Talk:Hillsong Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Length of the Anglicanism argument

I have this feeling that the length of the Anglicanism argument is too long. I believe it is just promotion of the Anglican Church in a Pentecostal Church document. It should be removed or shortened. The article is basically plagiarising statements from a few ministers at the Anglican Church.

sorry im not sure how to start my own paragraph... all im saying is that i think hilsong beleivers shouldnt go around trying to convert people overseas etc to their religion... let thes people hav their own religion without being pushed into another! Naomi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.98.97 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The post directly above is not relevant to this discussion page; please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In terms of possible relevance to the article, you will find that Hillsong is no different to many other churches and Christian (and non-Christian) groups in this respect anyway, so there is no merit in singling out Hillsong for criticism. Halsteadk (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay, Macquarie and Greenway?

The section on Political Influence states the following:

The Church also attracts a large number of aspirational voters from marginal seats in the west of Sydney such as Lindsay, Macquarie and Greenway.

The words, Lindsay, Macquarie and Greenway are all linked, but none of them point to anything that seems to resemble what they are referring to.

Are these three, in fact, places in rthe vicinity of Sydney, neighbourhoods perhaps?

If this is the case, articles will need to be written, but until this is done, would it be appropriate to change the links to something that would "red-out" for nonexistent articles, such as:

• [[Lindsay, NSW|Lindsay]]
• [[Macquarie, NSW|Macquarie]]
• [[Greenway, NSW|Greenway]]

(Assuming that I am correct about these being place names in New South Wales.)

Kevyn 02:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These are three contigious Federal electorates in north-western Sydney. Australian electorates and their names are ephemeral. The links should probably be changed.

This article should probably be taken down because it appears to be promotional for both Hillsong and Mrs Markus but I will let some other people assess this.

Albatross2147 16 Aug 2004

I have now linked "Lindsay" to the "Division of Lindsay", "Macquarie" to the "Division of Macquarie" and "Greenway" to the "Division of Greenway". These are all articles about the Federal electorates in Western Sydney.

Id also like to flag this for nothing but a poor attempt at 'addressing' the negative. This is a promotion for Hillsong church.. --Waltonics 01:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It does not addresss the 'negative' in any respect, it just states the facts concerning Political influence. 01:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is no more promotional to Hillsong than the Microsoft article is to Microsoft. Both organisations exist and deserve to be documented on Wikipedia. :::—gorgan_almighty 12:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of important facts

The following section of the article was removed by someone, and then put back by me:

• Pastor Brian Houston has preached what he calls the Prosperity gospel as advanced in his book You Need More Money. This has proved to be attractive to many people in the outer suburbs of Australian cities and regional areas. Yet it has also attracted a degree of controversy, with some critics claiming that the church is too centered around greed, consumerism and individualism.The move to teach Word-faith theology has meant that the church is now more Charismatic than Pentecostal

We must remember that Wikipedia is about the objective presentation of facts. The fact is that there are many Christians who feel very, very uncomfortable with the Hillsong church and its teachings. Regardless of whether these Christians are right or wrong in their belief, it is essential that the article record information about how others feel about the church and its ministry.

Rather than removing the "offending" material. it would be better for an additional section be written defending the teaching.

--One Salient Oversight 22:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my memory I have not touched the article ~ but what you wrote is somewhat provocative without sources, at least IMO.

DarthSidious 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Hillsong Music

I have added the rest of the Hillsong albums to the list but the music section is getting quite long. I was considering if the main Hillsong Church article should have a paragraph or two summarising the music and then displaying a link to a new, separate article 'Hillsong Music' which would go in to more detail about the albums, worship leaders etc. Anyone have any thoughts or objections?

yep that's fine by me. One Salient Oversight 22:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, would anyone like to commit to creating this separate article? (As a relatively new 'Wikipedian', I am not quite confident enough yet to moving huge chunks around!) If not, I will have a go at a later date! Thanks, Mark.

Okay, I'll do it, but I'll leave the finer details for others. One Salient Oversight 01:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this a mistake? 'Their 2004 live praise and worship album For All You've Done reached #1 in the secular Christian Australian album charts.' (my emphasis). Does anyone know what is going on here? Ashmoo 06:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Largest Church?

Hi everyone,

The intro line claims Hillsong "is likely the largest Christian church in Australia". Are there any references available to back this up? The catholic church followed closely by the anglican church are by far the largest Christian churches in Australia. Or is the article referring to single geographic church locations? If this be the case it should be expressed as such, provided there is evidence to support the statement.

Cheers, --Daveb 13:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming single geographic church - that's the way I read it, anyway. If it's the other meaning, god help us all... Ambi 22:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case. If we have any evidence to back it up, then we should change the line to better reflect what it is trying to say; if no-one has such evidence, we should remove the statement (in keeping with the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia). Cheers, --Daveb 00:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the 'largest church' line and converted it to a descriptive explaining it is a Pentecostal / tv(esque) evangelical Christian church. AOG and the Pentecostal group of Christians are by no means the largest Christian church in Australia. The statement itself was exceptionally ambiguous with the statement 'is likely to be the largest'.

The Pentecostal faith itself is by most mainstream Australian's often considered a cult like sect of Christianity based heavily on American TV evangelism. The Pentecostal religion is a AUD$40,000,000 industry in Australia at the moment. According to the last census, it is yet to be a 'mainstream religion' choice as most Pentecostal / Evangelical / AOG / Hillsong type religions go by too many names to keep a true tab on things, and often their members disagree with one another as to what their 'church's proper title is.

From the outside looking in and from all the reading that's available on the net from searching up Australian Pentecostal based religions, they appear to be a closely related, if not incestuous organisation where all members loosely associate with various 'ministries' yet go under the generic label of 'Christian'.

Jachin 4 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Hillsong Church is indeed Australia's largest single congregation. The term 'largest church' refers not to denominations (therefore taking Hillsong out of comparison to the entire Anglican or Catholic denominations) but to congregations. Hillsong's congregation is 20 000 according to their own internal figures, given in the broadest possible meaning (ie. both major campuses and related extension services. There is no church congregation in Australia with a comparative size, the closest being Christian City Church in Oxford Falls.

How are you defining 'congregation'? I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. And the main article needs to add these qualifiers. Ashmoo 02:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A congregation is defined by those attending a single worship centre. Hillsong's Hills site fits that bill, as well as the bill of being Australia's largest congregation. It's extended 'campuses' exhibit characteristics of a single congregation; many people know each other, and the senior leaders are the same people. Therefore the two are often considered a single congregation and secure Hillsong's largest church in Australia title beyond question.

Well, 'congregation' has many definitions, so if you're going to use that one, it needs to be clarified in the article. Also, do you have a cite for the '20 000' figure? Is it 20000 at one time, 20000 regularly attending or something else? If so, is there a study done to confirm that Hillsong has more than any other religious organisation? Not trying to be a pain, but this all sounds a bit vague and it would be good to get it more formalised. Ashmoo 06:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Ok fair enough. To be honest, the 20 000 figure comes from Hillsong's own books and comes from a 'culled figure'. That is, not that many people would attend on a given week, but people who are not in contact with the church for a significant period of time (I'm not precisely sure how long, in the order of two years) are dropped form the list. For the sake of academic honesty then, I will remove the statement until I can get it more adequately supported. I can reaffirm that Hillsong is Australia's largest Christian church from intimate knowledge of the church environment across denominations and regions in Australia, but I could not definitively assert that there is no equivalent larger in another religion.

Leadership Ministries Incorporated

An editor, user:70.152.143.218, added a large chunk of text, including:

• We wish to clarify that the matter in question relates to LMI and not Hillsong Church.[1]

The text is inappropriate for Wikipedia because it expresses a particular POV, and makes assertions without supporting citations. Please read over the Wikipedia:Five Pillars to see the key policies that determine how we write the articles here. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wishlist: Theology section

It would be nice to have a section on what Hillsong's theology is. The article mentions they are Pentecostal, but not much else. Topics such as the requirement to be 'saved', Prosperity Teaching & biblical literalism could be covered. Does anyone know enough to comment? Ashmoo 00:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about their theology, but when I went to the Hillsong conference last year I was gob-smacked to learn that "but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint." (Isaiah 40:31) is not in fact about God's mercy on Israel and his promise to restore the nation after their rebellion. No, I had it wrong all along: what it is saying are that there are two types of Christians, the chickens and the eagles. The chickens, well, they are those who are beaten down by the church and others, who go along with the flow and who never get anywhere. The eagles, well they are the Christians who are assertive, wonderful and have got their life sorted out. They don't ever seem to listen to those who put them down, and they "soar" above those "chickens". I think Joyce Meyer then went on to further categorise Christians into Chickenhawks, pigeons, etc. but by this time I had started to get up to leave. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at the Official Hillsong Website there is a summary of their basis of beliefs, detailing 10 Beliefs the church seems to structure itself on. Would this be a start, and could be extended on with their take on the level of biblical authority, prosperity doctrine. Though I'm new here so I don't know whether permission is needed to post the information from their website. Hodijah 08:46, 24 September 2006

Would it be fair to include theological doctrines taught at the college that Hillsong runs? Neroduso 07:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discredited Link?

An editor removed this link:

• Information about the founding of Hillsong Conference

With the comment:

• Discredited Link.

Can we please get an explanation for how and by whome this link was discredited? -Willmcw 01:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea who or why it was deleted except that I know that the source is notoriously inaccurate (so therefore could fit into 'discredited'. The man behind Christian Witness Ministries has a personal vendetta against the Houstons (Snr. Pastors of Hillsong) and is known quite well for spreading bile here in Australia. Maybe that has something to do with it Jaems 03:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just glancing over the site they do seem to have a feud with Hillsong. But that does n't mean that it is an invalid site. On the contrary, it makes it an important addition. Is there a source which rebuts it and lists the inaccuracies? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversies / Criticism

Are there any references for the 'cult style behaviour' criticisms? If so, can someone please link a credible source, otherwise I think that paragraph should be deleted as it seems POV bias against Hillsong without any evidence. Marky1981 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think originally (SMH/DT) appeared in one of the sentences in this paragraph. Presumably meaning Sydney Morning Herald & Daily Telegraph? But as is, the accusations are so vague as to be almost useless. Ashmoo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree Marky, the only place I've ever seen Hillsong accused of doing good for "recruitment" purposes has been in this article. I think even the word "recruitment" is a bit insinuating of a bias, myself. Clovergirl 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree... It's all rather one-sided down there. The paragraph makes the (unverified) claim that they have the ultimate goal of "recruitment", yet there is no room for retort. Methinks it should go; it adds little that isn't common sense. Jaems 09:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue of Criticism sections has come up on a number of articles and I've had much discussion about it. My thinking is that this is an encyclopedia, not a web forum, so a Criticism section should contain a factual account of criticisms raised and let the reader evaluate the logic and veracity of the arguments. What it shouldn't be is a 'some say... but on the other hand... others point of this is wrong because...' as this tends to just grow and grow and in not terribly in the encyc style. If an article is going to have a criticism section, I think supporter just have to accept that the criticisms exist (rightly or wrongly) and suppress the urge to get the last word. On the topic of my bias, I'm honestly trying to be NPOV. The reason I remove more 'supporters' side is because more supporters comments are added (usually in poor style) to the criticism section than the other way around. (See my edit of 18 Oct 2005 for proof of me removing unnecessary criticism from another section, for what its worth). Reagrds, Ashmoo 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the 'cult-style' behaviour controversy as there is no evidence. Please only add it back if you have a credible source to back it up. Marky1981 13:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody put it back in, I have deleted it again; only put it back in after consulting here Jaems 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit needs rewording (I'm not sure what point it's actually trying to make):

"Various Theologians have told the Church to move on and practice what it preached, in light of Pastor Brian Houston's father, Frank Houston's engagement in homosexual and paedophilic acts as a minister in New Zealand, since it was in the past and Brian Houston had already expelled his father from the church.[16]"

PollyWaffler (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed Church-Planting attempts

Anonymous users 61.69.134.233 and 61.69.151.90, whom I assume to be the same user, have twice added text regarding "failed" church plant attempts by Brian and Bobbie Houston prior to their successful plant in the Hills district. No evidence has been presented to back this up - is there any? If not, please leave it out. Jaems 11:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Page Bias

Does anyone else feel the whole content is biased against Hillsong and not really representative?

