affirming his prosperity gospel. I thought he’d never be able to see the truth. This paedophile crisis may be an opportunity to reach the end of himself and repent. I hope it is – for his sake.
It’s quite possible that Brian Houston has developed what the world calls “celebrity narcissism” as a result of long-term excessive admiration from church members.
That’s why I used psychology’s term “false self” because it describes the end result of unrepented sin well. All of us have one because we are sinners and others have sinned against us. We want to impress others out of excessive self-love (PRIDE) and seek to protect ourselves too much (DOUBT in God).
As Christians we should seek God to free us of our “false self” we sinfully created by our own good works/ hiding our sins. Through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection we become the true child of God HE created us to be, not the one we imagine God is/ other people are impressed by. HE creates the change in US.
I wish Houston for his own sake would give up the masquerade. It must be exhausting. He needs to take off the yoke of Hillsong and put on the yoke of Christ. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A28-30&version=KJV
From David Cartledge in his book ‘The New Apostolic Revolution’ (a man endorsed by Brian Houston):
Cartledge reference this comment from Brian Houston as such:
“The apostolic minister who leads this church – Brian Houston”
2 things Brian Houston clearly is NOT: an ‘apostle’ nor a ‘minister’.
I don’t know why you keep saying HCLC had it’s own “own leadership, culture (worship music, conferences etc), and attendees, they were completely separate entities”.
Because I witnesses the fact that they were separate entities. This speaks to the truth IMO that both churches were separate.
You are not being honest in the slightest with the Hillsong’s history. We are doing our best to report on the history of CLC because Hillsong have done a fantastic job rewriting it’.
I’m being very honest.. I have no interest in distorting truth. I was there I know what I witnessed. I’m not indoctrinated as you might presume.
We don’t agree with you because you’re assuming we weren’t there in the CLC early days. You are the one who are defending liars and creeps who are rewriting their past. You do realise that is a common tactic used by cults and totalitarian governments.
I have never made the assumption you were not there in the early days, just because I was there does not imply you were not. In all honesty I’m arguing the point as originally stated that Hillsong was in fact founded by Brian, No less or no more.
David,
Here’s the bottom line.
You support and defend Brian Houston who broke the law by not handing his pedophile father over to the police to be charged and imprisoned.
You must think it is ok to cover up for pedophiles.
There are only 2 sides in this story, the side of the victims and the side of the perpetrator. You have chosen the side of Frank the pedo and Brian the cover up merchant.
Dont kid yourself, Brian did not fail to report to honor the victim but to save his father and himself the scandal and everything else that would have come with it.
Its easy for Brian to say that his father is a rock spider now that he is dead because there is little or no comeback compared to what it would have been if Frank were alive.
David, you are a Hillsong groupie following a blind guide. You regurgitate Brian’s convenient version of history, not the truth.
David, wake up and stop supporting Brian’s criminal behaviour.
“I’m being very honest.. I have no interest in distorting truth. I was there I know what I witnessed. I’m not indoctrinated as you might presume.”
David, in all honesty, when did you last attend Hillsong Church?
Hi Brenton,
There is a chance we know each other it’s only a guess, is this the Brenton in wheelchair that used to run a car cleaning business? I didn’t want to provide your
last name in respect of your privacy.
BTW I have attended off and on for years I have not actually been to a service for about 4 / 5 years. I was there in the warehouse days, Hills center, the Hub and new premise.
Sloth..
The amount of times people have tried to use a straw man argument on this website is astounding.
“You support and defend Brian Houston who broke the law by not handing his pedophile father over to the police to be charged and imprisoned”
I have not raised the above issues in my argument, I am specifically calling out ChurchWatch for being misleading in their representation of the founder of Hillsong Church.
Thinker has provided links and seems to think this proves something, I could provide a thousand reputable links that will state Brian as founder of HS.
“David, you are a Hillsong groupie following a blind guide. You regurgitate Brian’s convenient version of history, not the truth”
Definition of a founder: a person who creates or establishes something. To be clear I’m not regurgitating anything, no one told me the mythical story of how Hillsong came to be, I simply witnessed it and lived it and was a pert of it.
Anyone on this thread who was around in the HCLC days if they are completely honest will agree with me. HCLC was it’s own church established by Brian and Bobbie under the leadership and vision of Brian. The church started with a hand full of people all locals and grew from there.
Hillsong Music, Hillsong Conferences were all born out of HCLC under Brian’s leadership and Geoff Bullock. Frank spoke at church very rarely and was always introduced as the pastor of CLC Waterloo a separate church.
If ChurchWatch want to be honest and credible they should remove all references to Frank being the founder of Hillsong and be honest about the fact Brian is the founder. ChurchWatch are trying to re write history to support there agenda against Brian and Hillsong.
If it’s admitted by CW that Frank is not the founder of Hillsong then all the ChruchWatch stories and references associating Frank with Hillsong’s past become null and void.
