The origins of Hillsong (Part 4): Like dictator, like son

Many people assume that the origins of Hillsong originated from Charismaticism, Pentecostalism or the Salvation Army. This is not true.

This series of articles looks at the history of the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) and how it overtook the AOG in NZ, the AOG in Australia and how Frank Houston, the founder of Hillsong/Christian Life Center, was instrumental in spreading Latter Rain influences throughout New Zealand and Australian churches. In this article we will explore how Frank Houston redefined church governance under his apostolic leadership and removed the democratic voting rights of his church members.


The New Apostolic Reformation cult preach a false Jesus, false gospel and New Age metaphysical teachings and strategies in an attempt to bring heaven to earth.

You can read our articles to see how Frank Houston was influenced by the NOLR cult through the teachings of false prophet and fraudulent healer William Branham and other New Zealand Latter Rainers in his church:

The origins of Hillsong (Part 1): The New Order of the Latter Rain
The origins of Hillsong (Part 2): Hillsong founder under the “New Order” cult
The origins of Hillsong (Part 3): Frank Houston’s takeover and makeover of NZ AOG


In our first article, we mentioned the fact that in the beginning of the New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR), they were condemned by the AOG for teaching the following:

“The erroneous teaching that the church is built upon the foundation of present day apostles and prophets.” [Source]

It appears that the NOLR’s number one enemy was Pentecostalism. We know for a fact that the NOLR were keen to convert Pentecostal churches in Canada. However, when the American AOG condemned the New Order of the Latter Rain as an heretical movement…

“The Latter Rain teachers, healers and evangelists were forced out of their many former associations into what they felt was a “wilderness church” experience, where they regrouped, and strengthened their own ministries. Then in the late sixties and seventies they began the self-conscious re-infiltration of other denominations under the “charismatic” label.

… I say “self-conscious” infiltration because central to the Latter Rain’s view of itself is the idea that they represent God’s New Order, which is to unify the body of Christ as a whole, preparing it by overstepping the artificial boundaries of “doctrine” and “tradition” to bring believers together into a perfected Church by new patterns of worship and Spiritual experience (see sources below, 1e.g. Bill Hamon 1; pp.365, 387).” [Source]

Frank Houston was one such man who “began the self-conscious re-infiltration of other denominations under the “charismatic” label”. He ticked all the boxes of being a Latter Rainer by:

1. presenting God’s New Order… “to unify the body of Christ as a whole”
2. and deliberately overstepping and mocking and scorning “doctrine” and “tradition”.

He also held the NOLR belief in modern day Apostles and Prophets. He was so caught up by the false prophet William Branham and other false apostles that Frank attempted to present himself to Christian audiences as an “apostle” while being the AOG Superintendent. And why not? According to his own delusions and false doctrines, Frank Houston was a man of influence and had the numbers to prove it.


While the Latter Rain apostles were emerging in the church scene, C. Peter Wagner attempted to identify this new phenomenon.

02CWCPortrait_Peter Wagner

It’s fascinating that Wagner named the repackaged NOLR after one of their key doctrines that the American AOG condemned:

“The erroneous teaching that the church is built upon the foundation of present day apostles and prophets.”

Wagner states,

“I needed a name … For a couple of years I experimented with ‘Post denominationalism’. The name I have settled on for the movement is the New Apostolic Reformation.”

Source: C. Peter Wagner, The New Apostolic Churches, Ventura CA; Regal, 1998, p. 18.

Wagner is simply observing this form of church that the New Order of the Latter Rain established through their Charismatic Trojan horse. What NOLR William Branham was, Ray Bloomfield and Frank Houston became in light of Wagner’s observation:

“Unless I’m mistaken, the most radical of all the changes from the old wineskin to the new wineskin is this: the amount of spiritual authority delegated by the Holy Spirit to individuals. The two operative words are authority and individuals.”

Source: C. Peter Wagner, Charisma Magazine,, Published 25/06/2014. (Accessed 18/11/2015.)

If you have not read the earlier articles in this series, you will note that both Frank Houston and Ray Bloomfield operated from this greater “amount of spiritual authority delegated by the Holy Spirit.”

But what’s an “old winsekin?” What’s a “new wineskin?”


Old wineskin – New wineskin doctrine: a popular NAR doctrine that twists Jesus’ teaching on fasting in Mark 2:22 and denigrates denominational churches.

Wagner writes,

“The old wineskin final authority in the Protestant churches never was entrusted to an individual, but always to a group. The final spiritual authority became a church council, a deacon board, a presbytery, church elders, a congregation, a synod, a general council, a state convention, a vestry, a national assembly, a session or any number of other ecclesiastical terms, all signifying a group but never individuals.

On the local church level, the new wineskin pastor is the leader of the church, not an employee of the church as he or she was in the old wineskin. If the church elders, for example, could hire a pastor, they could also fire a pastor. To keep the job, a pastor had to please the church. That partially explains why in America’s two largest denominations, the Southern Baptists and the United Methodists, pastoral tenure averages only two to four years. In apostolic churches, pastoral tenure is much longer—frequently for life—because the pastor does not report to the elders; rather the elders are appointed by and report to the pastor.”