I feel that the content should include more positive detail - currently the page seems to make good ground of controvosies, but not of the number of Christians who appreciate the input they have into their lives. I feel stating that Hillsong's style of worship is controversial is way over the top - I personally listen to Hillsong's music and have never heard of a controversial opinion (in fact even non-Christian friends of mine are surprised that 'Christian' music can sound like that). It should be noted that there are many Christian churches across the world that have a similar worship style.

I am reluctant to change the entry myself - since I would have a very positive bias, but please consider what you are doing to a resource like Wikipedia (which I use regularly) which by and large has little bias.

Although there are editors with a negative bias, I do think that, overall, the article is quite NPOV. It is all quite positive (or at least neutral) until the Controversies section. I think the data on the church's success and the popularity of the music attests to the fact that many people get a lot of inspiration from Hillsong. Having said that, I do agree that the 'style of worship' criticism could be taken out, if only because there is no cite for it, which is generally the litmus test for criticisms on wikipedia. Ashmoo 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Could you please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end? It makes it easier to know who is speaking in long exchanges.

• I decided to be bold and remove the style of worship criticism. My reasons are given in the edit summary (see diff). I honestly think some of the other points in the criticism section could be removed as well for the same reasons. —gorgan_almighty 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely, I feel this article is very biased towards Hillsong. Maybe we're both just mad and it's actually pretty neutral? The cult aspect which was supported a the time of entry by SMH/DT (hunting the actual archive entries, it was a feature article on news.com.au also pertaining to the love bomb style of 60's cults being employed in modern born again christian churches, actually a good read and a scary comparison for us christians to evaluate, yet unfortunately based on fact).

Unfortunately, as born-again Christian religions are broken up under so many banners, names and diocese it is impossible for most chapters to have Wiki representation apart from the authorship of their own congregation, which leads to latent bias on their behalf. Imagine if the Boy Scouts decentralised and every scout hall clawed for power in a despotic struggle to 'save' each other from the ensuing chaos, yet all of them wanted representation on Wiki yet none of them were truly of a mass amicable enough (although I'm sure the scout leaders involved would claim them to be the 'largest' something or rather) to warrant an entry, the only entries recieved would be by concerned members.

That may sound NPOV, but often when one is attached to an organisation, what to one is objectivity is to another NPOV and horrible. My words are not to offend, mind you, they are merely me trying to be objective and taking a step back. Jachin 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing articles such as these in an NPOV way is tricky as contributors are likely to be either fans (who would tend to be biased towards) or people who are against and have a point to make (and therefore POV against) as opposed to remaining genuinely neutral.

Therefore we need to be careful to stick to hard facts, no wishy-washy hearsay or personal opinions. I would say all controversies should:

• have a cite from a respected source
• be genuinely about Hillsongs, (e.g. not just someone's gripe about contemporary worship music in general and just wants to 'blame' it all on Hillsongs)
• remain fair - not blow up a small matter into a major controversy - remember this is meant to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid! This also works the other way, in that we cannot sweep things under the carpet if they are genuine
• give Hillsongs' point of view if applicable and available - they may have a different perspective

They probably sound obvious, but we need to apply them to each in turn and ask ourselves if we are writing it NPOV! Feel free to add comments about these points. Marky1981 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's completely objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.146.66 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be kidding, this article is completely in favour of this dangerous cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.149.77.146 (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies / Moral failures