Fact: Non of the abuse was associated with Hillsong, it did not happen on Hillsong premises, no Hillsong staff were involved, it simply has nothing to do with Hillsong.
End of story…
David,
you are living proof of why it is pointless arguing with a cult member.
Brian himself regularly publicly acknowledged his father as founder on numerous occasions, I know because I was there.
He has only spun it since 1998 when filthy Franks activities were about to come back to bite.
If you can’t see that its about disassociating for the purpose of asset protection (and don’t forget pride) then you are choosing to be blind.
BTW, there is no straw man in saying that Brian sheltered his father from prosecution and that if you back Brian then you back his actions.
Now let’s back it up a bit in the chronology and get the bigger picture.
Here is my understanding of what really happened. Correct me if I’m wrong:
But Frank DID have something to do with the foundation of Hillsong. If Frank had not committed sex crimes in New Zealand, the Houstons would have never left New Zealand for Australia.
Furthermore, they claimed ‘God called them to Australia to start a church’ but that was a lie, which persists to this day, however they were simply feeling the heat in New Zealand and had to jump ship there. Right?
If it all happened that way, it cannot be written out of the picture.
Was it just coincidence then that Hillsong merged with Waterloo? There were many CLC’s in the area that needed a leg up and with strong leadership -or why weren’t pastors sourced from the college leadership pool? Was it just a coincidence or was there some relationship and history going on there?
Churchwatcher, this author deserves a lot of credit!
Would an academic textbook that ensures complete accuracy be enough for you David?
Title: Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies, Volume 3 : Pentecostal Churches in Transition : Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia
Author: Clifton, Shane
Year: Dec. 2008
“in the decades that followed, New Zealand pastors were to exercise a significant influence over Australian Pentecostalism. For various reasons, not least of which was its earlier openness to the “latter rain revival” of the 1950s, the New Zealand movement was quicker to embrace Charismatic renewal than was the more conservative AGA. 20 Midgley, whose church in Auckland flourished as a consequence, 21 was closely associated with Frank Houston, whose assembly in Lower Hutt had also experienced rapid growth in association with the Charismatic renewal, and who was elected as the AGNZ superintendent in 1996. Both Midgley and Houston,along with other New Zealand pastors such as Phil Pringle, were later to move to Australia where they were to play a prominent role in the transformation of Pentecostalism in this nation.” (p.141)
—–
…This situation in Sydney was to change with the arrival of Frank Houston. In 1976, Houston, whose church in Lower Hutt also numbered in the thousands, and who was then General Superintendent of the AGNZ, felt God call him to leave behind the work in New Zealand, 77 and plant a church in the Eastern suburbs o Sydney.In NewZealand, Houston had been closely associated with Chandler, Taylor and Midgley, all of whom had been rejected by the AGA and consequently, despite his leadership of the AGNZ, his intention was to begin an independent church. The first Sydney service was held in July 1977 with a team of nine adults and seven children. After the changes in the executive in 1977, he was convinced by Evans to join the AGA. 78 At the 1979 conference he was elected to the movement’s national executive and, in 1980, he became the NSW state superintendent. 79 Within four years of commencing the church, the congregation had grown to over one thousand people, with Houston drawing on both the impetus of the Charismatic renewal and the church growth movement. 80 Like Klimionok in Brisbane, he also was to hold regular church growth seminars in conjunction with Yonggi Cho.
Houston’s long term impact on AGA ecclesiology derived not only from his promotion of the Charismatic renewal and church growth principles, but also from his restructuring of church government and leadership at the local level. Houston did not believe in congregational government and, in the Lower Hutt, had structured his church without formal congregational membership. His reasons for this were largely practical. As the assembly in New Zealand grew, Houston became increasingly aware of the importance of strong leadership. He also felt that, in the context of a larger church, congregational government tended to make the tasks of pastoral leadership somewhat cumbersome. Consequently, he restructured the church, allocating governmental responsibility to the eldership, who were themselves appointed directly by the senior pastor. His reasons for these changes were essentially practical, although he did find biblical support in the New Testament emphasis on apostolic authority, as well as the priority given in the Scriptures to the function of elders in the local assembly. 81
When Houston planted the church in Sydney he adopted the same form of church government. As his influence in the movement increased, with the continued growth of his church and his position on the various executive bodies, other churches, particularly newly planted churches, began to adopt this model…. (pp.155-157)
First quote year typing error ; AGNZ superintendent in *1966*, not 1996.
Thinker,
“Would an academic textbook that ensures complete accuracy be enough for you David?”
I will let you know after I read your post. From my perspective nothing can really change my opinion because I was there. I’m not basing my view on Brian’s word, CW’s word, an academic text book or anyone’s word on this particular issue.
There are many things that happened that I was not there to witness (thank god)but this issue is not one of them.
