Frank Houston in Retrospect, Hillsong.

[GoldenKingGaze]

Frank Houston founded Sydney Christian Life Centre.
His son Brian founded Hillsong in Sydney's west and the music became famous.
This is based on Frank's vision statement from God. About presenting Christ to all people in a contemporary form. And empowering people from all cultures to take back Christ to their own communities.

Frank moved in the gifts of the Spirit and in the anointing. His prayers were powerful prayers for the faithful at request in each service. Except for the 8 pm anointing service.

His preachings were very attractive, insightful, for Jesus, sometimes words of knowledge in due season. I recall he stopped mid preaching and answered a secret question of my mind. Then went on.

Church planting was like fifty churches in five years if I remember right.

I was blessed there, mainly between 97-2000. But in 99 the loose nature of church in who attends and serves there led to a really bad experience with a cussing deacon, after months I was injured and still am.

However the issue is, Frank had committed a serious offense to a youth thirty years before his, retirement pushed by Brian. Sex offense.
Should Frank have admitted this earlier?
Should Frank have retired earlier?
Did he actually put in a good effort at recovery as is?
Should he have refused to retire, or started another church in retirement?
Should he have done time?
Was he fit to be called the Bishop?
Was Frank a fraud?

I am looking at Psalm 40 and 51. And Timothy concerning Bishops and elders.

In retirement Frank prayed for us, and poured the love of God into a young man's heart, who preaches. Romans 5:5. And according to Psalm 40 from any condition proclaiming the love of God, is right, in the face of mockers if need be.

 

[Biblicist]

In Titus 1:7 we are told that an elder must be held blameless and not only by the local congregation but by default within the secular community that he lives within.

With regard to the question, the issue goes far beyond merely with that of Houston or indeed with any individual be they a first year intern or a major congregational leader. As the sin that he sadly committed is held in utter contempt not only within the Christian community but also by the majority of the secular community – as such he had to fall on his own sword not merely for his own sake but for the Body of Christ’s as well; this was evidenced once Frank became aware of the accusation as he quickly approached his son and confessed his sin to him.

Even though he was well thought of by the many who knew him and undoubtedly by most of those within his congregation, his sin was such that the majority simply would have lost respect for the man even if they did not want to see him resign.

I have no doubt that he will be warmly received by the Lord even though he demonstrated a lack of wisdom with how he dealt with his sin years earlier; it does seem that he tried to reconcile his actions/behaviour with the Lord but in the eyes of the Church and the community he simply had to resign in shame.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Biblicist, I did not read any articles from the secular press that held Frank in shame. It fair welled him as a pioneer of lost souls. Seeming to honour our respect of him, rather than attack in anger... Can you direct me to an article?

There is a move in Christian circles that disdains the rejections of such as Frank, Geof Bullock, and Todd Bentley. The latter who the churches called back from a major sin.

Titus and Timothy are said to come from Paul the apostle, but scholars think now this was a second Paul. Paul himself could not live up to the standard of reputation the author with his name required. As the man who oversaw arrests and the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr.

At this time Mary Magdalene, who was a formerly a prostitute, wrote a Gospel. It is alleged that one chapter remains, Ch 6.

In Corinth, a city known for it's sexual erring, had the problem of jealousy and backstabbing, not literally, for matters of people being given great giftings.

I did not know Frank to be one, to have after resignation, to have lived in shame.

King David wrote Psalm 40, describing himself as in great need, "in the miry clay". His sins overwhelming him, "numbering like hairs" on his "head". Yet he would not leave the assembly or stop proclaiming "God's love". In the face of mocks from people saying "aha aha".

This King David was the one God is pleased to have called His own son after, calling Jesus, Son of David.

It seems the second Paul was less bold.

Shame is not one of the answers to sin. The Bible never says God wants us ashamed.

Even today, there are testimonies of great sinners turning to Jesus. They give testimony. People love that, some older ones are in the Cross and the Switch Blade... There is Jan Erikkson, I recall the young woman who was the girl for the Hell's Angels bikey gang, interviewed by Dr Gordon Moyes...

But it seems Biblicist, you think Frank should not have been called "Bishop". I think that was an error too. He should have been quietly humble, in my feelings.

 

[Simon Peter]

Biblicist, I did not read any articles from the secular press that held Frank in shame. It fair welled him as a pioneer of lost souls. Seeming to honour our respect of him, rather than attack in anger... Can you direct me to an article?

Do you think that someone who's been reported as a "paedophile" in the secular media is not held in shame, by secular society?

There is a move in Christian circles that disdains the rejections of such as Frank, Geof Bullock, and Todd Bentley. The latter who the churches called back from a major sin.

Todd Bentley was not "called back from a major sin"; Bentley had a previous affair in the past, was a habitual liar (even from the pulpit), was a drunkard (even during the so called 'Lakeland revival'), was having an affair during that revival, divorced his wife and married his former baby sitter who he'd made into a personal assistant! Not to mention his false teaching and false prophecies...

And it's important to discriminate between sins in the past - prior to salvation, early Christian years - and sins committed while in a position of leadership and responsibilty.

Saul was a murderer, Paul was not.

King David's sins have almost nothing to do with NT leadership standards. David was a monarch, and King's don't maintain their position by being accountable to other men, NT church leaders are (or should be) accountable to the church.

peace,
Simon

 

[Biblicist]

GoldenKingGaze,

Biblicist, I did not read any articles from the secular press that held Frank in shame. It fair welled him as a pioneer of lost souls. Seeming to honour our respect of him, rather than attack in anger... Can you direct me to an article?

I don’t really think that it would be a good idea to associate the ongoing sin and abominations of someone like Bentley and his minions with the sin that Frank Houston committed years earlier and of which Frank Houston was rightfully ashamed of.

I presume that you are an Australian and if so you should be aware of the many articles that attacked Frank during this time and may I point you back to the Channel 9 special on Brian Houston where Brian expressed his great remorse for his fathers sin which is why Brian had no choice but to sack his father as an AOG credentialed minister.

I have no doubt that Frank greatly regretted his earlier sin and it must have weighed very heavily on him over the years; thankfully Frank realised that he could not do a Bentley/Joyner routine by saying that evil is good and that all is well but he showed a high degree of integrity by admitting his sin and Brian did a good job in removing his fathers credentials.

Thank goodness that Joyner was not in charge of the AOG here in Australia as undoubtedly he would have utilised a lot of spin doctoring and to the shame of the Australian Church and even worse to the name of the Lord.

As for the many articles on Frank Houston may I suggest you undertake a Google search and you will see a sample of the many articles that most other Australians saw during this very sad period. You might want to check out an article in the SMH;

“Houston denies categorically knowing of any claims of sexual abuse by his father before this time. He initiated a church investigation, which saw the old preacher's credentials permanently removed. "I was completely devastated by the realisation that my father had hurt people in this way, and I believed it related to events more than 30 years before when he was a New Zealand credentialled pastor. Until recently I knew nothing of Peter's claims."
​

We do no-one any service by declaring evil as being good – leave that to the likes of Bentley and Joyner.

 

[Biblicist]

Simon Peter,

King David's sins have almost nothing to do with NT leadership standards.

I agree with you on this as it absolutely staggers me with how so many believers try and use the OT to justify sin by those who are under the New Covenant.

One thing you do frequently observe is that when people copiously quote from the OT examples of where God forgave the wickedness of Israel's leaders that they frequently omit that there was always a price to pay by those who committed such wickedness.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

King David was under Moses' law, and Nathan was led by the Spirit as well. King Saul was deposed. David could have been. It was God's loving kindness and mercy, and need of David that led to his repentance and forgiveness and continued reign under hardship.

Maybe David became a lion, but he certainly got opposition and that increased. I recall an account of a man throwing stones at David, and David accepting that, instead of having him killed.

I think David does effect NT leadership standards. Because the second Paul, does not mention, pre-conversion reputation as different to post.

In the NT, Peter at his call, by the Sea of Galilee refuses Jesus, saying, get away from me Lord I am a sinful man. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, repentant. Jesus forgave the men who killed Him in ignorance. Jesus mentioned others committed a greater sin, from knowing more. Saul of Tarsus was one such pharisee, he knew a lot, well trained. He heard Stephen, heard of Jesus, saw Stephen's face shining. Yet killed him unreserved. Then was to see a greater light.

He changed his name to Paul for the Greek's sake. In Corinth Paul was bold, about forgiveness and no condemnation, as in Romans 8:1-4. The reputation of the Corinthians sexually was poor. Yet not humility in leadership, or condemnation, but jealousy about giftings and charisms was their known vice.

I Cor 6 mentions shame, in brothers taking out lawsuits against one another, before pagans judges.

Romans 8:1-4, God condemns sin and justifies the spirit by the Spirit.

The goal of the cross for anyone is a clear conscience from our murders, adulteries and fornications. We unlike Paul keep private confessions, he was open and bold.

The shame game, if you have to keep it secret, it owns you. "No one must know".
That is not the Gospel, is it?

We all keep secrets. Sins of the heart.

The idea is, Jesus blood makes our conscience clear, no shame, no guilt, that's why Jesus died. Born again, and Jesus intercedes for us even when we sin. IJohn 2:1.

And God disciplines us Heb 12. And Romans 13 warns us of the civil authorities carrying the sword, and In 1 Corinthians 5:5-6 the brother with his father's wife is punished by Paul and they are warned about community pride. Father's discipline their children.

What should have been done with Frank? It is not clear. I would have him as a pastor until repentance and never as a youth pastor. He won so many lost souls. According to the Gospel, he would be being thrashed now.

I cannot find the verse about the angels lashing the servants, according to how well they knew they had been falling short of the will of God. Anyone know the verse, from which comes the Catholic belief in purgatory, and baptist belief in the rapture and angelic punishment?

Should we be conscious of sin or righteousness?