I can't work out the point of the Moral Failures subsection (if it has one). Three people out of that many is probably below the average, and even these seem to be pushing it. While the section cites sources, I doubt any would be considered mainstream or unbiased. I'm also uncertain why Geoff Bullock is in the list with the other two. Anyone want to have a go at making this section have a point and some mainstream references or should it be removed completely? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed at all. An unbiased article should include the truth and the truth is that the church's history includes the issues raised by Bullock, Mesiti and Frank Houston. --One Salient Oversight 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "An unbiased article should include the truth". My problems are 1) I can't find a point in the section, and 2) Geoff Bullock is listed because a website with a known bias against Hillsong says he may not have been a Christian when he was employed by Hillsong. Find some mainstream (eg major daily newspaper) references and rewrite the section to make a point. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we seek verifiable information, not truth. -Will Beback 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, are you saying you think the article should keep the "Moral Failures" section with its current references? I am aware of WP:VERIFY, which requires " reliable, published sources". The current sources are: a Fundamentalist Baptist website' Friday News Notes, the Bible College of New Zealand website that serves raw HTML (to me anyway), and two from a website for an organisation that appears to have a goal of criticising Hillsong and places like it. I reiterate: 1) the section is poorly written with no discernible point 2) the references are not reliable. 3) The article as it stands would improve by removing that subsection if it is not improved. Note that I have not gone ahead an removed the section as I believe there could be some point lurking in there somewhere. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "Moral failures". It was referenced with rather obscure and third-hand websites that only indicated a controversy by criticism, not by documenting a controversy. Those references might fit as examples in a "criticism" section, but were not up to Wikipedia's standard to document a controversy. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this move.--cj | talk 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Jaems 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If the controversy was accurately sourced, would you guys support its re-inclusion? Ashmoo 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Albatross2147 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would. But I'd like references that show there is controversy, not just references that show that people in another denomination have different opinions than Hillsong's leadership. It is accepted in Australia that there are many different deniminations of Christianity, and they mostly get along to a greater or lesser degree, so a difference of opinion does not make a controversy. It may be that the points you want to make fit better into the article in other existing sections (history, music, politics) or a new theology section, rather than trying to create/restore a "controversy" section. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Albatross reverted a number of recent edits back to his last version. This included a number of references, which I presume was accidental. I have reverted to the second-last edit before Albatross, then finished using citation templates for all the references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

\

The truth is, or Fact, rather is that Hillsong claims to be Christian yet misquotes the Bible and goes against the teachings of Christianity. Since when did the Bible claim that God wants us to be rich, as Houston says? Since when does the Bible say that "Kingdom Women love sex" as Bobbie Houston claims in her book? The controversy isn't whether Hillsong is preaching the "truth", but that it claims to be Christian when it isn't! Skillmaster101 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

you can find arguments like that against ANY church if you look for them. I could name many points why Catholic or Lutheran or Fundamental Baptist Churches shouldnt be called Christian because they teach sth that I don't find in the Bible. Still, they are generally known to be Christian churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.48.34 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

History

The History section seems to imply that the Sydney CLC / Hillsong Church merger took place because of the exposure of Frank's abuse. The cited sourced doesn't make the connection. Is this the intended implication? If so, is there a definitive sources making the connection? Ashmoo 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference (because there wasn't one at all), without intending to indicate causality or otherwise. The referenced article does contain "The church he built at Waterloo merged with his son's church at Baulkham Hills to become Hillsong after he exposed himself as a pedophile." which certainly leaves open the possibility that it was a cause. One of the discredited controversy references suggested there is more about Frank in the 27/03/2002 SMH, but I could not find it online and my local library does not have SMH archives. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Hillsong cultist is constantly removing the reference to Frank's paedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.171.80 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics

User:Pbibby has twice removed the section titled "Political Influence". I don't believe a revert war is productive, so I bring the section here for comment.

The Hillsong Church has attracted support from high profile politicians especially in the Liberal Party of Australia. Prime Minister John Howard opened its Baulkham Hills campus and Treasurer Peter Costello spoke at its annual conference in July 2004 and 2005. Opposition Leader Mark Latham declined Hillsong's invitation to the annual 2004 conference, although Bob Carr, the then Premier of New South Wales, (from the Australian Labor Party), did attend the 2005 conference.

This access to high level Federal politicians may be, in part, due to the fact that the former New South Wales Liberal Party state director Scott Morrison (to November 2004) and now chief executive of Tourism Australia is a prominent member of Hillsong Church.

The Church also attracts a large number of aspirational voters from seats in the west of Sydney such as Mitchell (where the church is located; the safest Liberal seat in Sydney), Lindsay, Macquarie and Greenway. Louise Markus who ran the Hillsong Emerge Ltd, the church's drug and alcohol outreach service in Blacktown, was preselected as the Liberal Party candidate for Greenway in the 2004 federal election and was elected to the House of Representatives. Labor had held the seat since it was proclaimed in 1984 until she beat the ALP candidate Ed Husic, a non-practicing Muslim, as well as twelve other candidates, with a two party preferred swing of 3.7%.

