(This post is still undergoing correction and enhancement)
Several years ago I was talking to someone who had decided to leave his fairly average church and move on to one of the Hillsong churches. As I listened to his story and his initial experiences of Hillsong (he'd been along to have a reconnoiter and talk to the leadership) I remarked that it sounded as though they were using a business model for church; in particular, as in any business it seemed that the management were very much in charge. Moreover, in his first contact with the local leadership it looked almost as if he had gone for a job interview; he was asked about his commitment, what he felt he could contribute and his preparedness to contribute. In raising the bar of membership they were conveying its value. The apparent hurdles to membership act as a provocative "come on" to some people looking for spiritual challenge.
My friend was clearly very much blown away by the professionalism and seriousness of the Hillsong set-up; Hillsong wanted to make sure they got on board members who were equally as serious and dedicated. This contrasted with the sort church I was used to where voluntary help can be patchy and lead to a struggle to get things done (But in such churches there is little or no duress or pressure and "voluntary" really does mean "voluntary"). So I could see why my friend, who clearly wanted to express his spirituality seriously, was so taken with Hillsong: Here was a church where church community was taken to the heights he felt it deserved. At that time he was perhaps one of those persons who saw radical challenge & change as the antidote to a dreary mediocrity & familiarity. But it didn't last. A year or two later and he had left. Unfortunately I never managed to catch up with him to find out what his story was and why the honeymoon had ended. Perhaps, I speculated, he just couldn't hack an environment where management are management and plebs are plebs. The notion of an aristocracy rests uneasily in democratic societies.
At that time my perspective was that Hillsong was another Charismatic leaning church that specialized in exciting "hi-scene" services and events. The Charismatic ethos with its lively musical services and a lionized, sometimes authoritarian leadership, was already very familiar. But Hillsong had raised the game to a level of management & professionalism I hadn't seen before, even when compared to the Restorationist strain of church.
As it turned out I needn't have spoken to my acquaintance to find out why he left because some of my questions were to be answered by a recent BBC documentary called Storyville: God goes Viral. This was a fly on the wall documentary about the Hillsong phenomenon. Well, I say fly on the wall, but it was apparently produced by an atheist and I suspect this person selected material to convey the idea that the Hillsong scene was very much a façade that covered underlying ills. Even so, taking into account the obvious bias enough was revealed to raise concerns about what was going on at Hillsong. But it wasn't all wrong: there were good ideas and intentions there, but in other significant respects they had lost their way.
In the documentary an ex-Hillsong member talked about the time that Brian Houston the founder of the movement went to America to learn about megachurches. According to this person this visit was a turning point and from then on the Hillsong group pushed "the look"; that is, stylish and quality presentation in services and shows became very important. All this came with an emphasis on the need for more money to finance this makeover of the Hillsong brand. There were clips of Hillsong public figures appealing for generous giving ("Give till it hurts", "You rob God when you hold back") and members were urged to tithe their income before tax. One Hillsong special event required a $379 ticket to be purchased. The accusation that they had become another prosperity church was looking very plausible.
But the business plan worked. The church attracted many young people who were thrilled by an exciting Christian scene that glittered when compared to the often dowdy & dull affair traditional church can sometimes be. Above all, this new scene offered a strong & welcoming community ethos; as the Hillsong strap-line chimed: "Welcome Home!". Acceptance, friendship and a strong sense of belonging to something new, fresh and significant was offered. Humanity's strongest gregarious instincts & aspirations were being catered for in this business model. In particular directionless young people who had dropped out or had a tough beginning could come and feel they were part of a social scene, a family in fact with purpose, gravitas and a great destiny; in these nihilistic secular days that is a big deal. The brand also attracted some big-name celebrities further enhancing the credence, prestige and salability of the movement. Hillsong were onto a winner; they were selling rare products that many yearned for and couldn't otherwise find; namely, meaning, purpose and community, all wrapped up in a very attractive package. Hillsong now have a world wide network of churches who sell the brand and I can see why. I've never seen a niftier piece of religious marketing.
 |
| Christian celeb, Carl Lentz I don't know the other guy. |
At one level there is nothing startling about the Hillsong scene: Hillsong have in effect moved into a very profitable line in show business. They were also selling very effective community oriented products and profiting from them: Normally people don't get too uptight about the money celebrities earn from the gregarious gig experiences they lay on and from the associated merchandising. And of course sexual scandals among the famous and attractive are only to be expected; they face many temptations after all and that may include the conceit of entitlement. But Hillsong products go much deeper into the psyche than the shallowness of secular culture: Hillsong were selling nothing less than eternity. Who can beat that?
In the documentary the Hillsong rank and file appeared to be overworked and underpaid - in fact in most cases it seems that they were unpaid volunteers, as they are in most churches, but with a lot more cash and labour being skimmed off to feed the polished Hillsong scene. The latter entailed leaders buying expensive designer garb to fit the image. But there is a sense that in our society this is nothing so unusual or specially objectionable: The paid leaders were actually in a kind of business offering a very salable product and they may well have felt entitled to a just remuneration: After all, we don't complain when secular celebrities spend in a way consistent with their status and income
But what was galling was that the volunteer workforce were not only unpaid but via the pre-tax tithe they were encouraged to contribute they effectively paid for the privilege of being part of this business model! They also worked hard work; after all this was supposed to be the Lord's work. What they got in return was the privilege of being part of a community with significance and destiny. The documentary interviewed a youth worker who had recently left Hillsong. He said he did 87 hours/week (?) unpaid and had to sleep at his parents house on an air mattress. Contrast that with the credit card wielding Gucci wearing pastors. The youth worker was now rather pensive and doubtful: What if there is no heaven he asked? But he went on to say There has to be more. I know what he means. There is something in us that shouts out that meaning and justice must be satisfied and therefore death can't be the end. I admired his conviction and yet his willingness to face these tough questions. He was a genuine guy. Unfortunately this intellectual honesty may well register as sinful doubt in a triumphalist Charismatic and/or fundamentalist church culture, but it's actually an indictment on these culture's lack of integrity and failure to make space for honest questions and deal with them as best they can. The alternative is they make Christianity appear too easy, formulaic and subject to group affectations. They don't admit that there are issues which need addressing. See for example the case of Hillsong worship leader Marty Sampson who gave up the faith completely. (See footnote). Least of all would they acknowledge that atheism does actually have a prima facia case that needs to be dealt with, especially since the scientific revolution has revealed on one level what is apparently a spiritually sterile mechanical universe lacking in anthropic significance. I'm certainly not an atheist myself but I think I can understand something of the atheist case: Since the demise of Ptolemy the modern view of the cosmos and the very fabric of reality have been a challenge to make theistic & anthropic sense of....not that that sense cannot be made if we try a little harder. But as the Marty Sampson case suggests "a little harder" isn't what this kind of fellowship is about; rather its about style over content and cliched & glib answers.
The documentary informed us at the end that our youth pastor had actually gone back to work for Hillsong. But he clearly needed that timeout to rethink his faith & make sense of life because the Hillsong culture didn't give space for such rethinks. I don't blame him for returning though; he was simply seeking fulfilment of aspirations many of us have. But the walk of faith is not always as easy as some churches pretend: Making sense of life is sometimes a struggle that triumphalist charismatic and fundamentalist Christians are unwilling to countenance. Another Hillsong dropout said "I gave everything but it felt fake". Behind the façade some do feel discomfort. There is a great danger of creating the expectation that if all isn't rosy in the garden, then its down to a failure of faith. That's prosperity teaching for you.
On more than one occasion the documentary juxtaposed a video of moving herds of sheep with the Hillsong hi-scene congregations. This was a little unfair. The atheism of the documentary producers has an unfortunate tendency to veer off toward a directionless teetering on the brink of the nihilist abyss. The Hillsong rank and file are doing little more than what many of us do: namely, to seek warm community, familial connection, attractiveness, significance, purpose, an end to dullness and above all a life with shape and direction: If that is what motivates the movement of these crowds of sheep people who can blame them. In comparison the empty atheist universe cannot compete with the Hillsong business model, even though that model has its serious flaws.
But as with atheism, a scene like Hillsong also teeters on the edge: They are tempted by very human failings: Heady inauthenticity, style over content, blinkered idealism, group think, unwarranted leadership adulation, doctrinal simplicity and worst of all sectarian and cultish practices. Having said that however, Brian Houston doesn't strike me as having an unbending & brittle fundagelical personality and he may yet be able to learn the lessons needed to put the movement back on track. After all, in some respects the movement does have a lot going for it and many people have found a spiritual home there and above all a life with meaning.
Footnote
Some notes on Marty Sampson (ex-Hillsong Worship leader) can be found embedded in this post:
Meanwhile, Back in Theological Toy Town....
ADDENDEM 09/06/2022
This article by Sam Hailes, editor of Premier Christianity suggests that things at Hillsong are even worse than I make out above!