Even if Frank sent Brian to start HCLC it does not make Frank the founder of the Church, it makes Brian the founder sent with the blessing of Frank.
Strictly speaking, the founders are the people who establish the institution—that is, they take on the risk and reward of creating something from nothing. So in a sense Frank sent his son to be the Founder of HCLC.
“From my perspective nothing can really change my opinion because I was there.”
So we are liars and Brian Houston is not because David’s experience says likewise.
“I’m not basing my view on Brian’s word…”
Really? Who said this David?
“You have also called Brian a liar because he claims to be the founder of Hillsong…”
David, you’ve gone from: ” ….Brian Houston is the founder of Hillsong not Frank…. Frank did not establish or was not the founder of HCLC (Hills) Brian was….”
to “He [Brian] called Hills CLC because the church he [Brian] founded was a similar church to his father’s [Frank]…
“Even if Frank sent Brian to start HCLC it does not make Frank the founder of the Church, it makes Brian the founder sent with the blessing of Frank.”
GUIDANCE (Cambridge Dictionary): help and advice about how to do something or about how to deal with problems connected with your work, education, or personal relationships; the process of directing the flight of a missile or rocket…. or church 🙂
SEND: to cause something to go from one place to another, especially by post or email; *to cause or order someone to go and do something*, to cause someone or something to do a particular thing, or to cause something to happen:
FOUNDER: someone who establishes an organization
A founder is therefore NOT sent by *someone ELSE*. A founder starts [fill in blank] by all by themselves (An amateur receiving advice/guidance from an expert in a similar position can still be a founder).
This one was a classic oxymoron:
“….the founder sent…”
If Person A sends Person B; who’s the leader and who’s the follower?
If Person A has a vision, creates plans from that vision, and gives it Person B who then puts the Person A’s vision into action – even if that is achieved on the other side of the world and in another decade – who’s the leader and who’s the follower?
Frank Houston sent Brian Houston; who’s the leader, who’s the follower?
Hi Rue
“But Frank DID have something to do with the foundation of Hillsong. If Frank had not committed sex crimes in New Zealand, the Houstons would have never left New Zealand for Australia”
Let’s say your family is forced to move to America because the Australian government is after your father for tax evasion and as a result the family moves to the USA. And then when you are in America you decide to go and start a knew coffee shop. You are saying your father is the founder of the coffee shop not you because he was the reason you moved to the States. ??? Are you serious???
“Furthermore, they claimed ‘God called them to Australia to start a church’ but that was a lie, which persists to this day, however they were simply feeling the heat in New Zealand and had to jump ship there. Right?”
It’s your opinion that it was a lie you can’t prove otherwise. Whatever the reason was for Frank moving to Australia it had nothing to with Brian. Yes Frank may have moved because of pressure but that had nothing Brian.
Debra
“Was it just coincidence then that Hillsong merged with Waterloo? There were many CLC’s in the area that needed a leg up and with strong leadership -or why weren’t pastors sourced from the college leadership pool? Was it just a coincidence or was there some relationship and history going on there?”
Of course there was a relationship they were father and son, no one is denying that they had a relationship. Just because they had a relationship does not mean Frank was the founder of HCLC.
If Frank was the founder of both HCLC and CLC Watareloo then why the need to amalgamate the church’s. They had to amalgamate because they were separate church’s with separate founders.
Continuing on from above book:
4.3.1.The Influence of Hillsong Church
Of these various mega-churches, the most influential has been Hillsong church. In August 1983, ****FRANK HOUSTON SENT HIS SON BRIAN***** to pioneer a church in the Hills district of North West Sydney. Commencing with forty five people who had come from the city-based assembly, Hills Christian Life Centre was to become the largest local church in the nation (if the label “local” is still relevant). When Frank Houston retired in May 2000, 97 he placed the city congregation, still numbering in the thousands, under Brian’s leadership, and the two churches were merged into Hillsong Church, described as one local church with “two major worship centres (City and Hills), and a city-wide network of cell-groups.” 98 The church today claims a congregation of over fifteen thousand people, 99 with the mission: To reach and influence the world by building a large Bible based church, changing mindsets and empowering people to lead and impact in every sphere of life. 100 At the time the church was started, the Charismatic renewal had begun to wane, although the church retained certain dimensions of the charismatic emphasis, especially a focus on worship…..
…….Brian Houston’s influence beyond his own church to the AGA movement as a whole began with this Hillsong conference.
…… The reach of this conference extends beyond the AGA, to Pentecostalism in Australia and globally. In addition to this annual conference, Hillsong also developed other networks within the AGA. ……
…. These Extension Services are not autonomous, but considered to be a part of the Hillsong “local” church under the leadership and authority of Houston. In addition, there are other churches that, although autonomous, relate to Hillsong church for the sake of mentoring. ****ORIGINALLY****, these relationships formed when churches were planted out ****FROM FRANK HOUSTON’S CITY ASSEMBLY.**** (pp.161-162, emphasis added).
—–
David, academic textbooks go through a fine tooth comb proofreading process to ensure complete accurate information is given. That involves WAY more than mere spellcheck/ correct grammar.
In conclusion, unless you were there from the very beginning and at the top of the Hillsong management food chain, I certainly trust an academic that has studied the whole Charismatic movement in Australia than a ex-church member trusting their own memory (however truthful that person is and how good their memory may be).
Churchwatcher, if you wish to access the whole textbook you need permission to gain access to a University’s academic database. I found that via search on ProQuest Ebrary.
Thinker…
“FRANK HOUSTON SENT HIS SON BRIAN***** to pioneer a church in the Hills district”
Look I don’t think this makes it clear that Brian was not the founder of Hillsong and Frank was the founder. This reads to me that Frank sent Brian to Pioneer (Brian being the Pioneer in this sentence) and establish a new Church.
Pioneer definition-a person who is among those who first enter or settle a region, thus opening it for occupation and development by others. 2. one who is first or among the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or progress: pioneers in cancer research.
HCLC was an autonomous church Frank was not the leader Brian was. From a practical perspective Brian was the person doing the founding, the work, leadership, day to day employment, preaching.
It was Brian’s vision and work that lead to Hillsong’s growth, music ministry, conferences. It was Brian who built the leadership team that included Geoff and Darlene. HCLF was the largest of the two churches when they amalgamated and CLC was the church that came under the leadership and culture of HCLC not the other way around. Brian was the leader of the movement that became Hillsong church. The name Hillsong was actually invented by Geoff Bullock when Geoff was employed by HCLF under Brian’s leadership.
I think it’s pretty clear that Brian was the founder of Hillsong. Frank sent him to establish and pioneer a completely autonomous church become the first member and be the pioneer of a new church.
“ORIGINALLY****, these relationships formed when churches were planted out ****FROM FRANK HOUSTON’S CITY ASSEMBLY.*
HCLC was autonomous and was not an extension of CLC Waterloo, Brian reported to his own board and made very different decisions, that’s why things like the music ministry and Hillsong conference were able to be established and grow. They were unique to HCLC because the church under Brian’s leadership was making it’s own decisions and carving it’s own path.
“This reads to me that Frank sent Brian to Pioneer (Brian being the Pioneer in this sentence) and establish a new Church.”
Then it’s time for you to take off your Hillsong(TM)-coloured glasses because you’re not reading clearly, then take out your Hillsong (TM) hearing aides because you’ve got Houston’s “pioneering-spirit” ear worm.
Read what the author said. He said nothing about pioneering spirit anywhere in the quotes I have given. Inserting your own opinions and then defending those opinions isn’t fooling anybody. It has been proved that Brian was originally sent out by his father, not the other way around, A true pioneer does not need to be sent by another person.
You repeatedly mention the superficial differences between Brian’s church and his father’s because it’s your only defence. Obviously there will be unique differences – Brian is not his father’s clone (genuinely thank God!). e.g. He had strengths/ weaknesses his father didn’t have, therefore of course his church went in a different direction to his father’s.
Thinker
“Read what the author said. He said nothing about pioneering spirit anywhere in the quotes I have given”
I didn’t use the word spirit …Thinker stay nice and check the facts before firing, read line two of the paragraph below, this was taken directly from your quotes by the author.
“Of these various mega-churches, the most influential has been Hillsong church. In August 1983, ****FRANK HOUSTON SENT HIS SON BRIAN***** to pioneer a church in the Hills district of North West Sydney. Commencing with forty five people who had come from the city-based assembly, Hills Christian Life Centre was to become the largest local church in the nation (if the label “local” is still relevant). When Frank Houston retired in May 2000, 97 he placed the city congregation, still numbering in the thousands, under Brian’s leadership, and the two churches were merged into Hillsong Church, described as one local church with “two major worship centres (City and Hills), and a city-wide network of cell-groups.” 98 The church today claims a congregation of over fifteen thousand people, 99 with the mission: To reach and influence the world by building a large Bible based church, changing mindsets and empowering people to lead and impact in every sphere of life. 100 At the time the church was started, the Charismatic renewal had begun to wane, although the church retained certain dimensions of the charismatic emphasis, especially a focus on worship”
I think we are emphasizing different parts of the same sentence.
THINKER: In August 1983, ****FRANK HOUSTON SENT HIS SON BRIAN***** to pioneer a church in the Hills district of North West Sydney
DAVID: In August 1983, Frank Houston sent his son *****BRIAN TO PIONEER A CHURCH**** the Hills district of North West Sydney.
You cannot ignore the part of the sentence that suits you. No-one has denied Brian Houston formed a church.
David – did you watch the ‘Inside Story’ on Hillsong the other day?
Do you approve it?
“David – did you watch the ‘Inside Story’ on Hillsong the other day?
Do you approve it?”
Yes I did, I know you guys didn’t like it. I thought it was great and was about time Australian media did an impartial story on HS.
“I thought it was great”
Great. In that report it was claimed that Hillsong was a “successful family business”. So we should be able to agree that Frank Houston founded CLC/Hillsong and Brian Houston expanded the franchise to the Hills district and made it what it is today with his fathers help.
No?
In that report it was claimed that Hillsong was a “successful family business”
Therefore Hillsong is not a church, because a church is not a family business.
David, Do you understand that? Hillsong is a business, run by a businessman. It is not a church.
And Brian Houston is close friends with Phil Pringle (another false teacher and false prophet).
How can you endorse all these false people?
Is your justification that HCW is wrong about the beginnings of Hillsong, therefore you don’t have to discuss anything else? You just kinda look the other way and not notice all these bogus prophecies this Sydney Dynamic Duo are flinging around (as well as their wives doing it too)?
Just look the other way and don’t admit any of these other things too?
Stoner Sloth
“you are living proof of why it is pointless arguing with a cult member”
You are living proof that a critic will resort to an ad hominem attack if they can’t mount a credible argument. I was there I saw what I saw.
“Brian himself regularly publicly acknowledged his father as founder on numerous occasions, I know because I was there”
I can’t recall that ever happening at all. In fact Brian regularly discussed founding the church in partnership with Bobby.
“He has only spun it since 1998 when filthy Franks activities were about to come back to bite. If you can’t see that its about disassociating for the purpose of asset protection (and don’t forget pride) then you are choosing to be blind.
BTW, there is no straw man in saying that Brian sheltered his father from prosecution and that if you back Brian then you back his actions”
He didn’t spin anything Brian was the founder that has never changed. And yes I agree he has been trying disassociate from his father so would I if I found out my father sexually abused children.
So it’s come down to “David says this , Stoner says that”.
Why should we believe you and not Stoner, David? Sincere question.
Cheers, Team ChurchWatch.
Looks like Sydney Christian Life Centre planted Hillsong according to ASIC
Name: HILLSONG CHURCH LTD
ACN: 002 745 879
ABN: 37 002 745 879(External Link)
Previous state number: 33409404
Previous state of registration: New South Wales
Registration date: 25/10/1984
Next review date: 1/09/2013
Former name(s): SYDNEY CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE LIMITED, CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE (SYDNEY) LTD
Status: Registered
Type: Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee
Locality of registered office: BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153
Regulator: Australian Securities & Investments Commission
And David, what does ANY of this have to do with the fact that Brian Houston preaches the Prosperity Gospel? None of this alleviates the fact that Brian Houston preaches the Prosperity Gospel.
Furthermore as if that’s not bad enough, Brian Houston IMPORTS in from all over the world, OTHERS WHO ALSO preach the Prosperity Gospel.
Lookie here, you can try to prove or deny he started she started they started etc etc, but you cannot argue against all the crap going on at Hillsong. And then there’s Brian’s and Bobbie’s spouting off all these nonsensical messages supposedly straight from the Throne Room of God down to the Hillsong congregation. Yeah, you gotta attend Hillsong and be a part of it if you want to hear firsthand the latest news of the Kingdom. Brian Houston’s really got a big hook in all these fish, doesn’t he?
There must be very tasty bait for all these fish to fight to stay on the hook and PAY for the privilege….
They’re paying for the privilege, but oh what a nice payoff they can look forward to when they hit Brian “You Need More Money” Houston’s Super Jackpot of Success if they just keep plugging their quarters into the Heavenly Hillsong Slot Machine.
Bonerman
“Former name(s): SYDNEY CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE LIMITED, CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE (SYDNEY) LTD”
You are correct SYDNEY CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE LIMITED this is the legal entity for Hills Christian Life Centre. Brian was the founder for HCLC.
“Great. In that report it was claimed that Hillsong was a “successful family business”.
I don’t see how you can draw the conclusion below based on the statement above.I think you could draw many different conclusions from the above statement.
“So we should be able to agree that Frank Houston founded CLC/Hillsong and Brian Houston expanded the franchise to the Hills district and made it what it is today with his fathers help”
“So it’s come down to “David says this , Stoner says that”.
Why should we believe you and not Stoner, David? Sincere question.
Cheers, Team ChurchWatch”
To be honest I don’t think you should necessarily believe anyone considering the nature of blogs and the ability of people who post to hide there identity.
From my perspective all I can do is tell the truth and express my opinion, perhaps you should ask people who attended back in the day who don’t have a vested interest either way.
From my perspective it’s black and white we just didn’t have another congregation it wasn’t part of life at Hills. Today Hillsong members are encouraged to visit the city because they are one of the same. Back then we didn’t visit the city and we were not encouraged to, CLC waterloo was another church in the city run by Brian’s dad just as C3 Church was another church on the beaches run by Phil Pringle.
You guys at ChurchWatch have my email address (which contains my last name)and you know my first name so I’m pretty sure you could know my identity if you wanted to. I’m not in the habit of blatantly lying and making up stories especially when I have my name and reputation associated with them.
Thanks for your response David. As we have continue to dialogue with you, please be assured we are not ‘blatantly lying and making up stories’ either. If moderators or others commenting here choose not to use their names, it’s because the treatment meted out to those who leave such movements is very much like those who leave Scientology and are prepared to talk about their experiences.
Cheers, Team Churchwatch.
Leaving Scientology doesn’t make Scientology happy. There’s a youtube channel by a guy who’s getting harassed by those people. What a mess.
Sardelli
“In that report it was claimed that Hillsong was a “successful family business”
Therefore Hillsong is not a church, because a church is not a family business.
David, Do you understand that? Hillsong is a business, run by a businessman. It is not a church”
This is a straw man argument this topic is not the basis of this discussion.
David
I guess we’ll see where hillsong stands legally when the poor raped adult children go looking for justice. That’s all that matters in the end. Not Brian, not Bobbie, not hillsong.
The victims suffered horrific abuse and were denied justice when Briam hid Frank, and they need compensation for their stolen childhoods. What is going to happen to them? Who is going to help them? These are the questions we should be asking.
Please David research the long term effects of sexual abuse on children and the consequences in adulthood. Maybe listen to some of the accounts in the RC. Hear the tragic lives these people live in adulthood and it’s all statistically highly correlated with the sexual abuse in childhood. Jesus came for the afflicted, the broken hearted – people such as these – and so should we
Debra,
Your assuming I have no awareness of child abuse rest assured I do. No one would disagree with you regarding the depth of pain it causes children. But the truth is this is not a Hillsong issue. Remember this very sad issue does not involve a Hillsong employee, did not happen on Hillsong premises and Hillsong have never been implicated.
Unfortunately the father of the pastor of Hillsong church is guilty and he abused children at other churches and non Hillsong facilities.
Now before you say you seem more interested in protecting Hillsong than protecting children you need to consider that people are wrongly associating Hillsong with child abuse and it’s simply not true. With so many people on this website attacking the church it’s important to remember who the guilty party is because lines get crossed and we all need to remember the truth.
Frank is the guilty party and Frank alone, Brian has faced the RC and we await to here the outcome in terms of legal ramifications. I’s my view that Brian won’t be charged.
.
“You’re assuming I have no awareness of child abuse. Rest assured I do”
Glad to hear that you’re aware of this tragic life long affliction. Good- so was Jesus
‘If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.’Mark 9 v 42.
So, as you’re a follower of Jesus And you follow in his shoes may I ask what you are doing about it? Or is it merely lip service?
As for BH and Hillsong we’ll have to wait and see. You might find that the community and judicial system don’t see it the way you do.
Brian”hillsong” Houston, heir of Sydney CLC, protected his father from the police, thats got plenty to do with hillsong.
George Agajanian, Hillsong general manager was made aware of Frank’s pedophile crimes by Kevin Mudford and did not report it to the police, thats got plenty to do with hillsong.
Nabi Saleh, elder of Hillsong was present with Frank the rockspider Houston at Thornleigh McDonalds when victim AHA was offered $10,000 to bugger off. Thats got a lot to do with Hillsong.
Hillsong inherited Franks church when he was stood down for child sex offences, they inherited the problems that went with it when they broke the law.
Brian and others will be charged for failing to report his father’s sex crimes to the police just the same way as Philip Wilson Arch Bishop of Adelaide was. You cant cover up child sex offences from the police.
“Remember this very sad issue does not involve a Hillsong employee, did not happen on Hillsong premises and Hillsong have never been implicated.”
Read the findings of the Royal Commission.
“With so many people on this website attacking the church it’s important to remember who the guilty party is because lines get crossed and we all need to remember the truth.”
Lines do “get crossed”. And guess who crossed them first David? Not us. Brian Houston is – and you know it. In fact, CLC should not even exist because lines were crossed. Hillsong should not exist because lines were crossed. This site exists because Hillsong and CLC have crossed the line and do not operate as a biblical church.
And do you know the one’s who are considered the “attackers” or the “evil” ones? The Christians. Not those who throw out the bible and policy documents. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
Sardeli
“Is your justification that HCW is wrong about the beginnings of Hillsong, therefore you don’t have to discuss anything else? You just kinda look the other way and not notice all these bogus prophecies this Sydney Dynamic Duo are flinging around (as well as their wives doing it too)?”
Look on this board it seem like it’s me vs 15 other people. I can’t respond to every argument that deviates from the core discussion.
Also if this opens up and all arguments are discussed who knows where we will end up, the conversation will fly everywhere.
“And David, what does ANY of this have to do with the fact that Brian Houston preaches the Prosperity Gospel?”
That was never the topic of this discussion and wasn’t the topic of the article posted.
David – the article was about Hillsong’s theological roots to the Latter Rain movement. Why are you accusing people of deviating “from the core discussion” when you deviated at the very beginning? We’re still on your bunny trail.
Thinker
” You cannot ignore the part of the sentence that suits you. No-one has denied Brian Houston formed a church”
I agree we have both taken parts to make our case. Honestly I was there I know full well who started and who founded the church and it wasn’t good old Frank.
I’m gonna steal “what came first, the chicken or the egg?”
were you there behind the scenes to observe the laying of the egg, (watching father preach/ forming personal beliefs) the hen incubating the egg (watching son being cared for in bible college training) the egg shell starting to crack (seeing son in first church ministry roles). *as well* as seeing the newborn chick (Hillsong Church door opened for first time by Pastor Brian Houston)?
You’re repeating a lie the same way Brian Houston does. This is not helping your argument.
Yes that was a rhetorical question, only God is able to give YES answer.
Therefore to gain enough information to form an educated opinion on any matter (especially involving people) you have to gain information from a wide variety of sources.
Being in the church on the first day(?) to see who the individual church’s real founder is one thing, being able to pinpoint where the founder’s beliefs formed from is quite another. That takes careful analysis of many factors that may appear contradictory at first.
Debra
You also seem to interpret my arguments as lacking compassion for child abuse victims. Please don’t take my comments out of context.
My positions has been that CW have been inaccurate in there representation as to who the founder of HS was. And have wrongly called Brian a liar because he makes the claim he is the founder. No more and no less.
And this is not a small issue because this opinion has been reflected in many articles
by CW. It’s my view that they are trying to associate Frank with Hillsong as much as possible so they can create a level of guilt by association.
They are effectively saying if Hillsong was founded by a sick child abuser how could anything good come out of it. The problem with there argument is the founder was not Frank it was Brian. And that’s the truth.
David – As Churchwatchers, we have said in the past that Brian Houston is also a victim of his father’s serious offences, not physically but emotionally.
David, did you read Kreewater, the ‘victim’s response that was posted in this comment stream? There’s layer upon layer upon layer of behaviour demonstrated by Brian Houston’s attitude towards those who question him, whether it be the facts exposed at the Royal Commission and the role he played in the cover up, or his treatment of Kreewater (who also attended Hillsong).
David – are you aware of the church where Frank Houston was sent after he was stood down, a church where they were NOT informed of his being a pedophile, when members found out they were devastated, having been told to treat him “like royalty” and even more upset that their own small children were exposed to him.
Churchwatcher,
Not just Ian woods’ church at Hawkesbury but at the next one he went to as well, Ian Zerna’s Coastlife church on the central coast. 2 churches congregations kept in the dark. Filthy old pervert had access to kids there as well. So much for Brian telling everyone to keep the kiddies safe.
We are aware of this.
Do you know anyone who can contact us? We have been in contact with the Royal Commission and would like to submit evidence to them of Frank Houston being in these churches.
It needs to be done.
Churchwatcher,
They already have it, RC transcripts 9/10/14 day 88 pg 9295 line 29 onwards.
Thanks for that – you have prompted us to read that again. We are aware of that. We’ve had people write about their experiences in Hawkesbury – we are hoping for some people to write about their experiences in Ian Zerna’s Coastlife church.
Was anyone in Zerna’s church informed about Frank Houston?
“Was anyone in Zerna’s church informed about Frank Houston?”
Zerna was, but obviously not the congregation, otherwise they wouldn’t have wanted the old creep to lay hands on them and pray for them. Unless of course they wanted the rock spider anointing imparted to them.
That’s what the section of the RC transcripts were about.
David,
You said “They are effectively saying if Hillsong was founded by a sick child abuser how could anything good come out of it. The problem with there argument is the founder was not Frank it was Brian. And that’s the truth.”
We could have saved 100 posts if you had said this up front!
No one needed the RC to prove that Hillsong is rotten to the core! That was already well established by their false doctrine, evil associations and cult like behaviour!
All the RC did was to prove Brian’s criminality in the matter of concealing his father’s sex crimes from the police.
Brian’s actions are the rotten fruit to be expected from his rotten doctrine. Just took some time to be shown for what he really is.
Hey, you can visit him in jail if you want.
Debra
‘” If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.’Mark 9 v 42.
So, as you’re a follower of Jesus And you follow in his shoes may I ask what you are doing about it? Or is it merely lip service?”
Your starting to take a judgmental holier than though presumptive position regarding my faith, I don’t answer to you and I certainly won’t be judged by a complete stranger
I wouldn’t presume to start asking you about what you are doing regarding aspects Christianity especially when you are a complete stranger and I don’t know you, so please don’t presume you can ask me.
David,
“Your starting to make a judgmental holier than thou presumptive position regarding my faith”
“I wouldn’t presume to start asking you about what you are doing regarding aspects Christianity especially when you’re a complete stranger and I don’t know you, so please don’t presume you ask me”
How could I be judgemental when I didn’t mention-my good works? – if there were any,
You’re the one who proclaimed to everyone your bleeding heart by phrases like:
“the depth of pain it causes”. If you want to be so secretive about your
Christian walk keep your mouth shut about what an empathic bleeding heart you have toward the victims of CSA!
ChurchWatch
” David – As Churchwatchers, we have said in the past that Brian Houston is also a victim of his father’s serious offences, not physically but emotionally” .
Ok fair enough although I wouldn’t pick that up in your general tone towards Brian.
” David, did you read Kreewater, the ‘victim’s response that was posted in this comment stream? There’s layer upon layer upon layer of behaviour demonstrated by Brian Houston’s attitude towards those who question him, whether it be the facts exposed at the Royal Commission and the role he played in the cover up, or his treatment of Kreewater (who also attended Hillsong).”
Yes I did I read it all. I asked you guys not to engage her because I didn’t want her to have to drag this up again for her sake. I read what she said.
” David – are you aware of the church where Frank Houston was sent after he was stood down, a church where they were NOT informed of his being a pedophile, when members found out they were devastated, having been told to treat him “like royalty” and even more upset that their own small children were exposed to him”
Yes Hawkesbury church. I was not aware people were not informed, although you need to understand I don’t necessarily accept what is written on this site as gospel. As I have stated before It’s my view that this website lacks credibility because it sensationalizes certain stories which makes it hard to distinguish truth from fiction. No offense intended I’m just being honest.
Thinker
“were you there behind the scenes to observe the laying of the egg, (watching father preach/ forming personal beliefs) the hen incubating the egg (watching son being cared for in bible college training) the egg shell starting to crack (seeing son in first church ministry roles). *as well* as seeing the newborn chick (Hillsong Church door opened for first time by Pastor Brian Houston)?”
I could ask you the same questions the difference being the burden of proof is on you. You make the claim Frank is the founder and not Brian were you there for all these events to justify the claim Frank is the founder?
See above reply. I anticipated that type of reaction. I’ve never lived in Sydney so I’m the last person who’s going to argue about which pastor, which church.
That’s exactly why I ensured I found a genuine textbook that would have formed its many conclusions only after interviewing * groups of people who were there. That way you wouldn’t be able to dismiss it reflexively like you dismissed the newspaper links (and journalists do still have a code of ethics).
“We are aware of this.
Do you know anyone who can contact us? We have been in contact with the Royal Commission and would like to submit evidence to them of Frank Houston being in these churches.
It needs to be done.”
So there you have it ChurchWatch actively doing everything you can in your attempt to put Brian in jail…Now if that’s not reporting news and events without a bias then I don’t know what is. How can you hope to report the truth about Brian when secretly you are trying to get him imprisoned? What was I thinking…
If Brian has covered up his fathers sex crimes from the police to avoid prosecution, then he should go to jail.
David, you do agree with that, no?
Or do you think it is ok to shelter a pedo from the police?
No – we are asking people to substantiate these claims. Be nice.
“How can you hope to report the truth about Brian…”
We have the bible. We let him speak and contrast what he says to what God says from His Word. That is how we can report accurately. Thankfully, we have critics who care about our integrity and will challenge some of the things we write. We have been rebuked by critics before and as a result, have corrected, removed or added information to our articles.
And we don’t just report on Brian. We focus on other ‘liars, hirelings and tares’. Feel free to check out http://www.churchwatchcentral.com
Quote of the day:
“We live in a time when “negativity” (aka “hurting your feel-goods,” or “discernment”) has risen to the level of sin in the eyes of our leaders as sodomy and heresy. We have created a culture where the Bereans would be altogether unwelcome for being incorrigible buzz-kills. While softening their tone on homosexuality (according to the Wall Street Journal), our leaders are drafting no-tolerance policies on “negativity.” It is the sin above all sins in their eyes, the stumbling block and stone of offense, the indomitable wet-blanket that always has to interject reproof and correction with inconvenient passages of Scripture. Our leaders have their guns trained on the wrong enemy, and in fact upon their best friends, because we question their direction and trajectory. This statement is illustrative of the antipathy and aggression with which they view discerning Christians in the pews. They’re saying, “We hate your negativity so much, we don’t even want you in the church of Jesus Christ. You are anathema.” Here’s the thing, though. We “negative” people are stubborn and loyal to our King and quite frankly, aren’t going anywhere.” JD Hall