Subsequent to the election accusations were made in the NSW State Parliament that Mrs Markus's campaign had inappropriately placed undue emphasis on the Muslim background of her chief opponent.

Liberal MP for Mitchell, Alan Cadman, and two Family First Party Senate candidates, Joan Woods and Ivan Herald, who failed to win Senate seats, were featured in a Hillsong circular during the election, with members being asked to pray for them.

Publicly, however, the church has distanced itself from advocating certain political groups and parties, including the fledgling Family First party:

One thing we are not is a political movement... The Assemblies of God in Australia does not have a political vision and we don't have a political agenda. I think people need to understand the difference between the church being very involved in politics and individual Christians being involved in politics. There is a big difference. (Brian Houston)

Gerard Henderson (2004-10-19). "Mock Christians at your peril, lefties". Sydney Morning Herald. John Fairfax Holdings. Retrieved 2006-06-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Linda Morris (2005-05-04). "Church expands horizons". Sydney Morning Herald. John Fairfax Holdings. Retrieved 2006-06-27.

I believe there is value in the section, even if it requires some work from its present state to achieve compelling, neutral prose. In particular, teh second paragraph verges on being OR and should be removed, and the next three paragraphs should have references. Comments? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing whole sections without any edit comments or talk seems like vandalism, but it is good to 'Assume Good Faith' (as you have done). I pretty much agree with your summation. I think the 2nd paragraph should just start 'The former New South...', removing everything before it. This would leave the facts, while removing the unsourced analysys. I also agree the rest would be better with sources, but I wouldn't removed them just yet. Ashmoo 00:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Political influence

There is a problem with this section. It just doesn't seem right. For example, just because the Prime Minister and Peter Costello 'opened' their Church doesn't mean they have 'attracted support' from them...

Also, I doubt that a former state director (Scott Morrison) and someone who is now chief executive of Tourism Australia has access to high level 'Federal' politicians - and in particular Federal... He WAS a state director, not Federal, and plus he is a FORMER state director.

Also, 'inapproriately placed undue emphasis on the Muslim background' is not a sourced accusation, but rather an opinionative one.

The fact that Hillsong members were asked to pray for the Liberal MPs in a Hillsong circular is a personal thing.

A lot of these comments however are good, but they should be placed on the person's page (not Hillsong as an entity) because the Church is a group of people, rather than an individual. Comments should be referred to attributes of Hillsong in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.220.39.13 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006

I couldn't disagree more. Hillsong's political influence is one of its most notable aspects to outsiders. As long as the statements are sourced, they should be included. I re-included the text, but made a few changes related to your objections. Ashmoo 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Well Known

Where is the evidence that 'the music is not well known amongst the mainstream'? 'For All You've Done reached number 1 on the secular music charts for goodness' sake Serenacw 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• but only because the faithful each purchased a copy at the 2005 Hillsong Conference because they were asked to. It's a bit like the Bee Gees when they were trying to get well known in Brisvegas all those years ago going around to the few record shops that reported their sales figures and buying all the copies of their first sinngle so that it would chart (with a bullet) and get airplay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albatross2147 (talk • contribs) .

Actually,it was a bit more than that.Many non-Christians purchases the cd too.And please sign your posts! Serenacw 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually,on the Australian television show Morning's with Kerri-Anne they recently invited part of the Hillsong band to peform their new song.On a live ,national television show they could not afford to lose any ratings by inviting a little-known band to peform. Serenacw 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Hillsong music is unknown by the majority of Australians, verifying the fact would be pretty difficult. Ashmoo 06:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay,well how would you know if it is well-known or not?Regardless of how Hillsong reached no 1 in the secular music charts,you can't just say that Hillsong isn't well known amongst the mainstream.You can't prove it either way,which is why that statement is POV. Serenacw 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I just said. Ashmoo 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Ashmoo,you said that Hillsong is not well known amongst the mainstream-is that your personal opnion or one that you're claiming everybody has?Serenacw 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is my opinion that Hillsong aren't well known in the mainstream, but I concede that I couldn't verify it to the degree that WP requires for inclusion in the article. How is that related to my comments above? Ashmoo 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,I put it in the wrong paragraph.If your view is that Hillsong music isn't well known amongst the mainstream.fine,but don't purport it to be the whole secular's view.Serenacw 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion? Hillsong is also well-known here in North America! Your opinion does not count as a creditable reason to delete an article. I believe that if you hit "Random Page" enough times here in Wikipedia that there will be many articles that you've never heard of before but are still credible. --JDitto 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-open old discussions, and please read all the posts before adding yours. Ashmoo has been unfairly beaten to a pulp by contributions, for daring to voice an opinion and acknowledge that it cannot be included as it is an opinion and not-verifiable, and no-one is suggesting the article be deleted. Halsteadk 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to provide evidence that Hillsong music is not well known - the evidence that needs to be provided is that Hillsong music is well known. If such evidence is not available - and I would suggest that it most likely is not - then the claim that "Hillsong music is well known" would appear to be opinion or at best an assumption (based on sales). The offending sentence should be rewritten to simplay state "Hillsong Music has topped local charts and achieved gold and platinum sales status." - with an appropriate citation, of course. (For what it's worth, I'm not aware that I have ever heard any of Hillsong's music, and I certainly don't own any.) PollyWaffler (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Music section

This paragraph seems very weak:

Hillsong is one of the strongest influential factors in Christian worship music. Darlene Zschech, Reuben Morgan, Marty Sampson, Joel Houston and Jonathon Douglass are three worship leaders and songwriters from Hillsong United who are becoming very well known and respected.

What does strongest influential factors mean? To what extent are they 'well known' and how is 'respect' measured. All this seems POV and totally unverifiable. Could the original author fix it soon? It has had fact tags on it for a while, and needs immediate attention to avoid being chopped. Ashmoo 05:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have once seen a thread in a Christian music forum that started with a post "I'm sick of Hillsong". The guy complained that everywhere he goes, churches play their music. This is, of course, no verifiable evidence, but I just thought I would mention it here on the talk page. Latreia 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hillsong template

I have added a template to this article, which was copied and modified from the Abundant Life Church one. I have tried to keep it compact as there are a lot of albums! Feel free to modify, but please do not delete without discussion here first, thanks. If it's OK, we can add to the other Hillsong-related articles. Marky1981 23:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillsong musicians

Hi. Please see the talk page on Hillsong musicians. Someone has been trying to reduce this to simply a list of links (see history) because it doesn't comply with the list guideline. I am trying to explain that it isn't meant to be a simple list, but a unifying article about the musicians, some of whom wouldn't qualify for their own article. Please add your comments on the talk page. Thanks Marky1981 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Linked organisations

I think we should include a section on the other organisations owned by or affliated with Hillsong, such as Gloria Jean's Coffees. Naysie 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Orgaisations like Gloria Jean's are not owned by Hillsong. They are simply run by or owned by a member of the church. We could never catagorise every single company that is affiliated with the 16,000+ membership. Neroduso 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hillsong College

As a member of the college, I thought it appropriate to include the college in it's own section rather than as a bullet point. I plan on adding more information regarding the college and maybe a photo. Would it perhaps be more appropriate to include all the college info on a dedicated page? Neroduso 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillsong

Would this and other Hillsong-related articles (e.g. albums, Hillsong United, personnel) be worth putting in a WikiProject entitled Hillsong? What do people think? Marky1981 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it.--cj | talk 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hillsong Controversy

"one salient oversight" is absolutely correct regarding the mass controversy generated by the Hillsong Church within the Christian community. Skillmaster101 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

money and the church

church is a device for separating its members from their money, the prosperity teaching is thoroughly anti-Christian, but it does make the church hierarchy rich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The church is obviously one huge pyramide scheme, but then again most religions are. NiNo124.170.163.194 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AOTH lrg.jpg

Image:AOTH lrg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cd sk lrg.jpg

Image:Cd sk lrg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for deleting controversies

Many of the controversies are centred around the fact that Hillsong is a Pentecostal Church, and therefore the 'controversies' can be applied to all pentecostal churches... why add biased information to Hillsong Church? The baptists and anglicans hate what Pentecostals believe in... why put it in? Can't we write a un-biased report?

vent your frustrations on the Pentecostal Wiki page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmjsmith (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 June 2007

So, from what you've written, it will be ok by you for that article to be "biased" instead? All of what you have removed are specific, sourced criticisms of Hillsong and cannot therefore be referred to as "junk" - if it's "junk" here then the same criticisms would be "junk" elsewhere (and would have to be sweeping statements against Pentecostalism rather than specific). "Discussion" also refers to a two way process, which doesn't mean you go and remove it all anyway before consensus is reached. Therefore I have replaced the material and ask that you retain it until agreement is reached here, involving other regular editors of this page. Halsteadk 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

those articles are blasphemy... they are written by anglicans to vent their hatred towards Hillsong

also, this article needs to be neutral... not a anti-Pentecostal tyrade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmjsmith (talk • contribs) 3 June 2007

I'm not a regular editor of the article, but have edited it before. The cited criticisms are specific to Hillsong, even if the same people might make similar comments about other Pentecostal churches. The language was rather emotive and could be toned down, but I believe the gist does belong in the article. Note that the neutral point of view may well be "A and B disagree", not either "A is attacking B" or "A is pointing out that B is wrong". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with tmjsmith... ALL OF YOU ARE HILLSONG HATERS - PRO-BAPTIST AND ANTI-PENTECOSTAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.126.132 (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2007

I also agree with Tmjsmith... That article is absolute garbage (matthias media)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.126.132 (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2007

Please note that both of the comments above (apart from "ALL OF YOU ARE HILLSONG HATERS") were made in the same post, i.e. not two people agreeing and "also" agreeing with Tmjsmith. Halsteadk 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on now! I happened on this page incidentally, I have no interest in the politics of what's going on, and as I was born Catholic I hate Baptists, Evangelical Anglicans and Pentecostals equally. But there is nothing NPOV about the edits you keep putting in here. Bunging in "biased" and "misinformed" whenever the article talks about people critical of you just REINFORCES that criticism. You're all bloody mad. Afrohally 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Christian, an active member of my church, and a sort of Anglo-Baptist (who doesn't care much for denominations), I have to say I have nothing against Hillsong but the article should include valid criticism of weaknesses as well as pointing out its strengths. And I'm afraid I have to say the emotive response of "those articles are blasphemy" and "ALL OF YOU ARE HILLSONG HATERS" really does make me think you are one thing short of something. To anyone not fully aware of one meaning of blasphemy this looks like you consider it blasphemy to criticise Hillsong! And could everyone please sign their messages properly (and please try to avoid making one message look like it was written by two people to reinforce your point)!! Halsteadk 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cd sk lrg.jpg

Image:Cd sk lrg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ηillsong in Greek Wiki

Εκκλησία Hillsong

helpful note to see also

-- just started and stubbed article on Tanya Levin who wrote a book about Hillsong recently. The book should be a good source for balancing this article. Donama 14:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion vs. Business

One could say that the Anglican church is a successful 'Religion', where as Hillsong is a successful 'Business'. Lets all remember that Hillsong is a business, and a very successful one at that. And like any business, they are out to make money. If you were to believe that Hillsong is purely in the game in a religious or spiritual sense, then you are truly lost. To say that Hillsong is a 'Cult' is not entirely right as the very word 'cult' has gained many good but also many bad connotations surrounding the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.141.95 (talk) 06:17:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either cult or business should be used. Cult has no positive meanings in everyday use, and violates Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. Just say what reputable sources say and leave it at that. Rumiton 11:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To call Hillsong a business is a fallacy. Businesses work to benefit their investors, as far as I'm aware the only people benefiting

(in a non-spiritual sense) from the turnover are the Houstons and other higher ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.30.118 (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian idol

Hillsong Church has nothing to do with Australian Idol. Why is it included in the "See Also" list of internal links? There is currently no reference to Hillsong whatsoever on the Australian Idol page, only one reference to the Assemblies of God Christian denomination. I sense whoever put the link to Australian Idol under the "See Also" page has somewhat of a bias. I am not particularly pro or anti Hillsong. Spillon 06:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hillsong Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page has a long way to go, it is a very biased article on the Hillsong Church and Pentecostal Christianity. Over time, I hope these biases will be removed

Last edited at 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)