This list of ‘sins’ Hillsong is accused of goes over the top

The Julie Roys website, which chronicles the many sins of many churches, has published a list of sins or evasions that Hillsong Church is said to be following. “Australian megachurch Hillsong, facing leadership scandals and allegations of financial misdeeds, has embraced a defense strategy remarkably like American televangelists facing investigations and court challenges,” writes Barry Bowen, a staff member of Trinity Foundation, a public nonprofit based in Dallas, Texas. UPDATE Julie Roys contacted the The Other cheek pointing out that the piece was labelled “opinion” – e.e. it does not necessarily represent the view of the website.

The central charge is that Hillsong is resorting to PR rather than facing up to issues in its past., and recent history. It’s a fair question to raise, but going through the list presented in the Roy’s piece indicates the reality of what Hillsong has been doing is more than simply mounting a “defense strategy.”

Following the release of a Hillsong whistleblower’s financial documents by MP Andrew Wilkie and the ongoing court trial of Hillsong founder Brian Houston, there’s more public information about Hillsong out there than just about any other church.

The interpretation of this information ranges from nuanced responses to exaggerated commentary. An example of the second sort of response is Wilkie’s accusations of “fraud” made in the safety of parliament, which have not been substantiated. The Other Cheek has not found fraud in the financial records he released. Extravagance yes. Overly lavish payments to guest preachers, yes. More details about where Brian Houston buys a lot of coffee and a distressing tendency to stay in Trump-branded hotels. Yes, an excruciating amount of credit card detail. In addition, the charity regulator ACNC is examining the data and may find compliance issues with whether some expenditures fit charity rules. The issue of ministry expense accounts by many churches, not specifically Hillsong, also needs to be examined.

But here’s the problem with the Roys Report list. Hillsong has responded well to some of the issues it faces and likely less well to others – time will tell. Hillsong Church’s recent activity does not fit a televangelist’s cookie-cutter response of “nothing to see here.”

This is not to discount, the sad stories of individuals bruised by a Hillsong church or Hillsong college experience. There is “something to see there.”

Here’s Barry Bowen’s list of accusations with my commentary in italics. I have not talked to Hillsong about this list. The responses are mine. I can’t speak to whether or not Bowen’s idea that these are common responses by US televangelists is accurate. We’ll look at Hillsong.

1. Deny problems exist.
   The events leading to the resignation of Brian Houston and the introduction of a new board is an implicit acknowledgement that problems existed at Hillsong. It is clear that the old board was trying to deal with issues they had with Brian Houston that have since become public.
   Did the church act too slowly? Yes: evidence at the trial shows that both the structure of Hillsong and Australian Christian Churches were dysfunctional and slow to act. But it is clear that the Hillsong board was trying to reign in Brian Houston before the problems were made public but failed. Common to ACC and Hillsong was an inability to restrain leading pastors. In many ways, their boards resembled pastors’ clubs.
   But as the current Hollingworth issues in the Anglican church indicate, denominations with far more sophisticated disciplinary systems can have real problems in disciplining leaders.
   
2. Create churches as limited liability companies as part of a risk containment strategy. Individual churches are overseen by managers.
   The Hillsong campuses in Australia are part of one corporate structure, and this has not changed as far as I am aware. Even if they did set up separate companies, the redress scheme reforms mean that survivor victims will have one identifiable legal body in a denomination from which to demand compensation. Complicated legal structures don’t shield churches in the way they once did. (Yes, there are some denominations making it harder for victims than they should.)
   
3. Threaten to sue critics.
   Hillsong has taken legal action against critics like Tania Levin if barring her from meetings meets that description. But Hillsong does not appear to have sued critics like News Corp, Channel Seven, or the whistleblower – she sued them.
   
4. After indisputable evidence emerges, confess, or admit that mistakes have been made.
   While Hillsong was slow to develop a truly open media strategy, it has had a history of publicly removing people from church office or ministries. Brian Houston did disclose his father’s sin publically, a key point in the trial. It appears the police did not read The Sydney Morning Herald, a weakness in their case.
   
5. Request prayer for fallen leaders.
   I am not sure why this is necessarily a criticism. Prayers could be missed to engender sympathy for fallen leaders but should include a call for leaders to examine themselves and repent for what requires repentance. I hope Hillsongers are praying for the Houston family.
   
6. Acquire expert legal advice.
   Hillsong used Prolegis, an expert law firm and Grant Thornton forensic accountants to examine the whistleblower documents tabled in parliament. While they found no evidence of illegality, Prolegis were careful to note, “Our initial observation is that allegations characterised as unlawful in the tabled material do not relate to unlawful conduct. Most of the allegations appear to relate to a concern about whether historic expenditure was appropriate in a church context. That is a discussion that should sensibly occur in a church context.”
   This was not letting Hillsong off scot-free but a lawyerly way of saying that you need to reform and repent. (The most stinging criticism raised in comments by others on the whistleblower documents related to extravagance.) Prolegis added “We are mindful that the concerns that have been expressed are the subject of a careful and methodical examination by the appropriate regulator, the ACNC. At the right time, once matters have progressed with the ACNC, Hillsong should be in a position to provide a detailed public response.”
   
   The Prolegis and Grant Thorton summary reports are available on the Hillsong website.
   
7. Make personnel and board changes.
   Yes, this has happened at Hillsong with the key reform of making the board more independent, reducing the senior pastor’s influence. In Hillsong’s case, this was not a cosmetic exercise. It’s too early to tell whether the changes in personnel have worked, but there was a decisive break from handing leadership on within the Houston family. During the trial, Brian Houston revealed he thought it was God’s will for his son-in-law Peter Toganivalu to be the next Hillsong leader. We’ll never know how well or badly that might have gone.
   
8. Experts release a report denying systemic problems exist.
   No, see Prolegis’ comments in answer 6. It’s clear the lawyers saw issues in Hillsong’s expenditures recorded in the whistleblower’s documents – but noted they did not involve illegality. It is likely the ACNC will find some systemic issues, and the lawyers give a heads-up. Hillsong itself has said it is going back to being focused on local ministry rather than a big event-focused organisation. This resetting of priorities, with hundreds of jobs shed, can be taken as a massive exercise in self-criticism. A new staff credo issued by Hillsong can be read as we have to change our ways, especially with regard to volunteers.

This article is not an attempt to give Hillsong a clean bill of health. Criticism, even stinging criticism, remains justified. But a totally negative picture, as in the Roys list, is false.