Source: C. Peter Wagner, Charisma Magazine,, Published 25/06/2014. (Accessed 18/11/2015.)

According to the NAR, bad “traditional” Christianity must be done away with so God can really move in power by His Spirit through His New Apostles in his new apostolic churches. If Christians hold to the old wine skin, they are demonised as dead, religious and… traditional. (Doesn’t that sound like Brian Houston to this very day?)

This means that the Church is no longer reforming to Sola Scriptura, the “new wineskin” Church is reforming under Sola Apostola. Who ever is holding to sola scriptura is against the Neo-Apostola, thus they are opposing God Himself and His “restored” church.


So did Frank Houston run his church according to this apostolic model that Wagner identified? Did Frank run a “new wineskin” church as Wagner observed?

In her book, ‘Being Frank’, Hazel Houston captured Frank Houston redefining his AOG church in Lower Hutt on the New Order of the Latter Rain teachings on Apostolic church governance. Her observations are fascinating (emphasis ours),

“Increasingly Frank became aware that the system for electing the church board had many shortcomings.  Some members actively campaigned for election. The families of others suddenly began appearing in church every Sunday. Frank realised that the bylaws required a person to have attended the meetings regularly for eight weeks to be eligible to vote at the annual meetings.

When a new member asked how she should vote as she really didn’t know any of the men nominated, Frank knew why he had to work with some who were unsuited for the task. Careful study of the Bible suggested a more scriptural way. Sunday morning sermons touched on church government as Frank taught the principles of appointment instead of elections.

Before the annual general meeting, Frank tactfully approached each board member and his wife to explain the proposed changes. At the annual meeting he presented the proposal to the members as they had to vote on the changes.

‘If you pass the proposal you must realise this will be the last vote you will have,’he told them.

They passed the motion with an overwhelming yes. He felt that he should select the board himself. Who better knew the type of men needed to advance the work and handle the business affairs of the church. Not ‘yes’ men, but fellows who knew God. Men who shared his vision and would not sit across the table at every board meeting glaring at the pastor and opposing every move he suggested.

Harmony was an essential ingredient for success. The congregation didn’t look for the required qualities. They voted for their friends or by guesswork. No wonder the support needed wasn’t always forthcoming. One tried to get the members to vote on our leadership at an annual meeting when it wasn’t even on the agenda. This system of hiring and firing pastors which hurt so many men of God was, to Frank, was unscriptural as any system could be.

‘We are not here to fight each other. Our enemy is the devil.‘ Frank declared. Only one felt that he could not accept the change. Frank regretted his resignation for he was a good man, but he was determined the new way was for the best.

‘The pastor will become a dictator in this situation.’  The accusation was leveled at Frank.

‘The executive council is a church’s security,’ Frank assured them. ‘Anyone with just cause for complaint can go to them and, if need be, they can take whatever action they deem necessity.'”

Source: Hazel Houston, Being Frank, pg. 125-6.

This is Frank Houston transforming a Pentecostal AOG church into to a New Apostolic “wine skin” church. And according to the New Apostolic Reformation gurus in the early days, an apostle’s authority was founded on church success and church growth.


Notice that Frank Houston attacked the rights of the members, removing the privelege of them to “vote on changes”. The Christian church has always existed where the pastor serves the church, the way Christ served his people by humbling himself in human flesh, serving and loving his neighbour, washing the feet of his disciples and dying on the cross to serve God and man as the perfect sacrifice. Christ came to serve both God and man for the glory of God. Christ the good shepherd served his sheep to the point of laying down his life for the sheep. This is why when we gather on Sunday we call it a church service, the pastor is serving the way Christ serves his church.

However, Frank Houston now has reversed this and is demanding the sheep and his elders serve him as the ‘apostle’ (even if he didn’t use that word explicitly back then).


He also rejected the biblical teaching of the plurality of elders in church authority. You will notice that Hazel recorded that Frank “felt” led to “select the board himself”. As Wagner pointed out, the “old wineskin final authority in the Protestant churches never was entrusted to an individual”. Frank Houston created a board himself that helped make him a “new wineskin pastor [as] the leader of the church”.

Remember – Frank Houston’s influences were from those who had an “amount of spiritual authority delegated by the Holy Spirit to individuals”: William Branham, TL Osborne and his close mentor Ray Bloomfield.

Oh and by the way…

Apostle Frank Houston was sexually abusing little boys by this stage.

Frank-Brian_Hillsong_CLC_Royal Commission

Pay no attention to the pedophile behind the curtain – the great Apostles of Oz have SPOKEN.

However, the Australian AOG saw the apostolic leadership (worldly success and influence) in Frank Houston.

Categories: Hillsong, New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), Uncategorized

3 replies

  1. The Houston “dictator Christians” are wicked men, and do not resemble the real Jesus of the Bible in any way.

  2. Many independent, fundamentalist, Baptist Churches have practised this same type of unscriptural Church governance! This is not new, and not unique to the NAR!

    This is the model the Roman Catholic Churches have followed for centuries! The farther Churches go from the Scriptures the closer they are to this model!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: