Why Hillsong Exposed and the Fall of Mars Hill are not Just About Theology

The recent notoriety around the Hillsong documentary and fallout matches with the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill in many ways. Similar themes in terms of leadership and culture are present in both cultures and what follows is an excerpt from my yet to be published book. 

Conservatives (more specifically religious Conservatives) are particularly susceptible to the pull of a charismatic leader. This is due to two very intertwined things that early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber points out, the “miracle” of the leader’s ascension, and the continuing duty their followers feel in obedience.^[1] This is doubly impactful for the Conservative because the “System” reinforces both of these aspects. 

When it comes to the “miracle” of a leader’s ascension, depending on the context it need not be extraordinary. A person with a unique combination of personality, oratory skill, and “fitness” may by these things alone qualify in a miraculous sense. This is coupled with a sense that the “system”/God has “uniquely” gifted this individual. Lay persons even talk this way, “We were so fortunate to find Pastor Bob, it is a miracle we have him for a pastor.” If one adds unique or seemingly uncommon “blessing” (especially in material gain), the Leader’s claim to power is doubly enhanced. Not only does the uncommon lend itself to the miraculous, but the “System”/God allowing it makes the matter even more miraculously authoritative. Weber, “It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma. This is freely given and guaranteed by what is held to be a ‘sign’ or ‘proof’, originally always a miracle, and consists in devotion to the corresponding revelation, hero worship, or absolute trust in the leader. But where charisma is genuine, it is not the basis of the claim to legitimacy. This basis lies rather in the conception that it is the duty of those who have been called to a charismatic mission to recognize its quality and to act accordingly.”(359) In other words the charismatic leader invites the follower into participation: “Does the follower want to be a part of ____?” “Do you want what we have?” “Are you willing to join us?” This is almost always accompanied with evidentiary material support: “Look at what we’ve done.” “See the example____” “Look at our numbers!” This evidentiary support is even more concrete in a Laissez-faire assumed Conservativism. The implied argument is “If we were somehow doing something wrong the System/God wouldn’t allow us to do this.”^[2]

[Let me briefly explain what I mean by “Laissez-faire Conservatism”- In Western Capitalistic cultures we normally assume that we are in a meritocracy. Thus we tend to naturally assume that persons with power/position have risen to whatever level they have because of merit or gifting. We also assume that the “System” will self-correct and remove persons or institutions if they are doing something “wrong”. This is coupled with an utter myth of perpetual enduring growth (i.e. if the institution is doing the “right thing” it will naturally produce unending and exponential growth). However, if an institution’s material “blessing” is evidence of God’s approval, any challenge is NOT seen as divine or deserved, but diabolical and external.  Thus, challenge to the “narrative” of our “blessing” is opposed.]

In this leadership structure Weber states, “Recognition is a duty.” Even if there are competing claims on a person’s loyalties the charismatic authority must win out, “When such an authority comes into conflict with the competing authority… the only recourse is to some kind of contest… In principle, only one side can be in the right in such a conflict; the other must be guilty of a wrong which has to be expiated.”(361) This is why accountability is so difficult when dealing with charismatic authority structures. It is because the buy-in for the followers is so high. To follow this person means to participate in a pseudo-divine (and many times not so pseudo) calling. One isn’t simply believing in a person but what that person represents. As well the “loyalty” on the “believer’s” part is often in total terms. The leader/organization demands the “believer” organize his/her entire life around the organization. Multiple service areas, numerous meetings, financial obligation above and beyond demanded tithe/buy-in; these are ways of ensuring loyalty where when threatened, the leader can simply “cut off” the offender expiating the problem. 

This is further confounded if the “believer” has individually benefitted. To challenge the charismatic leader is to challenge the system that put him there, to challenge the obvious benefits I/we enjoy, even to challenge God. This is why we shoot messengers. This in part explains a reluctance to believe victims. To believe the victim/messenger is to challenge my entire belief structure, and what I have given my life to for perhaps numerous years. “I can’t be wrong about him, because if I’m wrong then…” We must confront the fact that our reluctance towards accountability isn’t about one person, or one church, or one movement. It’s about a systemic belief that presupposes “worthiness” based on “gifting” and confuses material success with divine blessing.

-Abusive systems are not exclusively theological (Hillsong tends to be Egalitarian as opposed to Mark Driscoll’s “Complementarianism”). Nor are they wholly sociological (though it says something that Hillsong adapted American Evangelical and decidedly Capitalistic practices). However, I firmly believe we will not grasp why we continue to create abusive institutions (that continue to fail in the SAME WAYS) until we look at BOTH our deeply presumed cultural ideologies AND our theology. There is something about how we as Conservatives NATURALLY ASSUME power WORKS that when we marry it with poor doctrine produces (over and over again) toxic cultures.

---

^[1] Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, Free Press Div of Macmillan Pub, London, England (1964), 347

^[2] I stated in 2019 that Persons in Power “Have an almost unhealthy relationship with materialism. Material growth is almost the only marker for success and is often pointed to as justification for their methods/blessedness.” https://www.facebook.com/jason.mallow.9/posts/10220090992403376