Key figures:

1. Philip Powell – the one who exposed to the world the alleged cover-up.
2. Peter Fowler – one of Frank’s victims that approached Powell for assistance.
3. Darren Beohm – Ex-parishioner of CLC Darlinghurst calling Brian Houston and leadership out.
4. Kelly Burke – journalist trying to get the truth out of Brian Houston.
5. Greg Bearup – journalist that finally broke the story of Frank Houston’s paedophilia.
6. Wayne Hughes – General Superintendent of Assembles Of God, New Zealand (AOGNZ)
7. Kem Price – took on the position of acting General Superinrendent from Wayne Hughes.
8. Neil Hetrick – General Secretary of Assembles Of God, New Zealand (AOGNZ)
9. Brian Houston – President of Australian AOG/ACC, Senior Pastor of Hillsong managing his father and victims.
10. Graeme Houston – Brian Houston’s brother, who started managing Houston and church affairs at certain periods.
11. Hazel Houston – knew of Frank’s paedophilia but did nothing.
12. Wayne Alcorn – a member of the AOGA executive.

Source: Philip’s Editorial, Christian Witness Ministries, http://cwm.org.au/3/59-68/360-6801, Published November 30, 2014. [Archive] [Email Wed 8/10/2014 9:30 PM]

Hence, Frank’s ‘poor health’ protected him from any investigation of allegations by the AOGNZ and NZ police, laying charges and having him extradited to NZ. So according to Brian, Frank couldn’t assist, write a note, apologise, talk to or meet with Fowler in 2002? So what did Brian say about Frank’s health?

The answer? Brian testified at the Royal Commision that by November 1999 Frank had early dementia – ie. when Brian first learned of allegations against Frank. 

From Brian’s statement to the 2014 RC:

By late 1999 to 2004, Frank deteriorated very quickly into dementia, therefore too sick to meet with Fowler.

In the context of whether it was “… appropriate for you or Frank Houston to meet with Fowler to assist him in the resolution of his complaint?”, Brain Houston talked about Frank Houston’s health at the 2014 Royal Commission (emphasis added):

“…From the time these exposures started coming out in late 1999 to 2004, I think probably because of the stress and the pain of all of this, and the humiliation, my father deteriorated very quickly into dementia. Month by month, year by year, he got worse, so I would say that by this time, my father was too sick to have that kind of meeting.”

– Brian Houston, 2014 RC Day 88 Transcript, pg. 9369.

TRIAL NOTE

Thanks to the 2022 December trial, it was noted that in March 2003 (BHT) Dr. Gorden Lee, elder of City Hillsong Church, on behalf of Frank Houston, wrote a letter diagnosing Frank Houston with dementia, and that he had been observing Frank over the previous 4 years.

The diagnosis was requested by Price and the AOGNZ to confirm why Frank would not assist the investigation, not make any admission and not apologise to Fowler.

See: Questioning Brian Houston’s testimony about his pedophile father’s ‘sickness’

– – – – – – –

THE POINTS

To people who want to defend the notion that Frank was that sick, it is worth considering what he was capable of doing:

1. 1. May 1999, Brian was surprised Frank handed over the reigns of Sydney CLC to to Brian.
      Obviously Brian did not see Frank’s health as an issue.
      
      
   2. 1999 to Jan 2001, Frank Houston remained on staff…
      … at Sydney CLC/City Hillsong Church until he retired in Jan 2001. Frank’s health was not an issue.
   3. Between end 1999 to mid 2000, Frank was well enough to contact and meet his Australian victim.
      He was accompanied by church elder, Nabi Saleh, met at McDonalds to pay Australian victim Brett Sengstock $10,000 for forgiveness and for Brett to sign a document. Brian said this was Frank’s initiative and Frank’s money, and had nothing to do with the church or him. Brian and Nabi saw a lawyer to prepare a document for Brett to sign and to ensure Frank’s document wouldn’t be construed as hush money.
   4. Around Sep/Oct 2000, another victim requested to meet Frank – but was denied – sent to AOGNZ.
      ‘A psychologist from NZ (but living in Sydney) was abused in the 1970s by Frank when he was 14. He met with and told Brian he wanted to meet Frank while Frank Houston was able enough to still be on staff at Hillsong City Church.’
   5. 24 Nov, 2000 Frank finally submitted his resignation to the eldership of ‘City Hillsing Church’,
      forced by the current AOGA/NZ investigation into more allegations against him. (Why not resign before? He and employer thought he was well enough.)
   6. 29 Nov 2000, the eldership of ‘City Hillsong Church’ met and referred Gerald to the AOGNZ…
      … to deal with his allegations against Frank. They discussed the current AOGA/NZ discipline of Frank, stopped Frank signing an admission, discussed Frank’s resignation and future retirement plans.– There was NO mention of Frank’s poor health. They planned a retirement announcement for Jan 2001. They thought Frank was well enoough to meet with him and Hazel to discuss the retirement package.
   7. 2002, Hazel, Frank’s wife, thought Frank was well enough to engage in ministry. So did Ps Bob Cotton.
      Hazel thought his discipline was too severe and complained to the AOGA. The Aprol AOGA exec meeting discussed it. There was no mention of Frank’s health. Ps Bob Cotton recounted Hazel and Frank in 2002 saying Frank was unfairly disciplined. Brian recounted his mother objecting to the severity of the discipline back in 2000.
   8. Powell (CWM) reported that Frank was in NZ on 29/3/2002 – so Frank was well enough to travel,
      and it was just before the AOGNZ was approached by Peter Fowler’s lawyers with allegations about Frank Houston, requesting an apology. Shortly after Fowler reported: “The AoG lawyers advised my lawyer that Houston was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s but that the church would investigate my allegations.”
      
      Note: Frank was travelling to NZ – but according to Brian, Frank was too sick to meet with Fowler around this time period.
      
      
   9. 2003-01-25 SMH published article on Hillsong; was the first public announcement that Frank was a paedophile.
      
      – Frank was well enough for the victim to go to police to have matter dealt with, according to Brian. The reporter was under the illusion it all happened in NZ. “… Frank Houston, confessed to being a paedophile…
      
      – Finding out his father had abused a child back in New Zealand, … “Basically I received a complaint, so I confronted my father and he admitted it [who was the Ausralian victim].” Houston removed his father from all roles in the church, but did not contact police in New Zealand because the victim was old enough to do that himself.
   10. 2004-01-30 Ps Ian Zerna, pastor (Coastlife Church Erina) thought Frank fitted in very well with the church.In fact, Zerna thought it was enough to ask if it was OK for Frank to be more involved in the meetings. Frank’s health was not an issue – and obviously capable of praying for people at the front of the church and delivering a prophecy. (Archive)
   11. Sep 2004 – Frank was recorded preaching at Bob Cotton’s church, & had preached more than once, previously.The recording showed Frank repeating his account of Hazel dying in May that year – but Frank was well aware of timing, past events, the audience, had dressed himself –  and clearly did not display advanced Alzheimer’s. What was disturbing, was Frank pointing out, describing, flattering and interacting with children in the audience, during his sermon. The congregation had no idea Frank was a pedophile. His health was not an issue.
       – Frank had his credentials removed permanently in 1999 and Brian had declared he never preached again (which obviously was wrong). Brian justified not warning congregations that Frank was a pedophile because Brian thought Frank was old and not a threat.
   12. In the 2014 Royal Commission Report, Pastor Brian Houston said that while he ‘knew, for the five years my father was still alive, there was every possibility that he would be charged’, he did not report his father to the police because AHA was 35 or 36 years of age. [pg 177]
       
       Is Brian acknowledging that he thought Frank was well enough while still alive, such that he could be charged?This is ‘The Frank’, who was so incapacitated and dysfunctional (as such that he could not even write an apology or meet with the victim), COULD HAVE been interrogated and charged by police?Without cooperation from Frank, victims always had an uphill battle to prove their case. The fruit or evidence of Frank’s remorse/repentence would have been able to assist those he betrayed, to achieve some sense of justice.

This is why the case of Peter Fowler and Philip Powell is important to examine.

– – – – – – –

INTRODUCING PETER FOWLER AND PHILIP POWELL

In 2002, Peter Fowler alleged to the AOGNZ executive that he had been sexually abused as a teenager in 1972 by Frank Houston and was looking for assistance to get some resolution. Fowler had seen Philip Powell’s publication exposing the Houston’s and that Frank Houston had been stood down. That is why in March 2002, Fowler contacted Philip Powell of Christian Witness Ministries and publisher of Contending Earnestly for the Faith Magazine (CETF).

Peter Fowler appreciated Powell’s assistance over the last year, leading up to the April 2003 settlement:

“Thank you so much for your assistance in helping me to reach this point [settlement]. Had it not been for your initial support and understanding I may not have been able to achieve any form of settlement, closure or healing. I remain deeply grateful and I wish you well in all your future endeavours.”

Source: Philip Powell, Details for the April 03 Mailer, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/not_in_pubs/aug_mmDet03.html, Published Last revised-Wednesday, 30 July 2003. (Archive)

Source: Peter Fowler, Powell, Details for the April 03 Mailer – LATEST ON FRANK HOUSTON & ALLEGATION OF PEDOPHILIA, CWM (mailer), 2003/04, https://web.archive.org/web/20071024111435/http://www.christian-witness.org/not_in_pubs/aug_mmDet03.html (Arch), Archived 2007/10/24) [ PDF]

In contrast, Fowler was disappointed with the response from the Houstons and the church institutions. Fowler wrote to Powell:

“NZ AOG formally advised me in 2003 that Houston, Hillsong, Australian AOG and the Houston Family refused to cooperate with their investigation regarding my allegations and that they may have also deliberately obstructed the criminal investigation of Frank Houston’s sexual abuse in New Zealand. Why did Brian Houston refuse to cooperate and why did he ultimately obstruct the NZ investigation.”

Source: Philip’s Editorial, Christian Witness Ministries, http://cwm.org.au/3/59-68/360-6801, Published November 30, 2014. [Archive] [Email Wed 8/10/2014 9:30 PM]

To get action, Fowler had to go public with the matter – and decided to go to someone who was exposing the potential Hillson/AOG Frank Houston cover-up: Philip Powell.

What is worth noting is that Brian Houston WAS AWARE of Fowler engaging with Philip Powell.

At the 2014 Royal Commission, Brian Houston accused Powell of causing ‘mischief’ [AHG is Fowler]:

“[Powell was]… an abrasive, difficult person, who had agendas far bigger than [AHG]’s sexual abuse, and that did complicate things as well, because that person wasn’t there, in my humble opinion, for [AHG]; he was there to cause mischief.”

(Transcript88/Page 9373)  Archive Archive 

Brian Houston degraded Philip Powell further at the 2014 Royal Commission:

Source: RC Transcript 88, Brian Houston, p 9368

Clearly the victim, Peter Fowler, disagreed with Brian Houston.

It was Powell’s CWM publications that caused the AOGA and Brian Houston to finally make Frank’s discipline more public. This lead to Fowler seeking assistance and finding some sense of justice.

All correspondence with/from Peter Fowler is listed in this article, along with other correspondence and open letters published by CWM. Letters are from:

• Peter Fowler,
• Darren Boehm,
• Cheryl Evans,
• Philip Powell,
• Barney Coombes,

And addressees include in these correspondences include:

• Brian Houston,
• John Lewis,
• Graeme Houston,
• Hazel Houston,
• legal representatives,
• AOGNZ and AOGA executives,
• Hillsong elders and communications manager.

Other significant events, documents and evidences are also noted in the timeline. However, the below notification on the CWM website started the matter going public, publishing older correspondences between Philip Powell and Peter Fowler:

11. IS AOG-NZ HOPING THIS WILL GO AWAY?

In March 2002, Peter Fowler (formerly of Lower Hutt, New Zealand), contacted Philip Powell alleging that he had been sexually abused while in the AoG-NZ membership.

Peter Fowler had tried contacting the AoG-NZ Executive quietly, to obtain satisfaction and resolution to this matter. However, apart from a doubting reply, nothing has been resolved, so Peter Fowler has now decided to go public in an attempt to urge the AoG-NZ to treat the matter adequately and with despatch.

Source: Philip Powell, November – December 2002, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/past_mailers/retired/dec02mm.html, Published December 02, 2002. [Archived]

This valuable correspondence will now be placed within a proper timeline to understand the sequence of events. Below, this article has:

A. Summary Timeline of Information and Letters Written
– To provide an overview, timeframe and context

B. The Letters and Correspondence in Full re: Peter Fowler’s case
– Actual letters/emails in full, source, PDF and archive
– Additional information for context

A. Summary Timeline of Information and Letters Written:

• Date layout in Summary Timeline header: YYYY/MM/DD

1. 2001/12/24 – CWM publishes ACC Head Guility of Immorality article – highlighting Mesiti scandal, Frank’s discipline and denying an allegation of a 1970s abuse incident. [Archive, pg 11]
2. 2002/03 (Before March 21, 2002) – Ps Barney Coombes writes to Powell, Frank, Brian Houston about the CWM article – which said Coombes had listened to an allegation: that in 1970s a young man had been abused by Frank in Lower Hut, Frank denied it.Other AOGA executives are copied in some of the correspondence. (John Lewis, Keith Ainge, Danny Gugliemucci)See Emails Between Barney Coombes and Philip Powel. [Archive]
3. 2002/03/25 Brian Houston’s answers are faxed to SMH journalist, Kelly Burke, for her article, “Disgraced evangelist in hiding after being stripped of licence,” about Pat Mesiti and Frank Houston.In this document:– Brian deflects Frank’s moral failure to NZ,– Brian conflates Frank’s retiring with stepping down from leadership roles (Frank did not retire until a year after he confessed);– Brian conflates the ‘1999 AOGA investigation’ with the second ‘2000 AOGNZ combined investigation’, (which hides the 1999 Australian cover-up as Frank’s credential was not permanently removed until 2000);
   
   – suggests Frank’s actions may not have been too damaging to people;– gives the impression Brian acted with integrity and has been truthful with inquiries – when in fact, he and the AOG put a confidential lid on it for 2 years, and then referred only to “serious moral failure” when they were forced to go notify their ministers.
   
   Source: Brian Houston, Statement of Facts (fax), Hillsong, 2002/03/25. [RC exhibitt] [RC Archive]
4. 2002/03, Peter Fowler contacts Philip Powell where he,“alleged he was sexually abused by Frank Houston in 1972, suffered thirty years before as a teenager, when he was a member of the Lower Hutt Assembly of God in New Zealand…”Fowler contacts Powell because he had ‘published an investigation of Houston and his past actions, and reported Frank had been removed from the ministry for “serious moral failure” in both Australia and New Zealand’.
   
   Powell helps with support and contacts – eg. Rev Barney Coombs. Fowler felt Powell treated his allegations with a sense of respect and sympathy.
   
   Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]
5. 2002/03/27 SMH’s Kelly Burke, publishes article, “Disgraced evangelist in hiding after being stripped of licence,” about Pat Mesiti and Frank Houston.She writes (emphasis added):“In 2000 Mr Houston was forced to sack his father, Frank, after he confessed to what the church’s national executive has described as serious moral failure… Mr Lewis said the offences were so serious that Mr Houston senior, now in his early 80s, was not even given the option of quietly retiring.“
   
   Source: Kelly Burke, Disgraced evangelist in hiding after being stripped of licence, Sydney Morning Herald, http://webjournals.ac.edu.au/ojs/index.php/ADPCM/article/view/175/172, Published March 25, 2002. [PDF] [Archived on WebJournals][Kelly Burke did NOT know it was about child sexual abuse, a crime, nor that a victim was Australian, and hence should have been reported.]
6. 2002/03/29 Powell reports Frank Houston is in New Zealand.Source: Philip Powell, Houstons Part 2: AoG – Australasia in the Spot Light — PHILIP L. POWELL, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/archives/van2002/houston2_15.html, Houstons Unmasked Part 2[Archive]
   
   It appears Frank Houston’s health in 2002 is good enough for travel:
7. 2002/4/02 AOGA Executive meeting – review Hazel’s claim that Frank’s discipline is too harsh.
   
   What is ‘too harsh’?Not being allowed to minister, which the AOGA/NZ executive decided due to reveletions of paedophilia?
   This suggests that Frank’s health was not that debilitating after all.
   
   Source: AOGA Executive, AOGA National Executive Meeting Mooloolaba QLD 2-4 Apr 2002 Minutes, AOGA, https://href.li/?http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=eac72e4e-7e8e-4673-81a9-55e06a5201c8&type=exhibit&filename=ACC.0001.001.0022&fileextension=pdf2002/04/4. [Archived PDF]
8. 2002/04/02 – Fowler engaged the services of an Auckland lawyer, and wrote to the ‘AoGNZ regarding his allegations, seeking a meeting with them with a view to discuss possible compensation’.
   
   Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]
9. 2002/04/03 – Ex-parishioner of CLC Darlinghurst, Daren Beohm, writes to Brian Houston asking for the truth about Frank Houston after seeing Kelly Burke’s SMH newspaper article expose (2002/03/27). Beohm’s pertinent questions highlight the discrepancy with what the church and public were told VS what Brian told the media:
   • “Why the church was told that Pastor Frank was stepping down and retiring from the ministry because he was getting on in age or was becoming forgetful?
   • Why are people told when they ring the CLC Waterloo office that Pastor Frank has retired and that he is taking it easy back in New Zealand when the newspaper article quoted above states that he was sacked by you and he was not even given the retirement option?
   • What really took place was he fired or did he retire?
   • How long had you known of the alleged sexual misconduct of your father seeing it relates to 30 years ago and you were brought up in the Houston household as a member of the family?
   • Were the elders of CLC Waterloo aware of the allegations raised and at what date were they notified?”
     
     Source: Philip Powell, HOW to CHANGE the DYNAMICS of a CHURCH, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/db_art.html, Published June 2002. [Archived 2003/08/17] [PDF]
10. 2002/04/? The AOG lawyers advised Fowler that Frank Houston was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s but that the church would investigate my [Fowler’s] allegations…The AOGNZ advised that they were sending a senior member of their executive to Sydney to meet with Houston’s representatives and that they would respond after they had considered the outcome of their enquiries.
    
    [Note: Frank Houston is preaching in 2004, his pastor even seeks approval for him to be more active in ministry. His wife, Hazel, and Frank’s church in 2004, thought Frank was OK for praying for people at the altar, and for delivering prophecies. He was out with Hazel and others at McDonalds in 2004. In 1999 Nov, Frank was a jet setting preacher, and he only retired in Jan 2001 (submitted resignation on Nov 24 2000) because more allegations were put to him. He visited NZ on vacation in Jan 2001 and was reported there at the end of March 2002.]
    
    Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]
11. 2002/05/27 – Ex-parishioner of CLC Darlinghurst, Darren Boehm, writes again – this time to Hillsong elders (Nabi Saleh and Lee Howard Smith), attaching a copy of the original letter to Brian Houston (when Brian didn’t respond).Boehm gave them 7 days to answer questions else he would take the matter further. Hence the letters were given to CWM to make public on their website.
    
    Source: Philip Powell, HOW to CHANGE the DYNAMICS of a CHURCH, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/db_art.html, June 2002. [Archived 2003/08/17] [PDF]
12. 2002/06/02 Darren Boehm letters questioning Hillsong are published on CWM – asking Brian and elders to explain discrepancies he raised about Frank retiring or being sacked.
    
    Source: Philip Powell, HOW to CHANGE the DYNAMICS of a CHURCH, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/db_art.html, June 2002. [Archived 2003/08/17] [PDF]
13. 2002/7/>13 CETF (Contending Earnestly for the Faith) Mailout Update – Brian told 2GB his father was stood down due to sexual abuse (minor not mentioned); Sydney Morning Herald – Pat Mesiti scandal and Hillsong Conference.The public (nor AOGA ministers) do not yet know that the sexual abuse allegations involved a minor. Philip Powell of Cristian Witness Ministries (CWM), editor of Contending Earnestly for The Faith (CETF magazine), reported:“… Ray Hadley of radio 2GB ran a forum on Hillsong during the week of their big international Conference concentrating on the Pat Mesiti scandal. … During the programme someone quoted the CWM website for more information. Later Brian Houston admitted on the show that his father had been stood down, as he was guilty of sexual abuse…’Source: CWM- MONTHLY MAILER, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/past_mailers/jul02mm.html, Published July 20, 2002. [Archived]
14. 2002/09/10 Brian Houston refuses to get involved and chooses not to assist the AOGNZ with inquiries about Peter Fowler’s complaint against Frank Houston and refers the AOGNZ them to his father.Brian writes (emphasis added),Dear Wayne,The correspondence I received from you regarding [AHG] should be sent directly to my parents. I am not and do not intend to become a mediator or family representative in these issues.If my parents ask me to help them find representation, it then becomes an issue between them and I.For your information their current details are: [REDACTED]I am disappointed that you are having to confront these issues that relate to my father and you can be assured of my prayers and deep concern.Yours sincerely,
    Brian Houston
    
    Source: Letter from Brian Houston to Wayne Hughes, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/HIL.0001.001.0028_R.pdf?guid=3da76811-e37a-46a6-90b1-c32bf3212cf8&type=exhibit&filename=HIL.0001.001.0028_R&fileextension=pdf, September 10, 2002. [Archived]
15. 2002/09/27 the AOGNZ lawyers’ write to Peter Fowler questioning his account of his complaint.
    
    Fowler writes,
    
    “… questioning the validity of my allegations and using this to delay any serious response”, and the AOGNZ “consistently declined to meet Fowler or accept his offer to assist them with their investigation.”
    Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]
16. 2002/11/? Brian Houston announced to his church about Frank’s “moral failure.”Tanya Levin recorded this moment in her book, ‘People in Glass Houses’.See: “People in Glass Houses: An insider’s story of a life in & out of Hillsong”, 2007, Black Inc., Chapter 11.
17. 2002/11/21 – Fowler receives response from Reverend Barney Coombs in Canada.Fowler writes,
    
    “… I found it so depressing to hear of the way you [Peter Fowler] have been treated. …The leadership of AOG are not giving themselves to you. Instead, they are protecting themselves! ”  (See here, Archive)
    
    Source: Incidental correspondence: AoG-NZ and the alledged abuse question, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/aog/pf_emails.html, Last revised January 30, 2003. [Archived]
18. 2002/11/27 frustrated, Fowler wrote to Neil Hetrick (Gen Sec AOGNZ) who was also a Pastor, who Fowler knew thirty years previous at the Lower Hutt AoG.Fowler saw the AOGNZ as dragging their feet (emphasis added):“… Several Pastors and prominent church members past and present, in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and the UK assisted me with my enquiries. This investigation confirmed both Houston’s history of sexual abuse and the consistent attempts to cover-up his behaviour. I understand that this sorry history has already contributed to at least one church in NZ ceasing their affiliation with the AoG and that others are contemplating taking similar action.[…]While the NZ Police have been sympathetic to me and my allegations, they have advised that due to Houston’s age, health and time away from New Zealand, it is unlikely that he could be extradited to face criminal charges. Based on your response to date, I sense that any compensation or even reconciliation and apology from your organization, appears highly unlikely.Ironically, had this abuse occurred in the Catholic Church, at least they would have put in place internal procedures to investigate the allegations and enable both parties to give their evidence before an independent arbitrator. However, it appears the Assemblies of God remain a closed and insular organisation seeking only to protect your image and finances. Genuine Christian compassion and a duty of care to your members appear to be absent from your mission.… I am convinced that Houston has left a trail of victims behind him over his long career of abuse. […] I believe that it is important that other victims come forward and I am hoping that my actions will create a climate where it is easier for them to do so. If there are others who are willing to speak out, it may make a difference to the eventual outcome of this terrible breach of trust and respect in a Minister of God.I would be grateful if you would at least talk with me about these events and work with me to uncover the truth. If not, I intend to continue my pursuit for justice in every way possible. Maybe there is someone else who will succeed with a prosecution either in NZ or Australia. Based on the history of your organisation’s response to my allegations and in the interests of ensuring full public disclosure, I have copied this letter to several interested parties and to those who have helped me in this matterOnce again, I want to extend an offer to assist your organisation with your enquiries to uncover the truth about this evil man. While the AoG may have been involved in attempts to cover-up Houston’s behaviour in the past and this course of action may have allowed further abuse to occur, I accept that we can all be guilty of such errors of judgment. However, it is never too late for the truth. You are in a position to help me and perhaps many other victims seeking a sense of closure, justice and healing from these sad events.Source: Letter to N. Hetrick of the AOG, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/aog/pf_nh.html, Published December 11, 2002. [Archive]
19. 2002/12/06 Fowler receives a response email from Neil Hetrick (Gen Sec AOGNZ).“Received by PF on 6th December 2002”
    
    Source: Transcript of letter FROM Neil Hetrick, CWM, http://www/c-w-m/aog/nh_pf.html, Published 2002, December 11. [Archive]
    
    Peter Fowler writes to Powell, observing that Hetrick’s response was devoid of sympathy, charity or any sense of pastoral understanding and care that was,“consistent with how the AoG had handled the matter from the very start”.Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]
20. 2002/12/06 Philip Powell (CWM) writes to Neil Hetrick and the AOGNZ executive about Peter Fowler (AHG) to stir them along. The AOGA is copied.Powell suggests AOGNZ and AOGA could be found guilty of cover-up, and that there are possibly seven cases of abuse, known (emphasis added):“Don Barry has elsewhere referred to seven cases of alleged sexual abuse involving Frank Houston and/or AMF land suggests that these seven are “just the tip of the iceberg”. Clearly your Executive and that of AoG in Australia could be found guilty of attempted cover-ups in respect of the seriousness of the matters relating to both of these former General Superintendents of Assemblies of God.”Source: Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/STAT.0348.001.0021_R.pdf, Emailed December 06, 2002. [PDF] [Archive]
21. 2002/12/09 Fowler wrote to Wayne Hughes (General Superintendent, AOGNZ), that he has decided to seek public support (ie. go public):“Based on the history of your organisation’s response to my allegations and in the interests of ensuring full public disclosure, I have copied this letter to several interested parties and to those who have helped me in this matter.”
    
    Source: Email exchanges between Assemblies of God NZ and Assemblies of God Australia, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/STAT.0348.001.0024_R.pdf, December 09, 2002. [Archive]
22. 2002/12/12 Philip Powell also writes to Wayne Hughes (Gen Super AOGNZ), observing that the AoG-NZ “only care about church reputation.”
    
    Powell writes (emphasis added),Philip Powell:“Firstly I am concerned for Peter Fowler and any victim of Frank Houston’s alleged sexual abuses. It is quite clear from the responses of Neil Hetrick your General Secretary and Les Dowie a former AoG-NZ official that they are ONLY concerned for the reputation of your organisation, …CWM has now gone public on this matter both by way of publishing the latest disclosures on our Web Site and by way of a statement in our latest Monthly Mailer which is mailed to some 4,000 plus addresses throughout the world. It is likely that it will also feature in one of our publications in the New Year.”Source: Incidental correspondence: AoG-NZ and the alledged abuse question, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/aog/pf_emails.html, Last revised January 30, 2003. [Archived]
23. 2002/12/13 Kem Price AOGNZ writes to Hazel Houston, warning her Peter Fowler has gone public. Kem understands Frank’s health is the main hindrance to having him face the allegations.Price writes (emphasis added),“The only reason they haven’t contacted Frank is they know he is ill and the NZ police have told them that although sympathetic they advised that due to WFH’s age, health and time away from NZ it is unlikely that they could extradite him to face criminal charges. So we [AOGNZ] are still their main target.”
    
    Kem, on behalf of Fowler, requests an apology from Frank [never happened]. They never get an admission or apology from Frank. [It seems Frank’s guilt is a given for the AOGNZ.]Source: HIL.0001.001.0037_R.pdf, Frank and Hazel Houston, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, https://href.li/?http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=4823e6b8-a6e8-46c9-ba73-2ede19d69977&type=exhibit&filename=HIL.0001.001.0037_R&fileextension=pdf, 2014. [Archive]
24. 2002/12/16 CWM mailout includes Fowler/AOGNZ matter. New AOGNZ Gen Superintendent is welcome.
    
    Editor: “Thankfully since Kem Price took on the position of acting General Superintendent of AoG–NZ (Dec 2002) there are indications that matters are being addressed in the case of Frank Houston at least from the NZ end.“
    
    Source: Published by Philip Powell, Your Letters, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letters2.html, Appeared in Issue CETF 7. Published 01 January 2002. (Appeared in CETF 9.1 September 2003) [Archived]
25. 2003/01/25 (Sydney Morning Herald MH) ‘The Lord’s Profits‘ by Greg Bearup.This was the first time “paedophilia” mentioned for the first time rather than just “serious moral failure.” The reason is hihgly due to the pressure on Brian Houston thanks to Philip Powell and Peter Fowler going public.Note: no mention of an Australian victim (which triggered the 1999 discipline of Frank Houston).SMH:‘…And then Brian’s father, former minister Frank Houston, confessed to being a pedophile…Finding out his father had abused a child back in New Zealand was, Houston tells me, “like the jets flying into the twin towers of my soul”. It was, understandably, one of the hardest issues he has ever had to deal with. “Basically I received a complaint, so I confronted my father and he admitted it.” Houston removed his father from all roles in the church, but did not contact police in New Zealand because the victim was old enough to do that himself. He said that he was candid with his congregation, although he has been criticised for not acting quickly enough. “I told our church what had happened [2.5 yrs later], but as soon as I found out I told the elders of this church and the Assemblies of God,” Houston says. “To my congregation, when I told them, I used words like predator and sexual abuse and so on – I did not try to hide it.”  It is a matter that appears unlikely to go away, and Houston tells me that, since the initial allegation was made public, other alleged victims have come forward.
    Good Weekend understands that another alleged male victim of his father is “extremely unhappy” with his treatment by the church and is currently considering civil action. Good Weekend’ (See here, Archive)
26. 2003/01/28 Hillsong – Brian sends letter to church members/friends – damage control.Brian is in damage control as he knows the article is being published, and accuses the press of inaccuracies and misrepresenting Brian, Bobbie and Hillsong.
    
    “Let me remind you the issues relating to my father, Frank Houston, happened over 30 years ago while he was a pastor in New Zealand. They are in no way related to Hillsong Church.”  (This evidence was presented at the ‘A Matter of Houston’ Trial. See here)
27. 2003/01/25+? Fowler can see that going public has been helpful. AOGNZ is now acting. Contacted other victims.
    
    CWM website:
    
    “Christian Witness Ministries contacted Peter Fowler for an update to be included in this Mailer. What follows is his reply AFTER reading the GOOD-WEEKEND report on Hillsong (25/01/03).
    
    ‘Peter Fowler writes, “I am reassured by Brian’s public acknowledgement of his father’s confession and I have made contact with other victims in NZ and will meet them soon. I am also pleased that NZ AoG now appears to be treating my allegations seriously and that a genuine investigation appears to be in progress and I am hopeful of a positive resolution in the next few weeks. In the meantime, I am refraining from making any public comment. Best regards PF’Source: Philip Powell, February 2003 CWM- MONTHLY MAILER, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/past_mailers/retired/feb03.html, Published February, 2003. [Archived]
28. 2003/03 (BHT) Dr. Gorden Lee, elder of Hillsong City, wrote letter stating Frank Houston had dementia.
    • Exhibit 10, Gordon Lee diagnosis of Frank Houston was recently tabled by Brian Houston’s defence, Mr Boulten.
      – Day 4, (8 Dec 2022) at the Matter of Houston trial when George Aghajanian was in the witness stand.
    • It said Dr. Gordon Lee had observed Frank over the last 4 years.
29. 2003/04/03 Letter to Graeme Houston from AOGNZ Lawyers Fortune Manning.Graeme Houston is Brian’s older brother, who was designated by the family to handle the matter. (Brian refused to.)(See 2002 BH letter to AOGNZ)  Brian was copied on this correspondence.
    
    The 2014 Royal Commission Findings summarised:
    
    “149. On 3 April 2003, the solicitor for the Assemblies of God New Zealand sent a letter to Frank Houston’s other son, Graeme Houston, concerning the legal action by AHG. The solicitor said that AHG wished to meet with Frank Houston and/or his legal representative to receive an acknowledgement that the offence took place, obtain an apology and negotiate financial compensation. 298 The letter sought co-operation from Frank Houston and his lawyer in order to avoid expensive legal costs and damages. Pastor Brian Houston said that the matter was being handled by his brother and not by Hillsong Church because of the ‘obvious conflict‘ and because he was wearing ‘two hats.’ 299″Source: See here. [Archived]
30. 2003/07/13 – Peter Fowler emailed Philip Powell – resolution near, Houstons still not helpful.
    
    PF: “Peter Fowler and the Assemblies of God in NZ and the Assembly of God Lower Hutt Church have confidentially in a Christian spirit resolved all differences between them relating to the alleged abuse of Peter Fowler by Frank Houston.”PP: “We [CWM] understand that the Houstons have refused to meet the complainant Peter Fowler or to be party to the settlement by AOG-NZ.”
    
    Source: (See here, Archive)
31. 2003/08/03 Letter from Fowler to Powell with update about reaching a settlement. Powell commentary:
    
    PF:” I am very pleased to be able to report that I have reached a settlement with AOGNZ and the Lower Hutt AOG. The terms of the settlement are confidential to the parties and the only public comment I can make is the following statement:
    
    ‘Peter Fowler and the Assemblies of God in NZ and the Assembly of God Lower Hutt Church have confidentially in a Christian spirit resolved all differences between them relating to the alleged abuse of Peter Fowler by Frank Houston.’ You will note that no settlement has been reached with Frank Houston or his representatives and I am still free to pursue proceedings against Houston. So far, Houston and his representatives have continued to refuse to meet or engage in any dialogue with me.Thank you [Powell] so much for your assistance in helping me to reach this point. Had it not been for your initial support and understanding I may not have been able to achieve any form of settlement, closure or healing. I remain deeply grateful and I wish you well in all your future endeavours. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you and any other victims who may contact you.With best wishes
    
    Peter Fowler.” See here  (Archive)
32. 2005/05/24 Philip Powell in email correspondence – CWM forced the hand of Brian Houston to disclose.
    
    RESPONSE: 24 May 2005 email 9:25pm: [written by Philip Powell] “…You may be interested to learn that recently a person who attends Hillsong told me that it was what was on our website which actually forced the hand of Brian Houston to act in respect of the disclosure of an aspect of the immorality of his late father….”
    
    Source: http://www.christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letter34.html, Archive

B. The Letters, Correspondence and Evidences in Full re: Peter Fowler’s case

• Note: Blue text in italics is from the actual webpage being sourced.
• Comments or additional information added by this article, will be encased in
  [   ]  brackets, in BLACK.

Source: Philip L Powell (Author), Aeron Morgan (Author), A Call To The Remnant, Publisher: Christian Witness Ministries. 2002. pg. 23.

2002/03 from before 21 Mar to 9 April, 2002 – Letters between Philip Powell and Barney Coombes (Brian Houston, Frank, Keith Ainge, John Lewis, Danny Gugliemucci copied)

• This string of emails discuss the CWM article which refers to Barney Coombes actions – hearing an accusation of abuse in 1972 against Frank and Frank denying it.
• Important note: the AOGA executives, Brian and Frank Houston are aware of this correspondence.

Philip Powell published the following on CWM:

A PERSONAL LETTER TO:

PHILIP POWELL, FRANK HOUSTON AND BRIAN HOUSTON

Dear Brothers in Christ,
The purpose of my letter is to present my account of two conversations held between Philip Powell and myself.
The first was concerning a large group of Sikhs of whom it was said had made a public confession of receiving Christ at Glad Tidings Pentecostal Assembly in Vancouver.
The second relates to a phone conversation which has been referred to in the December 2001*1 [pg11] issue of CWM’s magazine which goes as follows: “Shortly after that time when Andrew Evans and his group managed to oust Ralph Read then General Superintendent of AOG in Australia and his group, Frank Houston moved across to Sydney ostensibly on the basis of some vision or dream, though strong rumour has it in New Zealand that there were other rather ominous reasons for his move across the Tasman. In fact Reverend Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me, while I was in New Zealand, with the information that during one of his ministry visits to that country the rumour was so strong that he traveled from Palmerston North to Lower Hutt to put it personally to Frank Houston, who denied all wrong doing.”

This quote is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

First off all, the reason for my phoning Philip was to return his call. I did not initiate the conversation. Philip told me that he had heard that I had personally disciplined Frank for immoral behaviour. He asked, was this true? Philip also mentioned that other people had made complaints against Frank regarding certain behaviour whilst they were attending Bible College.

I responded to Philip that it was true that I had visited Frank in Lower Hutt. The reason being, that after a meeting at which I was preaching, I had been approached by a person who stated that Frank had behaved improperly towards them. During this time it came to my knowledge that Frank was visiting a relative in Lower Hutt. I was able to discover the telephone number and asked Frank whether he would be kind enough to meet me. I told Philip that the night before I visited Frank, I was unable to sleep. I did not find it an easy thing to confront a fellow brother engaged in the ministry of our Lord Jesus with such a serious matter. The fact of the matter is, “the Fear of the Lord” lay heavily upon me. On the day of my visit, I was driven to within three blocks of the address, by Fraser Hardy, who was totally unaware of the purpose of my mission, and only found out a year later by some other means. I told Philip that Frank had denied any misconduct and that after praying together, I left. There was nothing further I could do except report back to the person who had first made the complaint to me, saying that Frank had denied that he had done anything wrong. I also said to Philip that in the absence of another witness there was nothing further for me to do. Bearing in mind the Scripture that said “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.”

I am disappointed that I was not consulted before my name was referred to in the above, mentioned article. The fact is, if I had been contacted, I would not have given my permission. This is simply because, whether the allegations are true or not, I do not believe that a public media presentation is the loving way to treat others who belong to the Bride of Christ. Furthermore, I wish to state emphatically that I never said: “the rumour was so strong that he (I) travelled from Palmerston North….” My visit was based exclusively on a one to one conversation. In the meantime, Frank has been disciplined by the AOG. Like all of us, Frank is included in the covenant of grace. As far as I am concerned, this matter is now closed.

I pray that our Heavenly Father’s blessing may rest upon each one of you and that each of us will live to the praise of His glory.

[Barney Coombes]
[ *1 http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2002/acchd02.html – Ed ]

______________________

A PERSONAL RESPONSE BY PHILIP POWELL TO BARNEY COOMBES

– see below.

Copied to Brian Houston, Keith Ainge, John Lewis and Danny Guglielmucci

THURSDAY March 21, 2002.
Dear Barney:
Thanks for your response. My recollection is that what you have now stated in print is substantially accurate, though I dispute that you have been misrepresented and my recollection is that you and I had only one telephone conversation not two, the other communications being written. Also I recall that you said far more in our telephone conversation than you have actually acknowledged. You told me that you always suspected that Frank was guilty and that when you saw or heard him preach you felt that he was a hypocrite. I acknowledge that I did not quote all that passed between you and me in that telephone conversation. I dispute that you were in any way misrepresented for the following reasons:

• • 1) I did not say that you had initiated the telephone conversation and I do not think that such is implied in the publication to which you refer. The fact is that you did telephone me from Canada. You were not returning my call. You were responding to an email or fax.
  • 2) I did not say that you said that the rumour was strong. Those were my words. The fact is that you treated the incident as “rumour” seeing you did not take it further. It was sufficiently strong for you to take initial action in respect of it. I stand by my words

I note your misquote of the actual text of Scripture – “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.” This is an interpretation not a true and accurate quotation of what Paul wrote or taught. Maybe it is your preferred version, BUT it is inaccurate for logical as well as biblical reasons. In what circumstances, for example, could there ever be a third party witness to an allegation of adultery or for that matter of most sexual offences? It is perfectly clear that Paul was instructing young pastor Timothy to take precaution in having witnesses to any allegation made against an “elder”. In other words in the case in point you failed to act biblically when you decided to assume a lone responsibility in the matter. You should have ensured that there were witnesses present when the accusation was presented to you and when you put the matter to the accused. If the person who made the initial complaint was an adult he should have accompanied you and your witnesses when you presented the matter to the accused. There would then have been a basis for you to have referred the accusation to the proper authority viz to the National NZ AoG Executive in the first instance. If there were criminal connotations then the police should also have been contacted by you or by the responsible AoG authority to which you had referred the matter. Much could have been avoided.

Mine is the only sensible and rational conclusion that can be made respecting Paul’s instruction – “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses” – 1 Timothy 5:19. I am sorry to have to say this Barney, but you my dear brother must be held accountable. OK hindsight is a great thing and we all make mistakes. You should acknowledge your mistake and not try to rationalize your way out of it on the pretext of Scripture, falsely interpreted and/or applied.

You refer to the Bride of Christ and I guess we all have ideas who comprise it – usually ourselves and some others – RIGHT? All I ask is that you take into account the following Scriptures:

“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath MADE HERSELF READY” – Revelation 19:7. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” – 1 Corinthians 6:9. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold {suppress} the truth in unrighteousness; …. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” – Romans 1:18 – 27 etc. “But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out” – Numbers 32:23. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” – Isaiah 5:20. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” – Matthew 7:21-23.

You speak of media involvement. CWM has long since canvassed the idea that the Lord in His gracious mercy allows the Church time to properly judge her own affairs. If she fails then the world will judge and that in all probability will be followed by God’s judgement. History proves this and there will be no exception in respect of our time. We know that Frank Houston was subjected to some form of discipline in 1999 and again in 2000. We do not know if he was rebuked before his congregation which Scripture requires. I know that in the case of another former General Superintendent of AoG-NZ this requirement of scripture was NOT carried out in Australia where he now ministers and where he was disciplined. He acknowledged this to me, and added that he wanted it to happen but “the powers that be wouldn’t allow it.” He now pastors a fairly large AoG church in Brisbane. If the scriptural mandate is not carried out then all sorts of innuendos and rumours persist as in both of these cases ultimately leading to christian and/or secular media involvement. The course is inevitable.

Barney our Lord promised that everything hidden would be revealed. He also told us that we would be condemned or justified by our words. That is how things presently stand.

In view of the fact that you wrote the following email to Brian and Frank Houston I am copying this to the email addresses of Brian that are known to me. I do not have Frank’s email address so am copying this to Keith Ainge who is the General Secretary and to John Lewis who is the Assistant President of AoG in Australia. I am also copying it to Danny Guglielmucci who promised to represent my concerns to the National Executive Presbytery of AoG at their next meeting. I believe that my meeting with them would help, but for some reason they are doing everything possible to avoid me.

God bless you Barney. “The mills of God grind slow but exceeding small.”

Sincerely in the Love of THE Truth,
Philip L. POWEL

______________________________________

RESPONSE FROM BARNEY COOMBES

– April 2, 2002.
Dear Philip

Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response.

I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage. In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse.

I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston.

My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply. I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed. The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, “Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me” can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication. Likewise, your statement “the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North” Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn’t you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank.

And let me hasten to add, I didn’t just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father’s throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor.Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective. I probably agree with 75% of what is published. However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write. I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” Col 4:6.

” One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones.

Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as “STOP PRESS” and “watch this space” belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication. I doubt whether the Holy Spirit’s anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world’s standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ. It reminds me of the proverb that says: “The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly” Prov 18:23. I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home.

I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley, cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation. Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim “satire” but “dishonour” Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said “the Lord rebuke you.”

I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent. Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ’s bride accordingly.

I pray our Heavenly Father’s blessing on you and your loved ones.

In His great love. Barney

P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing.

I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us; neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine. I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney.

______________________________________

FROM PHILIP L. POWELL to BARNEY COOMBES

Dear Barney: – {Email – April 2, 2002).

Thanks for your further response. I did not wish to offend you, but I do think your approach is flawed. Also, Barney, while I recognise your every right to respond to me as you have done I do not recognise any right implied or explicitly requested that I do not respond to your arguments or your assertions. That is arrogance. May be you didn’t intend to convey that impression.

My recollection is that you certainly said that you had the impression that FH was a hypocrite when you met with and heard of him. You said it. I did not imagine it. However the fact of the matter is that he was a hypocrite if he denied what was fact back in the 70s and if he denied what I told him was being alleged about him in the 90s. The discipline of ’99 and ’00 to say the least strongly implies his hypocrisy, deception and dishonesty. So what’s the point in you and me falling out over that?

Another point Barney is that while you feel affronted that I mentioned your name without your express permission, in the same breath (pardon the euphemism) “same paragraph” you said you wouldn’t have given me permission if I had asked. That would have resulted in my offending you further because I honestly think I had a responsibility to quote you. Why are you like so many others who somehow think they have a reputation to defend and who thus become so sensitive about being quoted? Can’t you stand by your word? Even Pilate said, “What I have written I have written.” Personally I have no problem with being quoted by anyone anywhere. Why should I and why should you? If anyone misrepresents me I will tell them as much, as you tried to tell me, but ended up shooting yourself in the foot for your words actually confirmed that I had not misrepresented you in any way, not even in respect of impressions that some may or may not have drawn from what I reported. What I wrote was accurate – totally.

PLEASE READ ON – I’ll respond to your points in RED PRINT under your comments. Hope it comes out that way.

______________________________________

—– Original Message —–
From: Barney Coombs
To: Philip L Powell
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:46 AM
Subject: Re Magazine article
[ PLP answer in italics -Ed ]

Dear Philip

Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response. I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage.

Barney – this is crucial to the whole thing and something that I propose to argue in the follow up article which is now under review by our editorial “set-up”. I have again quoted you and argued that what you did back in the 70s was based on your misinterpretation of this bible verse. Had you acted according to scripture this whole scenario could have been avoided. I will happily let you have sight of what we propose to publish before we go to print. If you raise reasonable objection we will consider changes or omissions. Please let me know if you want to see the article before we go to print. If I don’t hear from you I’ll send it to you at this email address.

In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse.

I have no idea what you mean by this sentence. Please explain what you have in mind.

I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston.

I thought you had sent it to all three of us i.e. Frank, Brian and me, seeing it was so addressed. Brian has blocked me at his email addresses and I don’t have Frank Houston’s contact details so I sent the email to the General secretary and to the Assistant president and to another National Executive member.

My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply.

I consider that I have answered this – see above. We are accountable for what we say whether in private or in public. You did not tell me that your comments were “off record”. I took you to be a man of your word. I do not consider that I have acted discourteously and you have given no valid reason why you consider that I have.

I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed.

It was no big issue and I did NOT make it into a big issue. That perception exists in your own mind. I simply pointed out my recollection and now you have confirmed that I was right and you were wrong. I do not apologise for what we published. It was factual and you have confirmed that was the case.

The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, “Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me” can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication.

Readers will always jump to conclusions. What is the problem? I did not say that you initiated the conversation. The fact of the matter is that you did telephone me. I did not say that you instigated the communication. Why are you making this into such a big issue?

Likewise, your statement “the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North” Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn’t you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank.

So now you confirm that it was a man – RIGHT? In your previous email you said a person and then used the general “them” instead of him. Why Barney? I published what I felt was safe at the time. Since then things have developed to a point where they are quite ominous. I am absolutely convinced that it’s clean up time in the Church. Men who purport to be Christian leaders and who are no more than plants of Satan (tares) will be made to face their past. CWM is not going to act foolishly, but we will act courageously as the Lord helps us.

And let me hasten to add, I didn’t just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father’s throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor.

You should have asked the “man” to make his accusation in front of witnesses and then if you decided to take the matter to the accused you should have presented it with witnesses present. You did not do the BEST THING possible. Why do you think the man approached you in the first instance and not his pastor? That should have said volumes. You can try to get all spiritual about telling the Father, Barney, but you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you have told the police in the case of a juvenile but not do the right thing with an accusation of homosexuality? My recollection is that back then homosexuality even with consenting adults was a crime – RIGHT? Any way your rationale can be shot through on any basis you may choose. You did the wrong thing Barney and now we have this dreadful scenario which could have and should have been pre-empted.

Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective.

I accepted that, but I also know that there are hundreds – may be thousands – who have the same and may be an even better perspective who would disagree with you – So what?

I probably agree with 75% of what is published.

Thanks for that but we’re not into the popularity charts business. Truth and correct action are our concerns. If you show where we are wrong – even if you are alone – we will take what you say on board.

However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write.

Oh yes here we go. It’s the spirit not the letter. What do you mean by “so much of the spirit”. It’s meaningless jargon. By our words we will be condemned and by our words we will be justified. Go to a court of law Barney and talk about the spirit of what you say or write. You will be laughed out of court. Yes we can make mistakes in what we say. But words are words – whether said strongly or smoothed over until they are innocuous. I prefer that people know what I mean.

I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col 4:6).

OK – so now it’s our “speech” i.e. words not our spirit. We accept that and always try to follow the injunction. When Jesus used harsh words were they not seasoned with salt? What about Paul and what about the OT prophets? No Barney we are not saying that we are at their level we are simply using it as an argument against what you are saying and implying. Please my brother do start to think and don’t just follow the status quo which has created the huge problem which is now within Christendom that some think is the Bride of Christ when it is no such thing.

” One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones.

There you go again – judging us. We don’t take pleasure in these things which are long overdue for exposure within the so called Church. Do you not think that we also search our hearts? We are absolutely convinced that we are basically on course as the Lord keeps confirming this even in the small timing of events.

Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as “STOP PRESS” and “watch this space” belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication.

We acknowledge that we use recognised literary devices and methods. So what’s wrong with that? Surely we want to get the attention of our readers. What’s wrong with that? If we don’t get their attention in all probability they won’t read our stuff.

I doubt whether the Holy Spirit’s anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world’s standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ.

Well that’s your opinion. In any case I think you abuse the word “anointing” in the clear NT meaning of that action. We stand back in amazement at how the work of CWM including our publications work has been used since we launched it in 1994. It really is amazing in our eyes, but then I don’t expect you to understand seeing you have not been part of what has happened.

It reminds me of the proverb that says: “The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly” (Prov 18:23).

Barney – do you realise what you have implied? I assure you that we are not rich in the meaning of the word in that verse. I am quite sure that you could buy me over and over again in monetary terms. I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home.

You can’t hear tears in print. You may be surprised what happens behind the scenes, especially in the light of what some of us have gone through as we have taken the stand that we have. BUT please Barney – why are you judging us so harshly? It seems that you are even judging our motives – RIGHT?

I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley,

How any spiritual leader can read the facts about Ray McCauley and then jump to his defence amazes and troubles me a great deal. If he reads what Siam Bhayro wrote – and I sincerely hope he does – then I trust he will, as a result set his heart on his ways and repent before he meets his maker. Porcelain pigs will fade into insignificance before God’s judgement. Please feel free to tell Mr McCauley I said so if you are in touch with him. May be Ray Bevan will tell him as we know that RB has read what we wrote. I met McCauley once and was not impressed with his obvious smugness and arrogance.

cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation.

Well at least you acknowledge the fact that Ray McCauley has dishonoured the Lord Jesus Christ.

Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim “satire” but “dishonour” Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said “the Lord rebuke you.”

We weren’t writing or talking about that “mighty prince” (Satan). Barney you amaze me. I would have thought that your grasp of the significance of texts of scripture would have been much better than that. Like Michael I would never speak disparagingly of Satan, but surely you are not equating McCauley and Bevan et al with Satan, are you? I also suggest that you consult a dictionary as to the definition of “satire” before you try educating us on what we have asserted.

I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent.

Barney – God usually shows us things through other people. He may show you something through me. He may show me something through you. Let us be open one to another and let us not cut off the person or ministry through which we may be helped.

Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ’s bride accordingly.

If you can show where I am (we are) wrong biblically I will gladly amend my (our) ways. Otherwise we will press on unless the Lord checks us by some other means. We believe we are on course.

I pray our Heavenly Father’s blessing on you and your loved ones.
In His great love. Barney

Thank you Barney.

P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing.

Not really. Bring forth a reasonable argument against our quoting you and we will consider it or maybe the entreaty of a “poor man” will achieve the desired result. Come on Barney take another look at Proverbs 18:23.

I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us;

Well all you have to do is STOP replying. I don’t mind. I’m open to being corrected. Are you?

neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine.

That’s up to you. All you have to do is write to our NZ office and get your name off the list or just do it through our Web Site. I won’t do anything about it as I don’t handle those things. I just can’t keep up with it all.

I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney.

Amen to that.

God bless you Barney.
In Christ,
Philip.

______________________________________

April 9, 2002.
ATTENTION: Barney Coombes

Dear Barney:
{name withheld}, who contacted you regarding the Frank Houston scenario, telephoned me when he returned to Australia. He told me he appreciated your openness and your counsel. However there was one point which surfaced during our conversation which caused me concern. {name withheld} reported you as saying that the person who made the accusation to you against Frank Houston was 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. You told me in an email that if the alleged offence had related to a juvenile you would have reported the matter to the police. I told {name withheld} of this contradiction and said I would contact you about it.

I think Barney you should explain this disparity to me and to {name withheld} whom I have copied in on this email.
I presume you received my email to you dated April 2, 2002. Seeing you have not replied I am sending it again just in case it went astray.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Philip L. POWELL.

THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM BARNEY COOMBES.  [ to this date -May 2002 -Ed ]

Source: Emails between Barney Coombes and Philip Powell, March to April 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20120901020329/http://www.christian-witness.org/active/mail/barneyC.html

2002/04/03 – Darren Boehm writes to Brian Houston – why Hillsong says Frank retired and papers says sacked? Asks for the truth.

• Provides context about what the public at this stage know about Frank Houston’s past and discipline.
• [Documented on the CWM website as at June 2002:]

Philip Powell published the following (bold emphasis added),

Here are two letters, as yet (June 2002 ) unanswered, sent to Hillsong asking for some answers. Since these two letters have appeared on the Christian Witness Ministries Web Page, we have had correspondence about the whole subject. In particular CWM wishes to point out that; “Darren Boehm’s letter simply asks questions. It does not make insinuations. The letter was published because Hillsong’s authorities refused to answer Darren Boehm. Questions are not insinuations. Neither DB nor CWM have made any such insinuation.” In addition we make clear that; “It also insinuates that Pat Mesiti was involved with someone under age… In a word NO — but once again people will straight away think it is true.”

CWM states: “This is not the case.” (Implying that P.M. was not involved) –Emphasis by CWM – WM

_______________________________

Brian Houston Senior Pastor
Hillsong
Norwest Business Park
Norwest Blv (cnr Solent Cct)
Baulk ham Hills 2153

Wednesday, April 03, 2002
Dear Pastor Brian,

I refer to the article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 27th march 2002 regarding the departure of your Youth pastor and friend Patrick Mesiti. In that article it referred to the departure of your father Frank Houston at the CLC church in Waterloo.

I went to your father’s church when it met in the hall next to the Koala motel in Riley Street for many years. I have always had a great love and respect for your father who has prayed with me and taught me for those years. I cannot believe the reports that are now filtering back regarding the crisis that your father is now involved in. As a former parishioner of the church I feel I have an obligation and a right to know the truth concerning the allegations raised.

Furthermore these questions are not meant to pry or commence gossip; they are put to you with the hope that you will reflect a clear conscience with the events that have taken place and that that you are above reproach in this matter.

I would appreciate it if you would be completely honest with me in the questions I want to ask.

Questions
Have you been completely honest and have you told the whole truth about the immoral conduct of your father and Pat Mesiti?

Why the church was told that Pastor Frank was stepping down and retiring from the ministry because he was getting on in age or was becoming forgetful?

Why are people told when they ring the CLC Waterloo office that Pastor Frank has retired and that he is taking it easy back in New Zealand when the newspaper article quoted above states that he was sacked by you and he was not even given the retirement option? What really took place was he fired or did he retire?

How long had you known of the alleged sexual misconduct of your father seeing it relates to 30 years ago and you were brought up in the Houston household as a member of the family?

Were the elders of CLC Waterloo aware of the allegations raised and at what date were they notified?

Regarding the removal of Patrick Mesiti and his Ministries from Hillsong this also has now raised questions that if not answered could create further damage to the Lord’s name which you claim to hold?

Is it true that Patrick Mesiti actions were exposed 8 months before the issue was initially brought up in your church and if so why did your church Elders leave it so long to act on the information and remove him from the ministry?

What was the age of the person that was involved in the relationship with Pat Mesiti?

If the person was under the age of consent were the Police notified of the matter and was a statement given if so to which station?

On the day that you announced to the congregation at Hillsong the removal of Pat Mesiti on November 4th holding the hand of your wife you announced to the congregation that your relationship to your wife Bobbie was as strong as ever. Keeping this comment in mind can you go on record to say that you have never been involved in any immoral activity that if it was exposed would damage the ministry and that your life is above reproach as set down in 1 Timothy 2-7?

Is it true that Patrick Mesiti still does motivational speaking to a secular audience and if so is the Hillsong church involved in anyway in promoting this mans business?Please explain to me what takes place in a three year restoration ministry.Are you hoping that Patrick Mesiti will return to the ministry position?

You strike me as a man of character and like your father I am sure you can utilise the wisdom to answer these questions he was never afraid to say what was on his heart and I am sure your ministry would be enhanced by the outcome of this letter.

I am only seeking the truth in this matter and I am confident that you will grant me the same in your reply. I remain a servant in Christ regarding this matter.

Darren Boehm

Post office Box 30
Top Ryde NSW 1680

_______________________________

HILLS CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTRE

Norwest Business Park Norwest Blv
(Cnr Solent Cct) Baulkham Hills 2153

27th May 27, 2002

To the Elders Hillsong Church
Nabi Sali
Lee Howard Smith

Dear Elders

On the Wednesday, April 03, 2002, I wrote to your Pastor Brian Houston concerning the events that have appeared the Sydney Morning Herald. In my letter I sought answers relating to the scandals that have hit your church as well as the scandal that has smeared the name of the Lord at the CLC centre in Waterloo. I noted that your Pastor failed to acknowledge a receipt of the letter and he chose not to reply to it contents.

This type of response tells me two things;

• • Your Pastor feels that he is not answerable to anyone that he is above accountability
  • he feels that if he ignores this letter long enough then after a while the storm that has started will cease.

Let me reassure you that both of these assumptions are wrong.

I have now enclosed a copy of that letter to both of you. With the view of having my questions answered. I am sure that you would not like this scandal to go any further than in house, so I am asking again, however this time I am giving you 7 days from the date of this letter to produce answers to the questions that I have raised. Should I fail to receive the answers then I will take this matter further. May I remind you that this scandal is just the tip of an iceberg?

Furthermore let me remind you what icebergs do to ships that think they are unsinkable. I appreciate your time in this matter and your quick response.Yours faithfully

Darren Boehm

Has not appeared in any Issue/Volume
“…contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” — Jude v3

Source: Philip Powell, HOW to CHANGE the DYNAMICS of a CHURCH – Darren Beohm writes, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/db_art.html, Last revised October 01, 2002. [Archive]

2002/7/>13 CETF Mailout Update – Brian told 2GB his father was stood down due to sexual abuse (minor not mentioned); SMH – Pat Mesiti scandal and Hillsong Conference

The public (or AOGA ministers) does not yet know sexual abuse involved a minor. Philip Powell of Cristian Witness Ministries (CWM), editor of Contending Earnestly for The Faith (CETF magazine), reports,

“2. HOUSTONS & HILLSONG

Since CWM went public on the news about Pat Mesiti and Frank Houston a big debate has been raging among Christians in Sydney, with the secular media again getting involved. You can research some of this on our web site at ..
a…/aog.html
b… /archives/van2003 .html

It has been one of the major topics on the CWM Forum Ray Hadley  of radio 2GB ran a forum on Hillsong during the week of their big international Conference concentrating on the Pat Mesiti scandal. He suggested all is not as well with Hillsong as the PR machine is indicating and asked for comments. One of CWM’s readers was the first on the line. During the programme someone quoted the CWM website for more information. Later Brian Houston admitted on the show that his father had been stood down, as he was guilty of sexual abuse.

On Saturday July 13, 2002 the prestigious “Sydney Morning Herald” ran a story by their religious affairs editor Kelly Burke about the Hillsong Conference, which she attended on the opening night. Most of the article relates to the time spent by Brian Houston on taking up the offering from the 15,400 delegates. You can read the story at …/php_cwm/articles/art_art.php3?article=33 “

Source: Philip Powell, CWM- MONTHLY MAILER, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/past_mailers/jul02mm.html, Last revised December 11, 2004. [Archive]

2002/08/03 LATEST ON FRANK HOUSTON & ALLEGATION OF PAEDOPHILIA

Fowler updates Powell on Frank. Powell updates his readers , providing his comments below Fowler’s update (emphasis in bold):

LATEST ON FRANK HOUSTON & ALLEGATION OF PAEDOPHILIA

[From Peter Fowler to Powell:]

I am very pleased to be able to report that I have reached a settlement with AOGNZ and the Lower Hutt AOG. The terms of the settlement are confidential to the parties and the only public comment I can make is the following statement:

“Peter Fowler and the Assemblies of God in NZ and the Assembly of God Lower Hutt Church have confidentially in a Christian spirit resolved all differences between them relating to the alleged abuse of Peter Fowler by Frank Houston”

 You will note that no settlement has been reached with Frank Houston or his representatives and I am still free to pursue proceedings against Houston. So far, Houston and his representatives have continued to refuse to meet or engage in any dialogue with me.

Thank you so much for your assistance in helping me to reach this point. Had it not been for your initial support and understanding I may not have been able to achieve any form of settlement, closure or healing. I remain deeply grateful and I wish you well in all your future endeavours. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you and any other victims who may contact you.

With best wishes
Peter Fowler.
————————————————————-

It is very sad that men have to be dragged screaming all the way before they will even grant a hearing to an aggrieved party. That speaks volumes. The Roman Catholic and the Anglican Churches will at least immediately grant a sympathetic hearing to those who allege abuse. Assemblies of God it seems won’t even do that without a great deal of resistance. In the case of AoG-NZ it would appear that it was only after Kem Price replaced Wayne Hughes [later disciplined for sexual abuse of a teenager] as General Superintendent that things changed. We understand that once Kem Price took over responsibility for handling the case in December 2002, he promptly commenced a thorough investigation of all allegations made by Peter Fowler and maintained communication with him throughout the process. The investigation included meetings in Australia between members of the AOGNZ Executive  and Houston and his representatives. Following those meetings, Price arranged the first meeting with Fowler in March of 2003. This meeting resulted in a further unsuccessful attempt by AOGNZ to involve Houston and his representatives in the process and the eventual settlement between the parties mentioned in the above email. We understand that AOGNZ have agreed that Peter’s story was accurate and we understand that they have done their best to try to persuade the Houstons to meet with Fowler.

Paedophilia is a serious crime in both New Zealand and Australia. The fact that AOG Australia disciplined Frank Houston in 1999/ 2000 for unrelated “serious sexual offences” and that AOG-NZ participated in the discipline implicates both denominations. If a prima facie case of guilt were established one would think that both AOG-NZ and AOG-OZ would have a responsibility in law to refer the matter for criminal investigation.”

Source: Details for the April 03 Mailer, CWM, https://web.archive.org/web/20100613001207/http://christian-witness.org/not_in_pubs/aug_mmDet03.html, Archive

2002/12/06 – Neil Hetrick writes to Fowler, will not discuss issue with Fowler.

This is a transcript of the letter FROM Neil Hetrick to Fowler (emphasis added):

General Secretary, Assemblies of God in New Zealand, TO Peter Fowler

Dear Mr Fowler

I am in receipt of your Email*1 of the 27th November 2002.

I cannot recall the issue of your resignation from the Lower Hutt A/G you refer to in your letter. In my recollection of such matters, these were handled by the church staff and not the college staff. I belonged to the latter group. No church related issues came to my notice.

Although I am General Secretary of Assemblies of God in New Zealand, this position does not include Executive member rights and privileges and therefore I am not in a position to discuss the issues you raise in your letter.

Your original contact with the A/G NZ was through your solicitor, and the Executive has responded to you through this avenue. Further communications will be forthcoming.

Yours faithfully
Neil Hetrick

Received by PF on 6th December 2002

*1 ‘Email’ refers to the letter dated 27th November 2002 addressed to NH

Source: Philip Powell, 2002/12/06 Neil Hetrick Letter to Peter Fowler, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/nh_pf.html, Last revised December 11, 2002. [Archive – 2003/02/18]

2002/09/10 – Ps Wayne Hughes, AOGNZ General Superintendent, made a request to Brian Houston for assistance over the Peter Fowler (AHG) complaint. Brian responded, refusing to be involved:

This letter was an exhibit at the 2014 Royal Commission:

Source: 2002/09/10 Brian Houston refuses to be involved in allegations against Frank Houston, [Archive]

2002/11/27 – Peter Fowler writes to to N. Hetrick (General Secretary, AOGNZ), requesting assistance. 

Fowler was not pleased with the response from the AOGNZ, so asked Hetrick for help as he thought Hetrick would have known Peter and the Lower Hutt church where the alleged abuse took place, Fowler outlines some of the investigation he had done and mentions the variety of assistance he had been given (emphasis added – note date):

Letter to N. Hetrick of the AOG 

Alleged Abuse

Pastor Neil Hetrick
General Secretary
Assemblies of God in New Zealand
Auckland

Dear Mr Hetrick

In April of this year*1 my solicitor contacted your organisation to advise you of my allegation that Frank Houston sexually abused me in 1972, when I was a teenager and a member of the AoG church in Lower Hutt and Houston was your General Superintendent. Your response was to conduct an internal investigation, which appears to have been motivated by the desire to discredit my allegations, rather than to seek the truth. Despite several offers to assist you with your enquiries, you have refused to communicate with me directly and declined to discuss my version of what occurred.

I also conducted an investigation into the illicit actions of Houston while he was both a Pastor and General Superintendent of the NZ AoG and I’m sure that you will be well aware of what I uncovered. The action of both the Australian and NZ AoG to ban Houston from the ministry for “Serious moral failure” is evidence enough that other allegations have been made and that you had sufficiently established their authenticity to justify taking such action against him.

Several Pastors and prominent church members past and present, in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and the UK assisted me with my enquiries. This investigation confirmed both Houston’s history of sexual abuse and the consistent attempts to cover-up his behaviour. I understand that this sorry history has already contributed to at least one church in NZ ceasing their affiliation with the AoG and that others are contemplating taking similar action.

I am writing directly to you now to question your own role in what happened to me. At the time Houston abused me, you were also a Pastor of the Lower Hutt AoG and you had certainly met me on several occasions. At that time, did you not think it unusual that a teenage member of the church, who had been baptised in the church (by Pastor Uren), suddenly stopped attending and then wrote a formal letter of resignation? Did you not feel compelled in your pastoral duty to investigate why this occurred, or at least ensure that one of the other Pastors made such an enquiry? Perhaps there was no more desire back then to uncover the truth about Houston than there appears to be now, thirty years later.

You have already been advised of the specific nature of Houston’s sexual abuse and I will not go into the details again here. I admit that after thirty years, my initial recollection of the events may have been inaccurate in relation to the precise dates and peripheral circumstances. However, I can assure you that the abuse did occur as I have documented, when I was with Houston in Wanganui in 1972. Since my solicitor contacted your organization in April, you appear to have focused your responses on challenging the precise details of my allegations, presumably to dissuade me from pursuing effective legal action. However, in following such a course you may have overlooked the very significant and long-term impact that this experience has had on my life. The negative forces that were unleashed by the experience were extremely powerful and I can assure you that they endure to this day.

While the NZ Police have been sympathetic to me and my allegations, they have advised that due to Houston’s age, health and time away from New Zealand, it is unlikely that he could be extradited to face criminal charges. Based on your response to date, I sense that any compensation or even reconciliation and apology from your organization, appears highly unlikely. Ironically, had this abuse occurred in the Catholic Church, at least they would have put in place internal procedures to investigate the allegations and enable both parties to give their evidence before an independent arbitrator. However, it appears the Assemblies of God remain a closed and insular organisation seeking only to protect your image and finances. Genuine Christian compassion and a duty of care to your members appear to be absent from your mission.

Based on the information that I have received, I am convinced that Houston has left a trail of victims behind him over his long career of abuse. I suspect that many of these victims are in NZ and like myself, were probably associated with your Church at one time. I believe that it is important that other victims come forward and I am hoping that my actions will create a climate where it is easier for them to do so. If there are others who are willing to speak out, it may make a difference to the eventual outcome of this terrible breach of trust and respect in a Minister of God.

I would be grateful if you would at least talk with me about these events and work with me to uncover the truth. If not, I intend to continue my pursuit for justice in every way possible. Maybe there is someone else who will succeed with a prosecution either in NZ or Australia. Based on the history of your organisation’s response to my allegations and in the interests of ensuring full public disclosure, I have copied this letter to several interested parties and to those who have helped me in this matter.

Once again, I want to extend an offer to assist your organisation with your enquiries to uncover the truth about this evil man. While the AoG may have been involved in attempts to cover-up Houston’s behaviour in the past and this course of action may have allowed further abuse to occur, I accept that we can all be guilty of such errors of judgment. However, it is never too late for the truth. You are in a position to help me and perhaps many other victims seeking a sense of closure, justice and healing from these sad events.

Yours sincerely
Peter Fowler
27th November 2002

P.O. Box 1448, Potts Point, NSW 1335, AUSTRALIA, Tel: +61 419 774 800

*1 2002

Source: Philip Powell, Letter to N. Hetrick of the AOG
Alledged abuse, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_nh.html, Last revised December 11, 2002. [Archive]

2002/12/06 Philip Powel writes to Neil Hetrick and the AOGNZ executive about Peter Fowler (AHG) allegation against Frank Houston.  AOGA is copied. Cover-up?

Powell suggests AOGNZ and AOGA could be found guilty of cover-up as there are possibly 7 cases of abuse now known.

There has been warnings and information exchanged about Frank’s dark past before – Powell clearly challenging the Australian AOG to deal with allegations about Frank properly, specifically AHG’s case (which eventually will be settled).

Powell also mentions he was warning about Frank back on 1993/4.

(Alleged) Morally Failed Superintendents of the Assemblies of God, New Zealand:

1965-1977: Frank Houston
– serious moral failure issues (child sexual abuse) (died 2004)

1977-1989: Jim Williams  
– serious moral failures (died 2015)
– successor of Frank Houston, hence, he is AMF at 2014 Royal Commission

1989-2005: Wayne Hughes  
– resigned when moral failure allegations made

The Australian AOGA is copied, in particular Keith Ainge:

Below is the transcribed version from the PDF copy of email (which was submitted to the 2014 Royal Commission. (Emphasis added. AHG: Peter Fowler, AMF: Jim WIlliams):

Keith Ainge
_________________________

From: Donna Mercier [dmercier@aogaustralia.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2002 3:04 PM
To: Keith Ainge
Subject: FW: DISPUTE BETWEEN AoG & AHG re Frank Houston

—–Original Message—–
From: AOG National Office Reception
Sent: Monday, 09 December 2002 10: 13 AM
To: Donna Mercier
Subject: FW: DISPUTE BETWEEN AoG & AHG re Frank Houston

—–Original Message—–
From: Philip L Powell [mailto:philip@christian-wltness.org]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:39 PM
To: gensec@assembliesofgodnz.org.nz; AHG
cc: REDACTED

Subject: DISPUTE BETWEEN AoG & AHG re Frank Houston

Attention; Neil Hetrick and AoG NZ – Executive

Dear Neil:

I have read AHG’s letter to you. I am also aware of your response in which you expressed no sense or compassion or concern for this man who alleges gross sexual misconduct against himself the consequences of which have been far reaching in his own life and those associated with him. That such should have been perpetrated by any Christian let alone the man who held the top leadership position in the AoG-NZ denomination is an inexplicable evil. Frank Houston has already been disciplined on some other very serious count and as you know has been permanently banned from AoG platforms in Australasia by the NZ and Australian AoG Executives’ rulings.

Don Barry has elsewhere referred to seven cases of alleged sexual abuse involving Frank Houston and/or AMF and suggests that these seven are “just the tip of the iceberg”. Clearly your Executive and that of AoG in Australia could be found guilty of attempted cover-ups in respect of the seriousness of the matters relating to both of these former General Superintendents of Assemblies of God. You are now adding insult to injury by giving AHG the legal run-around when all you need do is invite him to meet you ·and your Executive for a free and open discussion. You have not disputed his main allegation. Through your solicitor you have simply questioned his memory as to detail. AHG has readily acknowledged that he was hazy in respect of some of those details. He insists that he was sexually moleste by Frank Houston when he was a teenager and Frank was the General Superintendent of AoG in NZ. This accusation has now been made before several witnesses. Biblically it should be investigated at Church leadership level.

Neil – as you know when Kathleen and I met you and Wayne Hughes at Takapuna in 1993/94 I told you that you would be hearing more regarding Frank Houston. This statement was made in the context of the known moral failure of AMF [Jim WIlliams] who Wayne claimed had not had a great influence on AoG in New Zealand. Wayne asserted that the man who was influential in NZ was AMF predecessor viz Frank Houston. I warned you both then and I stand by all that I have said and written to you and to Wayne Hughes over the years. When, Neil will you wake up to what is happening and stop playing the hypocrite by fobbing people off on non-issues and by playing political games?

You were very close to Frank Houston at the time of his alleged sexual abuse of AHA which was also the approximate time of the further alleged abuse of the young man who spoke to Barney Coombes in Palmerston North. You did not acknowledge or deny to AHG that you were cognisant of the facts or rumours associated with AHG’s claim. You have simply tried to hide behind a politioal ploy and a procedural foible. For a man of God to engage in such conduct is, in my view, a lack of integrity and honesty. If the Executive have supported you in this action then they too are culpable.

For the record I met personally with AHG in September last [2002]. He is not an unreasonable person, but he is a determined man who intends to see this rnatter through to a satisfactory conclusion. I would not be surprised if a meeting between you and him would end in a satisfactory resolution although I have not discussed this as a possibility now that matters have gone so far. In my view you should have made that offer to AHG as soon as you received notice of his allegation.

I pray Neil that you and your associates will heed the warning and do what is clearly the right and biblical thing to do, I would be pleased to hear from you and/or from anyone else in this mailing which is the same as that to which AHG addressed his original letter, with the exception of my co-editor who has now removed from being a lecturer at Sheffield University in UK to Yale University in USA. I have simply corrected his email address and included him in the mail.

Sincerely yours in Christ’s service,

Philip L. POWELL.

P.S. Coincidentally I am in NZ at Blenheim until very early Saturday morning
December 14. You can reach me at REDACTED.

Philip & Kathleen POWELL

WEB SlTES: CWM (home) http:f[www,.christia11:witness.org
http://www.christianwitnessministries.orq
http://www.c-w-m.org with VANGUARD (archives) and CETF (archives) direct links
to aid research httg://www.chrlstlan-witness.org/archlves/aredex.html

—- Original Message —–
From: gensec@assembliesofgodnz.org.nz
Cc: admin@assembliesofgodnz.org.nz
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:33 PM

Source: Email exchanges between Assemblies of God NZ and Assemblies of God Australia, Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/STAT.0348.001.0024_R.pdf, December 09, 2002. [Archive] [PDF]

2002/12/09 Peter Fowler writes to Wayne Hughes, General Superintendent, AOGNZ

Powell published the following correpondence between Fowler to Hughes (emphasis added):

Dear Mr Hughes

RE: FRANK HOUSTON — SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS

I‘m sure that you are aware of my previous communications with your Executive through my lawyer and my recent letter to Neil Hetrick, which I copied to you. I was hoping that by approaching Neil directly, I might achieve a response that contained some degree of support and a willingness to open a dialogue with me. However, his reply was so disappointing. It is devoid of any Christian charity or even any basic human sympathy. Any secular solicitor, rather than a minister of God, could have written it and probably did. However, that is the kind of response that I am learning to expect from your Organization.

I’m not sure what you are afraid of or why you won’t talk to me about what happened when I was a teenager and a member of the Lower Hutt Assembly of God*2. I find it staggering that you do not want to uncover the truth about one of your predecessors in the role of General Superintendent, especially since you have already banned him from the ministry for “‘serious moral failure”‘. However, that is your decision. I just want you to be aware that I do not intend to continue living with the legacy of pain and anger that Houston’s abuse has caused in my life. I will not be discouraged by your refusal to talk with me, or your attempts to discredit my allegations. I will continue to pursue this matter until I achieve some sense of justice and closure.

As I explained in my letter to Neil,*1 I have conducted my own investigation into Houston and his past behaviour and I have been greatly assisted by many church leaders past and present, throughout Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This investigation confirmed Houston’s sad legacy of sexual abuse and the consistent attempts that have been made by church organizations to cover-up his behaviour. However, perhaps you already have enough evidence of this and you are not interested in any further information that may reveal past errors of judgment.

For the past nine months I have attempted to deal with this confidentially. However the Assemblies of God in New Zealand refuse to meet with me or to provide an adequate or even decent response to my allegations. I am therefore left with no option but to seek public support.

It is now my hope that public exposure will help to create a supportive environment in which other victims may feel able to join me in the search for justice. Perhaps only then, all of us, including Houston, can begin the long process of healing lives damaged by sexual abuse and the terrible breach of trust placed in a church leader and minister of God.

Yours sincerely
Peter Fowler

P.O. Box 1448, Potts Point, NSW 1335, AUSTRALIA

9th December 2002
Tel: +61 419 774 800

*1 Hetrick
*2 Since left the AoG membership

Source: Philip Powell, Pastor Wayne Hughes General Superintendent, Assemblies of God in New Zealand, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_wh.html, Last revised December 11, 2002. [Archive 2003/02/02] [PDF]

2002/12/09- Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, thank him, provides historical context and pleased for Powell to make it public.

Powell published the following correspondence of Fowler (emphasis in bold- links added to read other letters),

Dear Philip

I am writing to thank you for the assistance and support you have provided, since I first contacted you in March*1 about my allegations that I was sexually abused by Frank Houston in 1972.

I had successfully blocked the memory of the sexual abuse which I suffered thirty years ago as a teenager, when I was a member of the Lower Hutt Assembly of God in New Zealand. This memory of those events only emerged again during therapy in 1997. However, at that time I did not feel ready to share this further or seek any form of reconciliation. However, earlier this year *3 I felt an overwhelming need to achieve some form of healing and closure to this terrible situation. After an Internet search revealed your published investigation of Houston and his past actions, I became aware that he had been removed from the ministry for “serious moral failure” in both Australia and New Zealand. I sensed that I was clearly not the only victim of this man’s abuse and that I needed to come forward and reveal what had happened to me. From the moment I first contacted you I felt that you treated my allegations with a sense of respect and sympathy, which I greatly appreciate.

Had it not been for the detailed investigations which you have published, I may not have been able to make contact with you, nor benefit from the many people within the Christian community who have offered their support and understanding, especially Rev. Barney Coombs in Canada and Pastor Don Barry in Hamilton, NZ.  I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your help and to up-date you on the progress of my attempts to achieve some sense of resolution.

In April*2 [2002] I engaged a lawyer in Auckland to contact the NZ AoG regarding my allegations, seeking a meeting with them with a view to discuss possible compensation. The AoG lawyers advised my lawyer  that Houston was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s but that the church would investigate my allegations. They advised that they were sending a senior member of their executive to Sydney to meet with Houston’s representatives and that they would respond after they had considered the outcome of their enquiries.

However, after several months all we received was a letter from the lawyers representing the AoG dated 27 September 2002, which questioned my memory of the precise dates and peripheral circumstances surrounding my allegations.  Essentially, they were questioning the validity of my allegations and using this to delay any serious response. They have also consistently declined to meet me or accept my offer to assist them with their investigation.

On  the 27th of November 2002,  I wrote directly to Neil Hetrick [Archive], who is currently the General Secretary of the NZ AoG and was also a Pastor who I knew thirty years ago at the Lower Hutt AoG.  I asked him to assist me in my quest for justice and to at least listen to my allegations. I have attached a copy of his response, which is devoid of sympathy, charity or any sense of pastoral understanding and care.

However this response is consistent with how the AoG has handled this matter from the very start.

I have responded with a letter to[Archive] Wayne Hughes, who is the General Superintendent, a copy of which is also attached.

For the past nine months I have attempted *4 to deal with this confidentially.  However the Assemblies of God in New Zealand refuse to meet with me or to provide an adequate response [Archive] to my allegations. I am therefore left with no option but to seek public support. In this regard, I would be grateful if you would publish my correspondence with both Neil Hetrick and Wayne Hughes. The Sydney Morning Herald and Television New Zealand, who are investigating Hillsong and Houston respectively, have also contacted me.

It is now my hope that public exposure will help to create a supportive environment in which other victims may feel able to join me in the search for justice. Perhaps only then, all of us, including Houston, can begin the long process of healing lives damaged by sexual abuse and the terrible breach of trust we placed in a minister of God.

Yours sincerely
Peter Fowler

9th December 2002

*1 2002
*2 2002
*3 2002
*4 Correspondence “to and fro” linked in this letter

Source: Peter Fowler writes to Philip Powell, Christian Witness Ministries, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/pf_plp.html, Last revised August 31, 2004. [Archive]

2002/12/11 – earliest Christian Witness Ministry page time stamped where Powell records Peter Fowler going public

Powell goes public with Fowler’s emails, publishing the Fowler/AOGNZ correspondence (see below) on the CWM website. He subsequently informed Wayne Hughes and others that the Fowler matter had gone public and provided the link. (This below article may have been published earlier, but the page records this information last being revised on December 11, 2002.)

Is AoG-NZ Hoping THIS Will Go Away?

Peter Fowler goes Public

In March 2002, Peter Fowler (formerly of Lower Hutt, New Zealand), contacted Philip Powell alleging that he had been sexually abused while in the AoG-NZ membership.

Peter Fowler had tried contacting the AoG-NZ Executive quietly, to obtain satisfaction and resolution to this matter. However, apart from a doubting reply, nothing has been resolved so Peter Fowler has now decided to go public on this matter in an attempt to urge the AoG-NZ to treat the matter adequately and with despatch.

This -by the way- is not the same case as can be read at …

Any further developments will also be posted here.

WHAT IS TRYING TO BE ACHIEVED HERE?

1.. [ Obviously Peter Fowler wants to have the matter resolved. Perhaps the AoG needs to copy the procedures set up by the RCC and C of E. -Ed ]
PF says “Yes, I would like action/resolution that attempts some form of healing/closure to the sexual abuse. I want them to acknowledge that it happened and apologise. I also want to know if [ Frank ] Houston has confessed and hear, either directly or indirectly from him that he has remorse and is also sorry. “

2.. This should also act as an encouragement for others, who consider that they also were abused, to come forward and state their claim. Contact Peter Fowler or CWM

3.. If the Shepherds of AoG will not change their ways then members of the AoG should move to a different -more honest- flock.
CWM encourages members to “come out”,  leave the AoG and worship our Lord Jesus Christ within a different flock.

The following letters were circulated to a wide number of people by email.

• • Correspondence with P. L. Powell
  • Correspondence with N. Hetrick 
  • Correspondence with W. Hughes 
  • Correspondence from Neil Hetrick

Source: Philip Powell, Is AoG-NZ Hoping THIS Will Go Away? Peter Fowler goes Public, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/1972_action.html, Last revised December 11, 2002. [Archive]

2003/01-02 Peter Fowler Emails are Public – Published on CWM website

It is noted on this Christian Witness Ministry page that Fowler’s letters were published earlier in Dec 2002, but this is the first occurrence found on Wayback machine/archive.org:

…  – Regarding AoG -NZ slowness to respond to alledged abuse claim. -Dec. 2002

The above link takes people back to the Peter Fowler emails page (emails are listed in full above under their date).

2003/01/30 Peter Fowler reassured by Brian’s public acknowledgement – ‘pedophilia‘ is finally revealed –  in the SMH Good Weekend report (25/1/2003)

Brian also said that “as soon as I found out I told the elders of this church and the Assemblies of God,” which is an allusion to how he handled the New Zealand psychologist victim in November, 2000. That is the only time he did this with a New Zealand victim. By saying he became aware of “other alleged victims have come forward,” he is sneakily covering all his bases so victims, like the psychologist, may think it is them that have ‘come forward’.

Brilliant play.

2003/05 – CWM Article – Donning the Mask Again – By SIAM BHAYRO and PHILIP POWELL

Powell writes on CWM about the scandals of Frank Houston, Bilby, Hughes, Liardon, Taylor, Williams

Donning the Mask Again
the “restoration” of the fallen

By SIAM BHAYRO and PHILIP POWELL

IN view of the number of high pro-file scandals that have arisen in Christian circles over the past few years, it is not surprising that this issue has finally surfaced.

Indeed, we are surprised it has not come up sooner. Of course, what we are referring to is the treatment of those scandalous fellows who, having been exposed and disciplined as frauds or sexual predators or false teachers, or men guilty of immorality, decide that they want their ministries back.

There are two things that we would like to make clear right away. Firstly, in view of the unreasonably high salaries that some international ministers have commanded, it is not surprising that they should seek to stage a “come-back”. Secondly, it gives us no pleasure to publish this sort of article and we only do it because of a sense of responsibility to the body of Christ. Scripture instructs us to

“have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” 
Eph 5:11

Restoration, like any other process is open to abuse. We at CWM are fully committed to the restoration of the fallen. This is an entirely honourable aim. So let us first establish some clear Bible based principles by which we can proceed.

Firstly, one who has sinned and been disciplined by the church and restored through sincere and proven repentance is welcomed back into fellowship.

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in an offence, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted”
Galatians 6:1

“Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted by many. So that on the contrary you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps he should be swallowed up with too much sorrow.?? 2 Corinthians 2:6,7 Secondly, we differentiate between fellowship (ministry) and leadership (authority). Thus, any leader should meet the requirements listed in Timothy and Titus etc. in respect of conduct and reputation ? especially the one about reproach. Some, who have fallen may find repentance but may have forfeited their right to a position of leadership because their reputation is not beyond reproach. ?Do not receive an accusation against an elder, except before two or three witnesses. Those that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge you before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that you observe these things outside preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.? ? 1 Timothy 5:19-21 ?Moreover he (an elder) must have a good report from outsiders; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil?? 1 Timothy 3:7 Thirdly, because we differentiate be-tween the exercise of spiritual gifts and the exercise of authority in the church, if one who has sinned and been restored to fellowship has a recognised gift of teaching, then the oversight may choose to let him bring the word under their auspices and in full knowledge of his past. ?Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry,let us wait on our ministering: or he that teaches, on teaching; Or he that exhorts, on exhortation:?? Romans 12:6-8 Fourthly, acceptance by the congregation is important ? serious and consistent sin may render an individual, in the opinion of the oversight and the congregation, not fit to minister. Even if the person is thus re-stored to fellowship, the question of acceptance by the congregation is still important, as the congregation will not accept the ministry of one who is considered unworthy to minister. ?Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith you are called?? Ephesians 4:1 ?That you might walk worthy of the Lord to all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God?? Colossians 1:10 Finally, the issue of reparations is important. Thus forgiveness by Christ and acceptance by the Body of Christ are not sufficient in the restoration of the individual. If one has stolen, that which was stolen must be returned. If one has sexually abused, there will be a penalty to pay under criminal or civil proceedings. If one has hurt another by one?s sin, there will be the need to compensate, again possibly through civil proceedings. Such reparations are essential, but often ignored under the false idea that they are made unnecessary by the work of the cross. ?Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law?? Romans 13:8 Having established these principles, albeit in a brief manner, let us proceed to analyse some case studies. In this article, we shall look at the following examples of discipline in the context of restoration: Ian Bilby, Roberts Liardon, Clark Taylor, Jim Williams and Frank Houston. While a good case can be made for the fact that each of the named is guilty of serious false teaching, or false prophecy, which should have excluded them long ago, the one ?sin? common to each is sexual immorality, which the Bible says is different from all other sins. It also carries with it social stigma which reflects upon the issues of reputation and ministerial acceptance: ?Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is outside the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body?? 1 Corinthians 6:18

Ian Bilby

Ian Bilby used to be the senior pastor of Auckland City Elim Church, and head of Elim in New Zealand. Bilby was found to be a serial adulterer over a period of at least two decades, while establishing his international ministerial reputation. This is the same per-son who, together with Gerald Coates (Pioneer – UK), predicted great earthquakes in Taupo, New Zealand and, in a fit of stupidity, placed a date for the prophecy to be fulfilled. This prophecy turned out to be false (quelle surprise!), a fact happily highlighted by the New Zealand national media thus discrediting many believers and the Church in general. On a personal note, Lisa Bhayro, wife of Vanguard’s editor, questioned Gerald Coates about false prophecy at Spring Harvest following this debacle. Coates’ response was that there is no such thing as false prophecy and he was, by all accounts, rather displeased at this line of questioning! Click HERE for the first part of our unmasked on Gerald Coates, in which this shameful episode is mentioned).

We are shocked that Bilby, having had so many affairs that a precise number can only be estimated (between ten and twenty), and having left a trail of hurt and emotional carnage in his wake, is angling to get back into the ministry. Here’s a report from New Zealand’s Challenge Weekly42 after which comes our analysis.

——————————-

IAN BILBY ON THE COME BACK TRAIL

Former senior pastor of Auckland City Elim Church Ian Bilby, who resigned due to seasons of immorality, is coming back to an Auckland church. In 1998 Challenge Weekly published a statement from Auckland City Elim saying that he stepped back from all ministry due to a moral failure in his life. The damage was done to his spouse, to himself, his children, to the church, the cause of Christ and against the Lord God. An ex-work colleague and other sources close to the Bilby family told Challenge Weekly that there were between 10–20 women who had an affair with Mr Bilby or were preyed upon over some 20 years. Sin has a way of tripping up the best of men, even to the extent that a comeback seems impossible. What happens when a nationally well-known Christian church leader confesses to a moral failure in his life, even though he has a reputation for preaching on what is right and wrong, and decrying the breakdown of today’s marriages and family life? How does God respond to a good man who falls into a flagrant sin? Has God any use for such a person again?

Comeback

Now, four years later, after a divorce, counselling in the US and living in Northland, reliable sources contacted Challenge Weekly saying that Mr Bilby is coming back on the Auckland church scene. Just over a year ago, Mr Bilby married Sophia, the former youth pastor of Auckland City Elim, and has been attending the Kaitaia Elim Church. Since February it has become a Destiny Church. Senior pastors Brian and Hannah Tamaki told Challenge Weekly that when the Kaitaia Destiny Church was launched, to their surprise they saw Ian amongst the congregation. He was going along there as part of his four years of sitting back. “That’s how we made the initial contact. I believe it was no coincidence. If there is a church that can start to restore what was done wrong, that was broken and fallen, that is us! It is from then onwards that Hannah and I have had frequent time with Ian and Sophia. That rekindled a relationship which goes way back,” explains Brian.

Restoration

Brian has invited Ian and his new wife, to come to their Auckland Destiny Church. “He’s coming in here and being part of this ministry but not in a leadership role. He has totally submitted himself to Destiny Church. We will draw from his resources and he will be working directly with me. He is accountable to me, and one of my senior pastors as well. We want to begin to bring a process of full restoration. I think personally the full deal of restoration is not just repenting and counselling, and proving this is right over a period of time, but also to be restored back to ministry. To whatever that level is. To disqualify somebody forever, even after having repented, and shown the fruit over a number of years, that is not right.” Another chance “I think a lot of the problem is not whether or not he has properly repented and been restored, but with those who feel robbed or betrayed. That is more the issue, I think. Of course someone can be forgiven and given another chance. The fact that he got married again to this person from his past, I’ve come to terms with. I wouldn’t have accepted them here at Destiny, if I didn’t think there wasn’t something there between them and God. To the end of my probing him, I came to a point where I was reasonably satisfied. I know that some people will comment and that is their freedom. I’m big enough to take that. The criticism is fine but I’ve got to trust God that somehow I’m involved in a restoration process that I haven’t walked before either.”

Deep concern

Pastor Luke Brough from Auckland East City Elim Church, and president of the Elim National Executive, commented that the Elim Church of NZ has not been consulted regarding the return of Ian Bilby to ministry. “Our position at this time would be one of deep concern, particularly as there has never been any expression of sorrow or regret from Ian to the Elim National Leader-ship Team for his actions. Church leadership is a position of trust, and although there is certainly forgiveness for those who repent, when that trust has been broken, it is not necessarily wise to place that person back into a leadership position. Consideration must also be given to the people and families that were affected by Ian’s actions,” says Mr Brough.

Reconciliation

Brian Tamaki says he is aware of the sensitive nature of bringing back Mr Bilby to where he came from. “Do you think I would jeopardise the presence of this church by bringing in someone who I thought, hadn’t done the work of repentance? At the same time, I believe there are very few churches who have the ability or depth, to be able to properly restore broken and fallen ministries in this country. I’m not saying it is the fault of the church in NZ, but somewhere a church has to begin to make some steps towards that reconciliation and the full process of recovering and restoring a broken and fallen ministry. Who is to know that after six months Ian trusts me enough, and the time has come for him to face Auckland City Elim and do what he needs to do,” says Mr Tamaki.

But the big question remains, what does the immediate family think of all this, and all those other people involved who were terribly hurt and had to go through the worst couple of years in their lives? They are alarmed and mortified by the idea that Mr Bilby and his new wife are coming back to the scene where it all began four years ago.

——————————-

Brian Tamaki, the man responsible for bringing Bilby back, is a New Zealand televangelist whose organisation is experiencing impressive rates of growth. He is getting much media attention, thus making him a perfect “target” for another shameful scandal. But that aside the basic question remains, “Is the discipline and proposed ‘restoration’ of Ian Bilby biblical?” In trying to provide a reasonable answer to that question two others suggest themselves, based on the Scriptures listed above:

1. Did the Elim authorities act biblically when they instituted the discipline of Bilby in the first place and did their role and responsibility cease at that point?

“Those that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” —
1 Timothy 5: 20

This question and the quoted Bible text take us right back to the start of the process after Bilby was found guilty. There seems to be no doubt that he was guilty. The Weekly Challenge article refers to a period when Bilby was “sitting back” as “part of his four years” discipline. It seems clear that Tamaki, the man who is now initiating the “restoration” of Bilby did recognise the required period of discipline, which presumably was instituted by Elim – certainly not by Tamaki. The primary question remains: Was Bilby publicly rebuked? If so, was the rebuke in the terms and before those whom Paul had in mind in his instruction to Timothy?

The context of 1 Tim 5:20 relates to leaders (elders) within the local church. Paul the apostle is instructing Timothy in his Church planting and pastoral work how to deal with the sins and failures of local Church leaders (elders). In view of the fact that God in-spires all scripture, and we do not have any other guideline in relation to leaders on this matter in the Bible, this text is pertinent and vitally important to what we are discussing. If the start of the process is faulty then everything that proceeds will be flawed.

From our knowledge of the case (Philip Powell was in New Zealand when Ian Bilby was exposed and disciplined) Bilby was not “rebuked before all.” It would appear at best he was rebuked before his colleagues and not in front of his local church congregation. Paul had the local church in view when he told Timothy to rebuke a leader who had sinned, “before all” and he had the local church in mind when he spoke about restoration in 2 Cor 2:6, 7. Now that we live in a “global village”, in which some Church leaders, such as Bilby, operate internationally, to “rebuke before all” means more than the local church congregation, but it MUST include the local church congregation other-wise the instruction is meaningless. The end result “that others may fear” is completely lost.

Are we in danger of missing something that is crucial in the entire disciplining and restoration process if we fail to do what Paul told Timothy must be done? I think we are.

Take the case of Bilby. If at the outset he had been rebuked in front of his congregation with the details of his sin and the terms of his discipline being spelled out and that information had been given to “all” on the national and international scene where he was known and had “ministered” would we be facing the scenario that Brian Tamaki has created in this so called “restoration” process? I think not. Would we by doing as Paul requires contribute to an atmosphere of the “fear of the Lord”? I think so.

The rightful disciplining body is the local church and the rightful restoring agency must of necessity be that same local church. To depart from this is to depart from biblical procedure and to endanger the intrusion of cronyism and nepotism, which have invaded the Christian Church to the point where impartiality in judgement has been jettisoned. This ultimately incurs the wrath of God almighty.

I am not suggesting that denominational “hierarchies” should not be involved, but I am suggesting that the local church must be involved both in the discipline and in the restoration. Indeed, such denominational hierarchies did not exist in the New Testament church, so the entire process was meant to be conducted by the local church. If it was true then, I can see no biblical reason for it not to be true today.

2. How do Elim and Destiny measure repentance and forgiveness? Who deter-mines the ground rules and decides where the goal posts are?

“You shall not commit adultery” —
Exodus 20:14

“Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is outside the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body”—
1 Corinthians 6:18

“And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marryanother, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which was put away commits adultery”—
Matthew 19:9

“Moreover he (an elder) must have a good report among those who are outside; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil’—
1 Timothy 3:7

Ian Bilby is a divorced and remarried man. He was a high profile church leader, pastor of the largest Elim Church in New Zealand at that time, and president of the Elim movement in that country. He failed to observe the instruction (command) of 1 Cor 6: 18 and as a result “sinned” against his own body repeatedly.

In the light of his undisputed numerous incidents of “adultery” it is impossible that he should claim the exceptive clause of Matt 19: 9, which means that biblically he is living in a state of continuous “adultery”. Can he in any sense of 1 Tim 3:7 “have a good report” of anyone, within or outside the Church?

So in summary — this entire sad scenario of Ian Bilby reflects in the first instance on ELIM. Did they act biblically? Secondly, it reflects on this comparatively new denomination called DESTINY and on Brian Tamaki. Is Tamaki biblically correct to initiate or even think of restoring Bilby to ministry?

Sadly like so many church leaders it would appear that Tamaki mixes forgiveness, which only God can grant, with standards of leadership, which God has provided in the Bible.

Thirdly, it reflects hugely on Bilby himself who, having brought disgrace upon himself, his family, his former local church and de-nomination, is now allowing himself to be put forward for reinstatement into the “ministry” from which on a number of causes he is biblically excluded.

We can imagine the awful shame that Ian’s first wife, their family, those other women, families and the Auckland and New Zealand Elim must feel at the reopening of this deep wound and we can only wonder that any man would want to put anyone through that.

Roberts Liardon

Roberts Liardon is a prominent Charismatic leader based in California, who “confessed” to a homosexual relationship and “stepped down” from the ministry. He was “disciplined” in December 2001 and was back ministering by March 2002 — three months later — to a standing ovation of those who remained in the Church. Just in case you think I have spelt Liardon’s first name incorrectly, I should point out that he is called Roberts in honour of Oral Roberts, from whose “University” he graduated.

He claims to have been taken to heaven as a boy, where he had a water fight with Jesus in the River of Life (see William Alnor’s Heaven Can’t Wait: A Survey of Alleged Trips to the Other Side).

Vanguard previously published published an analysis of Liardon as part of our Unmasked series on Colin Dye

The following report comes from the Charisma News Serviceweb pages and is dated Monday, March 11th, 2002 (http:// http://www.charismanews.com/online/articledisplay.pl?ArticleID=5596):

——————————-

EMBATTLED ROBERTS LIARDON PREACHES AGAIN

Pastor and writer Roberts Liardon preached yesterday at his church for the first time since he stepped down three months ago after admitting to a “moral failure.” The founder of Embassy Christian Centre in Irvine, Calif., gave a 30-minute message on keeping the faith. In December, Liardon confessed to a short-term homosexual relation-ship with the church’s youth pastor, John Carrette.

“Those around me asked me to come,” Liardon said yesterday. He received a 30-second standing ovation from about 650 people. Liardon, 36, told the Embassy congregation that his appearance was “just for one Sunday. I am still working with my counselling.”

While not addressing any specific situation, Liardon said: “[We have] gone through some great dramatics in the last few months…Our church has gone through a crisis…but it is [going to be] OK. God is in charge…He does not come to destroy. He comes to lift you.”

Liardon later told “Charisma” that his counsellors, particularly El Paso, Texas, pastor Charles Nieman, had encouraged him to preach, and it fit the schedule to do so at this time. Liardon made the announcements and took an offering at previous services, but yesterday’s was his first sermon.

About one-quarter of Embassy members, as well as Bible college students and missionaries, have left the church since Liardon’s admission.

——————————-

Okay – this raises some interesting questions. Let us assume that Liardon has truly repented and demonstrated a new life over the three months of his exclusion from ministry. We would not in principle want to exclude him from ministering, so long as it is under the authority of godly elders, on account of a “moral failure”, but we would certainly urge that he is excluded from minis-try on account that he is a false teacher.

But then again, why should an American Charismatic movement steeped in heresy do this? The question of acceptability comes into play here, and it is clear that at least a quarter of Liardon’s former followers no longer find him acceptable.

It is a shame that they find his homo-sexuality unacceptable, but not his blasphemy – if we accept that some sins are worse than others, which do you think is worse?

Clark Taylor, Jim Williams, Frank Houston

CWM has referred to these names before*1 so we won’t labour the matter, but give some brief background detail followed by a few comments on issues of biblical discipline. Those who wish to investigate further should contact the Australian CWM office — see front cover — for the publications’ date of the proposed booklet about the Houstons and Hillsong.

All three cases underscore the fact that if things are not dealt with biblically at the start they will fester and become ugly. Each reflects on church leadership at the highest level. None of the three men was rebuked in front of his congregation and there was no provision for the local church to be involved in any restoration process. Only the denominational hierarchy and the local church leadership at most were in any way involved. This is not biblical discipline.

The cases of Williams and Houston are somewhat unusual in terms of the past, as they involve two different countries, New Zealand and Australia, and four different local churches – Hamilton and Brisbane in the case of Williams and Lower Hutt and Sydney in that of Houston. This scenario could become more common as travel in-creases. Clark Taylor has passed through various disciplines and at least two at-tempted restorations. He appears to be a law unto himself having made another come back as a twice divorced and remarried man who has returned to his first wife and now ‘pastors’ a large independent congregation in South Brisbane.

Jim Williams succeeded Frank Houston as General Superintendent of Assemblies of God in New Zealand, a position which each held for a number of years. Williams was a friend and close confidante of Ian Bilby. The Australian AoG has disciplined both Williams and Houston for admitted serious sexual immorality, which occurred when they held high office in their denominations. Official letters written on 15 November 1993, 21 December 2001 and 24 December 2001 make this abundantly clear.

There are disparities and contradictions in each of these two cases, which exacerbate an already very bad situation and these reflect on the biblical requirement regarding discipline in both cases and restoration in one. First let’s have a look at the case of Clark Taylor.

Clark Taylor (CT)

CWM published a short article headed DISGRACED PASTOR SETS UP CHURCH. Quoting Brisbane’s Courier Mail we informed our readers that Clark Taylor former head of Christian Outreach Centres (COC), who was deposed in 1990 for admitted “multiple acts of adultery”was back with a congregation of 750 in South Brisbane’s Bible belt. Since then his church has continued to grow to a claimed 1,000 strong congregation each Sunday and another church plant on the Sunshine Coast.

Mr Taylor is a twice divorced and remarried man who has on advice returned to and remarried his first wife. Rumour has it that he was told that if he returned to his first wife God would restore his ministry. It is also alleged that a large sum of money was given to him to start again.

CWM has in its files a number of news-paper cuttings, which tell the Clark Taylor story. He commenced COC in 1974 in the lounge of a Brisbane home. He claims that he was converted when he cried out to God to save him as he dangled on the horns of a bull while mustering cattle in the outback. “Right then an Aboriginal stockman caught the bull and saved his bacon.”

A former Methodist minister Taylor teamed up with Trevor Chandler who formed Christian Life Centres International (CLCI). When he got the run of things Clark left Trevor to start his own church and denomination, which grew to a point where it was known as the largest “fundamentalist church” in Australia. The local COC in Brisbane boasted a congregation of 5,000 in its heyday (pardon the pun, with all that about the “bull”).

Brisbane’s Sunday Mail (November 11, 1990) featured a story about Clark Taylor’s change of “calling”. “FROM LORD OF PSALMS TO KING OF PALMS, WITH A FLOCK THAT KEEPS ON GROWING” is the catchy headline. The opening reads thus:

“THE disgraced former leader of Queens-land’s fastest growing hot-gospel church has swapped singing psalms to become the State’s undisputed King of Palms. Former Christian Outreach Centre head Mr Clark Taylor, who resigned earlier this year when a series of sex scandals came to light, has shrugged the setback by setting up a vast wholesale nursery selling exotic plants around Australia.”

This is the article that reports the story of the Aboriginal who saved Taylor’s bacon from the horns of his dilemma, but that was not his only dilemma by all accounts.

Brisbane’s Courier Mail (Saturday, February 20, 1993) features a story about Clark under the heading NEW CHURCH FOR SHAMED TV MINISTER. We are told in this article that Clark Taylor who resigned in “disgrace after revelations of an extra-marital affair with a member of his flock” three years previous is “back behind the pulpit” as “head pastor of the Victory Christian Centre with a congregation of more than 200.” In respect of the original discipline three years previous the newspaper explains, “Mr Taylor did not confront his Mansfield Congregation when he resigned; instead his brother, Max, read out a letter of resignation to the shocked followers.” It also reports “Church officials” as confirming that Mr Taylor had a previous “sex scandal” in 1979 when he was cautioned by “senior pastors” and for which he asked his congregation “for forgiveness at the time”. According to the newspaper report Taylor was preaching regularly at his Mansfield congregation and appearing on television in the Church’s A New Way of Living programme when the affair happened. Okay – so in this case study what we see is a series of disciplines and “restorations”. One newspaper reports a Church official Mr Myers as saying, “The first matter was considered by the Oversight (senior pastors) who unanimously agreed to allow Clark, who had sought forgiveness to continue preaching.” That was the 1979 incident. Later when he resigned in 1990 Clark’s brother read a letter of resignation in Clark’s absence. He made some sort of a come back in 1993 and then again fell by the way side. Now since May 2001 he is back with a congregation of 1000 and once more he is appearing on Television with all his false teaching and manifestations associated with being “slain in the spirit” and “words of knowledge” etc. Obviously Clark Taylor is getting older which may affect his life style, but he’s still continuing his heretical “word of knowledge” and “slaying in the spirit” activity.

Jim Williams (JW):

In the case of Williams the letter of notice (15/11/93) states that suspension from all forms of ministry for two years was, “Because of the serious nature and pattern of sin, the high profile and responsibility he (JW) has held, the long term concealment of his sin, and the requirement for discipline as set down by the Conference …”. Amazingly the only condition for a “return to ministry” was that JW should not disturb his former congregation in any way. There is no reference to real fruit of repentance, just the simple requirement that he did not disturb (whatever that means) the congregation of the church of which he was formerly the Senior Pastor.

Philip Powell, National General Secretary of AoG in Australia from 1989 to 1992 and a contributor to this article recalls that during his time in office a two-year suspension was seen as one of the lowest forms of discipline that was supposed to be imposed on anyone in ministry who committed immorality. The most severe was expulsion from the ministry in which connection it was explicitly stated that anyone guilty of multiple offences could be removed from the ministry permanently. Powell comments, “There appears to be a clear case of cronyism here. The judgment in my view was not impartial and therefore it was not biblical. In addition the condition imposed for a return to ministry, though absurd and totally inadequate could not possibly have been met seeing that JW, on reinstatement to the ministry became pastor of a break-away assembly just five or six miles distant from his previous local church, which was actually formed by those who left the Garden City Christian Churchat or about the time of his discipline.”

Bad as this is the matter gets worse. On 21 December 2001, eight years after the first official letter of discipline relating to JW, R Wayne Hughes then General Superintendent of AoG in New Zealand issued a letter in which he referred to Frank Houston (see below) and to Jim Williams, of whom he wrote: “Although he has been disciplined, stood down for two years, and reinstated by Australian A/G, he is not released to minister in our New Zealand churches because of the number of offences over a lengthy period of time in our country, and the fact that some of his victims would have difficulty in seeing him in a position of trust.”

Wayne Hughes’ use of the word “victims” has ominous overtones, which are bound to raise questions as to what future disclosures may occur.

If you read the letter at the above URL you will see that it effectively bans Williams and Houston, both former AoG General Superintendents, from public ministry in New Zealand Assemblies of God for life. The situation is very different in Australia where Williams was banned (suspended) for only two years and where he has been ministering in a large AoG in South Brisbane since his reinstatement to ministry. Confusion reigns.

A major default in this process is the non-involvement of the local church in any rebuke of JW before his congregation (start of discipline) and in any restoration. If leaders do not follow the biblical model of the discipline of erring leaders it is inevitable that conjecture and gossip will ensue. A clear public rebuke “before all”, stating the basic details at the outset, will avoid much of this. We cannot be wiser than the Bible.

Frank Houston (FH):

While disagreeing with their New Zealand counterparts in respect of Jim Williams the Australian AoG agree in respect of Frank Houston and have banned him from ministry for life (see letter 24/12/2001 written by John Lewis Vice President AoG Australia).

Frank Houston, from a biblical perspective should have been rebuked in front of the Sydney Christian Life Centre (CLC) congregation and also in front of the Lower Hutt Assembly of God at the time of his discipline, towards the end of 1999. He was not. As a result shocking information about the nature of his sin has gradually seeped through. The letter of notice written by John Lewis on 24/12/2001, more than twelve months after the imposition of discipline (why the delay?) failed to disclose the nature of the sin and the reason for the severe discipline, which was in effect expulsion from the ministry though it is not stated as such. The letter is couched in terms of cronyism which is a denial of the clear teaching of Scripture e.g. Ezekiel 18: 24-26

Sadly what is now emerging in the case of Frank Houston are allegations of paedophilia. The latest is a new charge from a certain Peter Fowler who for almost twelve months has been trying to meet with the AoG hierarchies in New Zealand and Australia. Fowler alleges that he has discovered others who allege sexual abuse by FH. At the time of going to press we understand that Peter Fowler has met the NZ AoG but the Houstons are refusing to meet him. We also understand that the AoG in New Zealand have agreed that Peter Fowler’s allegations against FH are valid.

Okay – so Frank Houston the highflying church planter who was touted an apostle by David Cartledge*2 and other of the National AoG Executive members in Australia has been permanently removed from ministry. So why are we commenting seeing this is not a case of restoration?

For two reasons: Firstly because this case again demonstrates the wisdom of the biblical instruction about disciplining a leader. If FH had been rebuked before all at the outset many would have been saved from the shock of the later discoveries as to the nature of his sin. Secondly the on-going influence of Frank Houston’s false teaching contained on tapes and in his books would have been reduced. Re-cently Philip Powell asked the Koorong Bookshop in Brisbane if they stocked any books byFrank Houston. The assistant manager check-ed on her computer and discovered his “Release of the Human Spirit”. She knew nothing of the recent disclosures about the author and was quite shocked at the information.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?

Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you shall know them” —
Matt 7:15-20

In summary

These cases, with the possible exception of that of Roberts Liardon, demonstrate that the basic fault was failure to carry out the biblical requirement to rebuke a sinning leader (elder) “before all that others also may fear”(1 Tim 5:20). This should apply to both immorality and heresy. All of the above case studies reflect on the basic biblical requirement that a Christian leader be above reproach in matters of conduct and character. They also reflect on the question of marital status, especially in the cases of Ian Bilby and Clark Taylor.

“Don’t you know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. What? Don’t you know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, said he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is outside the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body. What? Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, which you have from God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s”–
1 Cor 7:15-20

“For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you: If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused dissoluteness or insubordination. For an overseer must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not quick tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, self control-led; Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the contrary”—
Titus 1:4-9

“When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and you shall not bring sin to the land, which the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance”—
Deuteronomy 24:1-4

It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness”—
Proverbs 16:12

Gloria Deo.

———————*

1 Jim Williams see
http://www/c-w-m/aog/ pf_emails.html Frank Houston see
http://www/c-w-m/aog/ pf_emails.html;
http://www/c-w-m/aog/nh_pf.html;
http://www/c-w-m/aog/pf_plp.html;
http://www/c-wm/aog/pf_wh.html;
http://www/c-w-m/archives/ cetf2002/accd02.html;
http://www/c-w-m/archives/ van2002/houston2_15.html;
http://www/c-w-m/ archives/cetf1995/ezekiel.html;
http://www/c-w-m/ aog/hillsong0.html;
http://www/c-w-m/aog/ db_art.
html; http://www/c-w-m/aog/hillsong3.html;
http://www/c-w-m/archives/cetf2000/ aust00tour.html;
http://www/c-w-m/archives/ van2000/houston1.html Clark Taylor see
http://www.c-w-m/archives/cetf2001 /tongues01.html
/not_in_pubs/april_mmDetail.html

OR use the SEARCH Field

* 2 See The Apostolic Revolution © David Cartledge 2000.
Published by Paraclete Institute, pp125-128, 140-153 (especially 145 — quote “Most people within the entire Penetecostal movement in Australia and New Zealand, and in many other parts of the world recognise Frank Houston as a proven apostle.”)
The latter statement is monstrously untrue.

Appeared in Issue 16 Vanguard – May 2003
“…contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” — Jude v3

Source: http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/van2003/bilby_restor16.html, Archive

2003/05? Responses to Donning Mask Again Article

Philip Powell writes (emphases added),

… AoG-NZ and AoG-OZ I’ve come across your Christian witness website recently, and it’s raised a few questions that I would like to take up with you; in that once upon a time I was part of Frank Houston’s church in Lower Hutt, and Neville Johnson’s at Queen Street, Auckland. Anyway, with that background in place:
* You seem greatly concerned about the state of the Australian AoG, especially under Brian Houston. How do you see the New Zealand AoG’s situation? Admittedly it has had to deal with Frank at something of a distance, and Jim Williams’ situation can’t have helped.
* You could also look at Neville Johnson still being in ministry — I was part of the church he was pastoring when he fell, in 1983, and I never felt that the matter was properly dealt with.

EDITOR –
I agree with you that the Neville Johnson situation was never properly dealt with. The consequence is the present situation where the cases of Frank Houston and Jim Williams have also been dealt with inadequately. Thankfully since Kem Price took on the position of acting General Superintendent of AoG–NZ (Dec 2002) there are indications that matters are being addressed in the case of Frank Houston at least from the NZ end. We understand that the Houstons have taken an entrenched position refusing to meet Peter Fowler who has alleged abuse. We trust that the action of AoG–NZ and our efforts will lead to a situation where the two Australasian Assemblies of God national fellowships will become transparent in their exposure of what occurred in the past as well as their approach to the present and future. When high officials in a spiritual movement fall seriously as did Neville Johnson and the two former General Superintendents of AOGNZ a gaping hole is created at the top, which can only be closed by open acknowledgement and repentance (PP).

Source: Published by Philip Powell, Your Letters, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letters2.html, Last revised September 04, 2004. [Archived]

2003/05? Responses from Ian Bilby: to the published ‘Donning the Mask Again’ article

It is important to note CWM’s publishing philosophy. Below, Powell states CWM normally contacts the named persons in his article prior to publishing allowing for a discussion/response and correction. This is what Powell did before publishing ‘Australian Christian Church Head: guilty of immorality’ in December 2001.

In response to him emailing both Australian and New Zealand AOGs and Hillsong leaders, both AOGs finally released ‘extreme confidential’ communications to their AOG leaders about Frank Houston, Powell getting his hands on the Australian AOGA email. He published his original article that reported on Hillsong’s Pat Mesiti and publicly shared his investigations into Frank Houston’s sexual offenses in New Zealand.

He also disclosed information about other disgraced ministers like Ian Bilby in the original 2001 article. Powell wrote on Ian Bilby multiple times, this time receiving a response from Bilby (emphasis added):

Donning The Mask Again

EDITORIAL COMMENT: At CWM where possible and practical we make prior contact with those whom we name, giving them an opportunity to comment on what we propose to publish. In the case of Ian Bilby, named in Donning the Mask Again ( VANGUARD 17 – June 2003) we contacted him and the office of Brian Tamaki at DESTINY. The latter responded prior to our going to press as a result of which we made one slight alteration to the text. Ian also wrote but his letter was too late for any action on our part until now. We publish it hereunder with some brief editorial comments that follow. This letter from Ian was received on July 7, 2003. (PP)

Dear Philip,

I have read the article on “Donning The Mask Again” with considerable interest. I am a little surprised that you would reprint the Challenge Weekly article, as it is wrong in a number of places. As this article appears to be the basis of much of your comment it is appropriate that I point out some factual errors in the article. * First I did not have affairs with anywhere near 10 women, let alone 20 as suggested. Neither was my failure “over 20 years”. The truth is sad enough but this sort of careless and highly exaggerated extrapolation is nonsense. * I was not “sitting back for four years”. This statement seems to imply that I was under some sort of restriction for 4 years. No term of ‘sitting back’ has ever been suggested to me by Elim. If there was any such restriction they never informed me. * The statement that my immediate family are “alarmed and mortified” by my present situation is also not true. My 4 children, my brother and mother i.e. my immediate family have all been wonderfully supportive of my marriage to Sophia and to both of us in our return to Auckland. * Also Sophia was never the Youth Pastor of the Church. You state regarding the earthquake scenario that I “..in a fit of stupidity, placed a date for the prophecy to be fulfilled.” This I never did. I was always very careful to avoid such stupidity. Unfortunately what I said and what Gerald Coates had said were lumped together. What I had shared had nothing to do with Taupo or a specific date. No matter how careful I was in what I said, people just lumped the two things together, failing to listen to what I had actually said. I was somewhat staggered to read in the Challenge article that according to Luke Brough “….There has never been any expression of sorrow or regret from Ian to the Elim National Leadership Team for his actions.” I had no idea he felt this way. The Executive received a copy of my letter of resignation, which contained considerable expressions of sorrow and regret and heartfelt apologies to all affected by my shameful failure. They replied to this letter of resignation from all ministry, by accepting it, and wrote one other paragraph informing me that it was their wish that I not attend Auckland City Elim Church or have contact with its people. Apart from this brief letter of reply from their secretary, I have not been officially contacted in nearly 5 years. I have never been contacted with regard to any other discipline or restriction regarding any kind of ministry. They then sent a copy of my resignation letter to all of the pastors of the Elim Churches in New Zealand. I also sent a copy to the Executive of Elim in the U.K. To state that they have never received any expression of sorrow or regret from me seems strange. I have never been invited to attend an Executive Meeting to personally apologise to them although I did receive a visit from three Executive members, and their wives at my home as they were “in the area” about a year after my resignation, and so I took the opportunity to apologise to those present then. The hour together was very warm and encouraging giving me no idea that they were still awaiting an “official apology”. I fully expected to be called to see them at the time of my resignation concerning the dreadful situation that I had fallen into. I never was. At the suggestion of the then President I sought extensive and intensive counselling from very skilled counsellors. They even offered to pay a percentage of the costs of such counselling, an offer which I declined. The Elim Executive have made no inquiry as to how I got on, nor did they ever inquire of the counsellors as to my progress. Some 18 months ago my pastor approached them on my behalf regarding the possibility of reconciliation, but apparently was told that they had no intention of ever inviting me to an Executive Meeting, and were certainly not interested in any possibility of reconciliation or restoration. I rightfully or wrongfully concluded, as did my pastor, that they had ‘washed their hands’ of me. This was interesting in the light of the fact that they had right at the beginning removed the right of discipline and the process of restoration from the local church and specifically taken it upon themselves. At the time I was never invited to attend the meeting where my resignation and apology was read out to the local congregation. A month after this I was open to the possibility of addressing a gathering of the leaders of the local church (about 200 people), to apologise to them personally, but it was not deemed appropriate by the elders of the church at the time. Our return to Auckland was not in any way precipitated by ourselves. We were very content in the Far North teaching in the local High School and enjoying a relaxed lifestyle. Ministry of any sort was not at all needed or sought after, although we were participating in a local church at the request of the pastor and support of the people, as and if required. We were not then, and never have been “angling to get back into the ministry”, as you suggest. We have simply responded to Pastor Brian and Hannah Tamaki’s invitation to help them in the great work in the Destiny Church in Auckland. After some deliberation and consultation with my children, my pastor, and others, we looked carefully at the proposed role and decided to accept. We are not credentialed ministers. We are not in the leadership team as such. We are just working in the church at various tasks as requested. Among other things, we teach various classes under the supervision of the pastoral staff in the way that you suggest in your article. The other people on staff and the congregation have been very supportive of us both in these roles. We would have certainly liked Elim to take some initiative towards us, even if it was just to let us know that they were not going to attempt any sort of restoration, or perhaps suggesting a period of time after which our situation would be reviewed. Such has never been the case. Their total silence has meant that we have felt free to respond to the opportunity presented to us. I trust that these notes, help to clarify some issues from my point of view, help to eliminate untruth’s from your article, and help a little to explain our present situation. I realise fully, that having failed so badly, I was in no position to expect any prospect of any future ministry. I so badly disappointed, hurt and brought shame to so many, primarily of course the Lord Jesus Christ, that I did not consider any real possibility of being helpful in any sort of ministry role again. All I have done right now is to come under the covering of another ministry, and a pastor, who wanted us, and who has cared for us, and under him submit to the hand of God. Thank you for showing me the courtesy of being asked to comment on your article, a courtesy not shown to me by anyone else.
Yours sincerely
Ian W. Bilby

EDITORIAL COMMENT: The above letter and attitude are greatly appreciated by us at CWM. We regret any implied idea that it was Ian Bilby who set the date for the earthquake prophecy. It was our understanding that such was set by Gerald Coates, which is what we intended to convey. We are pleased that Ian and by implication Destiny agree with us in our differentiating between ministry and authority. We do retain concerns that if Mr Bilby is involved in any form of ministry then he is doing so as a divorced and re-married man who cannot claim the exceptive clause mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19:9. As such we fail to see how he can be above ?reproach?. The issue of on-going adultery is something that he and Destiny should seriously consider. May Jesus Christ be praised in all things! (PP)

[…]

CWM on SBS INSIGHT – Sydney,

Australia TV – June 5 & 6, 2003. Dear Mr Powell, I was recently watching SBS TV with interest regarding the Hillsong church. This led me to do a web search for Christian Witness Ministries. It was interesting reading to say the least, however I was surprised to see my last pastor’s name in some of your articles (Neville Johnson). I say my last pastor’s name because after my whole family suffered under his pastorate we have never recovered spiritually to this day. We attended Kings City Church in the heart of Perth for 5 years, leaving around 1995. I read in one of your articles that when the leader isn’t right with God it can destroy the hearts of the faithful. I can only agree. It seems a shame for us that we live in WA because I’m sure we could benefit under your type of ministry. I must say we have tried other churches in our area (name of church withheld) … and after a short while found out that they preach and behave somewhat the same as Hillsong. We were even told that if we did not give money to the church then we cannot confess to loving God. If you love God you would give. We even tried going back to an evangelical church (name withheld) … only to find that they are heavily involved with Hillsong, and were going down the same road. Well as I have stated we have never recovered from being under Neville and sometimes feel quite cheated. Anyhow we read your sites with interest and would love to talk to you one day about things. Thanking you for your time. Kindest Regards —PH, Perth, WA

Source: Philip Powell, Your Letters, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letters2.html, Last revised September 04, 2004. [Archive]

2003/09 Letters section Appeared in CETF 9.1 September 2003

Powell published the following (emphasis in bold),

EDITOR –

I agree with you that the Neville Johnson situation was never properly dealt with. The consequence is the present situation where the cases of Frank Houston and Jim Williams have also been dealt with inadequately. Thankfully since Kem Price took on the position of acting General Superintendent of AoG–NZ (Dec 2002) there are indications that matters are being addressed in the case of Frank Houston at least from the NZ end.We understand that the Houstons have taken an entrenched position refusing to meet Peter Fowler who has alleged abuse. We trust that the action of AoG–NZ and our efforts will lead to a situation where the two Australasian Assemblies of God national fellowships will become transparent in their exposure of what occurred in the past as well as their approach to the present and future. When high officials in a spiritual movement fall seriously as did Neville Johnson and the two former General Superintendents of AOGNZ a gaping hole is created at the top, which can only be closed by open acknowledgement and repentance (PP).

ALSO  :Policy of contacting those named prior to publishing

EDITORIAL COMMENT:At CWM where possible and practical we make prior contact with those whom we name, giving them an opportunity to comment on what we propose to publish. In the case of Ian Bilby, named in Donning the Mask Again ( VANGUARD 17 – June 2003) we contacted him and the office of Brian Tamaki at DESTINY. The latter responded prior to our going to press as a result of which we made one slight alteration to the text. Ian also wrote but his letter was too late for any action on our part until now. We publish it hereunder with some brief editorial comments that follow. This letter from Ian was received on July 7, 2003. (PP)

Source: Philip Powell, Your Letters, CWM, http://christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letters2.html, Last revised September 04, 2004. [Archive]

2005/04/16-19 – Letters to Maria Ieroianni, Brian Houston, John Lewis sent

NOTE: POWELL ASKS WHY BRIAN AND AOGA HAVE NOT REPORTED FRANK TO POLICE because they have evidence and it is a crime.

Powell writes (emphasis ours):

“Those who are named in this letter viz Maria Ieroianni, Communications manager, HILLSONG CHURCH and Brian Houston and John Lewis AoG-Australia officials were issued with the substance of this letter [see below, 2005/04/26] by way of emails on April 16, 2005 (to Maria Ieroianni) and April 19, 2005 (to Brian Houston, and John Lewis). Each of the persons named was invited to comment by way of response to Philip Powell.

As there has been no reply we are now taking this further action, while remaining open for the response of those named, before CWM publishes the advertised book.”  

Source: Philip Powell, An Open Letter to All Christians Everywhere, CWM,  https://href.li/?http://christian-witness.org/docs/openletaog5.doc, Published April 26, 2005. [Archive]

2005/04/26 – Powell: An Open Letter to All Christians Everywhere – Substance of letters already sent to Maria Ieroianni, Brian Houston, John Lewis on CWM.  Powell notes pedophilia is is a crime, so has it been reported?

Powel writes (emphasis added),

Maria Ieroianni,
Communications manager,
HILLSONG CHURCH

An Open Letter from Philip L. Powell

April 26^th , 2005

The main substance of this letter was sent to the addressee on 16^th  April, 2005  There has been no response.

Dear Maria:

I have just discovered your email address on the Hillsong Web Site. Before publishing anything in which we name names and present facts we try to contact those whom we name or who are implicated in what we propose to publish. We have done this throughout in respect of our disclosures about Hillsong. In a number of notable cases those whom we contact fail to respond. Brian Houston and his late father are cases in point, as are the present leaders of AoG who have constantly resisted my offers to meet them in order to discuss important issues. In view of this intransigent attitude there appears to be no way to resolve matters of significance apart from our going public in print and on our web site.

CWM is well advanced with a booklet about Hillsong as part of our UN-MASKED series, which include BENNY HINN – UN-MASKED, ALPHA UN-MASKED and, in the wings and soon to be published, MARIAN WORSHIP & RCCism – UN-MASKED. The one about HILLSONG will be No 4 in the series, God Willing.

The following is part of our inclusion in a section which we have entitled BRINGING YOU UP TO DATE. This is in DRAFT form only at this stage and is subject to change and addition. You will note that you are named. I invite your comments and/or those of Brian and Bobby Houston or any of the management of Hillsong, AoG or CLC:

“Frank Houston passed away on Monday November 8, 2004 in his 83^rd year. Reporting on the funeral later that week Stephen Gibbs of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) stated that the mourners included federal Members of Parliament Louise Markus and Alan Cadman and the deputy Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione. The report states that Frank Houston was “sacked by his own son after he admitted having sexually abused a boy in New Zealand more than 30 years ago” (SMH 13/11/04).

Years earlier another of his alleged victims, Peter Fowler told CWM that he had approached the New Zealand police with a complaint against Houston. He was told that Mr Houston would have to be extradited to the country where the crime allegedly occurred and that such would be difficult if not impossible to achieve. You may wonder why?

The HILLS NEWS (Tuesday November 30, 2004) contains a letter written by Maria Ieroianni, Communications manager, HILLSONG CHURCH under the heading Pastor history and Hillsong in which she denies a claim by Damien MacRae (November 23, 2004) that Frank Houston, a paedophile, was the founding pastor of Hillsong. She is reported as saying:

“Frank Houston was the founder of the Sydney Life Centre (Waterloo) and not Hillsong Church. Sydney CLC was merged with Hillsong Church (Baulkham Hills) in 1999 after Frank Houston’s resignation.”

Here are the facts:

1)      Frank Houston did NOT resign. He was effectively expelled for his admitted sexual abuse of a boy. This is paedophilia and a paedophile is a criminal in our society. So AoG-Australia was right to expel Frank Houston albeit they did it belatedly and in a less than open manner. They may have had a duty in law to report the matter to the police.

2)      Hillsong was formerly called the Hills CLC and was a branch Church of the Sydney CLC of which Frank Houston was founder and senior pastor. In fact as CWM documents on its web site HILLSONG was the name devised by Geoff Bullock and Darlene Zschech to describe their music and their conferences.
It was much later when it was adopted as the name of the current Hillsong Church (http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/hillsong1.html).

Hillsong’s communications manager in the same article cited above is further reported as saying:

“When this allegation was received (relating to a period some 30 years before when Frank Houston was a New Zealand pastor, and long before Hillsong existed), Pastor Brian Houston and the Assemblies of God confronted it directly and openly.”

Contrary to this, the Hillsong and Assemblies of God have been anything but “open”.  Their congregants and the general public have been left with the impression that Frank Houston’s sexual abuse related to one person more than 30 years ago.  I know and Brian Houston knows that there was more than one incident with more than one person.

If it was not known at the time of his confession that Frank Houston was guilty of more than one case of sexual abuse when “Brian Houston and the Assemblies of God confronted it” I can only marvel at the superficiality of their investigation.

That aside they have known for quite some time that there was more than just once case, so how open have they been?

In view of the fact that Frank Houston committed paedophilia one must wonder why this was not stated by John Lewis, Assistant President of AoG-OZ in his letter dated 24 December, 2001 and headed “EXTREMELY CONFIDENTIAL”.
The term that comes to mind is “serious moral failure.”

It was Greg Bearup in his GOOD-WEEKEND article who first attributed the use of the word “paedophilia” to Brian Houston as a description of his father’s sin –
(http://www.christian-witness.org/aog/hillsong3.html).

The question that begs to be asked is, “Seeing paedophilia is a crime was there not some duty at law that the matter be referred to the police?
Did John Lewis and his colleagues so refer the matter. Maria Ieroianni claimed that it was confronted “directly and openly.”

You be the judge. If the police were not approached then ipso facto we have a serious “cover-up” involved.

In the above cited letter John Lewis wrote: “… we have deliberately chosen to restrict this letter to our Ordained and Probationary Ministers.
We cannot see any reason for this to be announced to your church or further afield.”

Do these people really know what it means to be “open”? Do they understand the expression “no cover-up”? As Mrs Thatcher once famously asked, “What is it about the word “no” that you don’t understand?”

We have incontrovertible evidence that information published by CWM has been instrumental in bringing hidden things regarding this whole sordid business to light and I have no doubt that this book will make a further contribution. It is very sad that those responsible and who know the facts seem to be content to “drip-feed” the truth only when they are forced to do so. We at CWM believe that the time has long since come that the matter should be openly confessed and repented of, no matter how distasteful. If that does NOT happen then the “cover-up” will continue.”

Maria, I do not know you nor how much you may know about the case that we are addressing. You may have been kept ignorant about matters. Your position makes you vulnerable. You may or may not be aware of the fact that Wayne Hughes another former General Superintendent of AoG-NZ as was the late Frank Houston has been named in the national press of NZ for alleged “sexual abuse”.
You can read the latest of three newspaper reports at the following URL. You will note that I was quoted:  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10118102

Personally I find it significant that all of the past General Superintendents of AoG-NZ since the office was changed from “Chairman” to “Superintendent” has been so accused and in all except the latest case the charge has been proven, with subsequent discipline of some sort. This is a blight on the so called “Church” of Jesus Christ and as such those of us who name the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are in some way impugned. We are not talking about the run of the mill pastors here. We are talking about those who hold or have held the highest possible office in the denomination. Brian Houston presently holds the equivalent of that office.

As I say, Maria, I invite your comments. From my perspective this communiqué will remain private for the next ten days. If you wish to share the matter during that period that is your call.

God bless you.
Yours sincerely in Christ who is THE Truth,
Philip L. POWELL.

Source: Philip Powell, An Open Letter to All Christians Everywhere, CWM,  https://href.li/?http://christian-witness.org/docs/openletaog2.doc, Published April 26, 2005. [Archive]

2005/04/26 – Powell: An Open Letter to All Christians Everywhere (Brian Houston/John Lewis version)

Note: the same letter sent the Maria, in substance, was also sent to Brian Houston and John Lewis, except the last section addressed to Maria, was substituted with a section addressed to Brian. Brian’s section is below (emphasis added):

Brian, I am sure you know that your position makes you vulnerable. You may or may not be aware of the fact that Wayne Hughes another former General Superintendent of AoG-NZ as was your late father, has been named in the national press of NZ for alleged “sexual abuse”. You can read the latest of three newspaper reports at the following URL. You will note that I was quoted:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10118102

It is reported that Wayne Hughes has left New Zealand and may therefore NOT face investigation either by AoG-NZ or by secular sources. One can imagine that once more we may be heading for a “cover-up”.

Personally I find it significant that all of the past General Superintendents of AoG-NZ since the office was changed from “Chairman” to “Superintendent” have been so accused and in all except the latest case the charge has been proven, with subsequent discipline of some sort. This is a blight on the so called “Church” of Jesus Christ and as such those of us who name the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are in some way impugned. We are not talking about the run of the mill pastors here, though there too we should expect accountability and NO cover-up. We are talking about those who hold or have held the highest possible office in the denomination. Brian you presently hold the equivalent of that office.

As I say, I invite your comments and those of my old “mate” John Lewis. From my perspective this communiqué will remain private for the next seven days i.e. until Tuesday April 26, 2005. If you wish to share the matter during that period that is your call. Feel free to call me on the phone if you wish.

God bless you.
Yours sincerely in Christ who is THE Truth,
Philip L. POWELL.

Source: Philip Powell, AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE, CWM, https://href.li/?http://christian-witness.org/docs/openletaog5.doc, Published April 26, 2005. [Archive] (Brian Houston and John Lewis version.)

2014/09/19 – Peter Fowler emailed Philip Powell who is now in poor health and dying (Fri 19/09/2014 10:11 AM):

CWM publishes a message (on November 30 2014), from Fowler Philip Powell on December 09, 2014at 10:11 AM (emphasis added),

Dear Philip,

I’m so sorry to receive the news about your health and thank you for sending the family email.

Perhaps you can be comforted that all the good work you did so many years ago to expose the evil of the Houston’s and what is now the monster called Hillsong, is about to be addressed by the Royal Commission. You can be in no doubt that your efforts have indirectly contributed to this significant new development. Inevitably there will be consequences for these people and the world will forever know what they did and the dark nature of their church of materialism and greed.

I will be sure to give you and your tireless work as much credit as possible in the evidence I present to the commission.

Thank you for your prayers and as you say, may truth emerge. As one who you would regard as a non-believer, I regret I cannot offer you the same prayers. However, I can and do offer you my deepest grace and gratitude for being there when I needed you and responding so compassionately when I reached out to you over 12 years ago. For me, that is what the heart and soul of Christianity is all about and your life and work are a testament to such compassion.

I want to share with you the words of Richard Holloway, the former Anglican Archbishop of Edinburgh. You can interpret this any way you wish and while it may appear secular in nature, I believe it also contains a deeply spiritual theme.

My thoughts are with you and I hope that you recover soon and enjoy more time in the light, with your wonderful family and friends. I hope you will always count me as one of them.

“When the map of our life is complete, and we die in the richness of our history, some among the living will miss us for a while, but the earth will go on without us. Its day is longer than ours, though we now know that it too will die. Our brief finitude is but a beautiful spark in the vast darkness of space. So we should live the fleeting day with passion and, when the night comes, depart from it with grace.” (From his book; “Looking In The Distance”.)

Source: Philip Powell, Christmas – Calvary – the Cross – the Crown, CWM, http://cwm.org.au/3/59-68/360-6801, Published 30 November 30, 2014. [Archive]

2005/05/24 – Philip Powell in email correspondence – Hillsong attendee reports to CWM that it was CWM website that forced the hand of Brian Houston

RESPONSE to email: 24 May 2005 email 9:25pm:

“…You may be interested to learn that recently a person who attends Hillsong told me that it was what was on our website which actually forced the hand of Brian Houston to act in respect of the disclosure of an aspect of the immorality of his late father….”

Source: Philip Powell, Your Letters, CWM, http://www.christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_letter34.html, Last revised October 09, 2006. [Archive]

2013/09/14 – Honouring the late Frank Houston by Mark Mullins

Details Written by Mark Mullins Published: 14 September 2013 Hits: 3513

But the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honoured. —Daniel 5:23

Danny Nalliah’s eulogy can be heard and read at: http://www.christian-witness.org/audio/Thanksgiving-Service01.mp3   [Archive] 

On Saturday evening May 26th, 2007 Daniel Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries publicly honoured the late Frank Houston, who had been found guilty by his own denomination of serious sexual misconduct while in a senior position of ministry.

In an unprecedented sentence, Frank had been banned from all AoG platforms in both Australia and New Zealand, such was the seriousness of his misconduct. Yet Mr Nalliah “honoured” him in this ceremony in Melbourne. The following words were used in the final advertisement for the event:

Those to be honoured and thanked as part of the National Day of Thanksgiving are as follows: Our Senior “Fathers and Mothers” in the Faith! — the late Frank Houston, Kevin Conner, Fred Nile, Barry Chant, Richard Holland, George Forbes and many others.

Graeme and wife Caroline Houston and Beverley, two of Frank Houston’s children, represented their late father and mother Hazel. Brian Houston, senior pastor of The Hillsong (Sydney) mega-church and current president of AoG-Australia, who is fully aware of the charges and resulting action in which he participated, sent a message which included thanking Mr Nalliah for honouring his father.

The ceremony in Melbourne concluded with foot-washing where the biblical precedent was reversed. Those attending were invited to wash the feet of those honoured. In the foot-washing example of Christ we are instructed: “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Biblically it is impossible to establish any justification for “foot-washing” in our time. We do not generally walk long dusty paths in sandals. Our Lord provided an example of service in an illustration that was acceptable and understood in that time, but not in our country and our time. However even the principle was missed by Danny Nalliah. The “greater” should serve the “lesser” not visa versa.

Mr Nalliah went ahead with his honouring ceremony despite many attempts to dissuade him, which included sending to him the information which follows and which was compiled by Mark Mullins from his own research into the matter.

Danny Nalliah certainly deserves our respect and gratitude for his bold and courageous stand during the proceedings brought against Daniel Scot and the Catch the Fire Ministries under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 over a seminar on Islam, several years ago. Their contributions helped to demonstrate the folly of passing a similar law in the UK and elsewhere which led, in Britain, to a much weakened Bill being passed by parliament which was eventually shelved as unworkable by the government. The irony is that if only Daniel Nalliah had applied the standards of rigour and fairness he expected but did not receive from Judge Higgins in the Catch the Fire case, to the evidence available to him about the late Frank Houston’s sexual immorality, he could never have concluded that Houston was worthy of honour.

At the “honour” meeting, which was conducted on Australia’s National Day of Thanksgiving, Mr Nalliah spoke of his debt of gratitude to Frank Houston who was instrumental in his conversion in Sri Lanka when he was 12 years old. One can understand why he would not wish to think ill of a man who introduced him to the Kingdom of God and allegedly prophesied over him.

However, our Lord Himself warned us of those many that will say to Him on that day: “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name? And in Your name have cast out devils? And in Your name done many wonderful works?… And then I will declare to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you evildoers” (Matthew 7:22-23). It is possible to preach the gospel and even perform miracles and be in sin heading for hell.

Sadly the Rev Hon Fred Nile MP, a Christian with a long record of standing for righteousness, attended the meeting despite being warned about Frank Houston’s past. Following our contact Mr Nile sent us this note:

19/6/07 — Dear Philip: I responded to Ps Danny Nalliah’s invitation to be a guest speaker on 26th May because I respect his courage and wished to stand with him. In no way was I involved in the selection of Ps Frank Houston’s name. I requested his name be removed from the program on 26th May but Ps Nalliah felt he could not do that as he believes Ps Houston had previously blessed his ministry. —signed Rev Fred Nile.

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY MARK MULLINS (an elder at a classical AoG assembly in London and a practising barrister):

Frank Houston, on the face of it, had a distinguished career within AoG Australasia, becoming general superintendent of AoG New Zealand, and senior pastor of Christian Life Centre in Sydney which was to become Hillsong. Yet through many years of his ministry Frank Houston was concealing a dark secret. That secret came to light in 2000 when he was sacked for “serious moral failure” following an investigation conducted by the then AoG’s national executive vice-president, John Lewis.[1] The chronology is important because it has been suggested there has only ever been one victim of Mr Houston’s sexual immorality.

Peter Fowler came forward next to claim that, as a result of discovering that Mr Houston had been sacked for serious moral failure, he felt that he should bring forward his allegations of sexual abuse that he had been concealing since 1972. This is what he wrote in an email to Philip Powell on 9th December 2002:

However, earlier this year (2002) I felt an overwhelming need to achieve some form of healing and closure to this terrible situation. After an internet search revealed your published investigation of Houston and his past actions, I became aware that he had been removed from the ministry for “serious moral failure” in both Australia and New Zealand. I sensed that I was clearly not the only victim of this man’s abuse and that I needed to come forward and reveal what had happened to me. From the moment I first contacted you I felt that you treated my allegations with a sense of respect and sympathy, which I greatly appreciate.

Peter Fowler claimed to have been sexually abused by Frank Houston when he was 16 years old. He came to a confidential settlement with AoG New Zealand after his claims had been fully investigated by Kem Price who, according to information on the CWM website, took over responsibility for examining his case in December 2002 and held a first meeting with Peter Fowler in March 2003. This is what Peter Fowler wrote to Philip on 13th July 2003:

Dear Philip
I am very pleased to be able to report that I have reached a settlement with AOGNZ and the Lower Hutt AOG. The terms of the settlement are confidential to the parties and the only public comment I can make is the following statement: “Peter Fowler and the Assemblies of God in NZ and the Assembly of God Lower Hutt Church have confidentially in a Christian spirit resolved all differences between them relating to the alleged abuse of Peter Fowler by Frank Houston”. You will note that no settlement has been reached with Frank Houston or his representatives and I am still free to pursue proceedings against Houston. So far, Houston and his representatives have continued to refuse to meet or engage in any dialogue with me.

Thank you so much for your assistance in helping me to reach this point. Had it not been for your initial support and understanding I may not have been able to achieve any form of settlement, closure or healing. I remain deeply grateful and I wish you well in all your future endeavours. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you and any other victims who may contact you.
With best wishes, Peter Fowler

It is significant that neither Frank Houston nor his representatives were willing to engage in any dialogue with Peter Fowler about what took place in 1972. Peter Fowler was told this was because Frank Houston was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s. In order to begin the process of genuine repentance this would be a pre-requisite: to acknowledge the sin and seek forgiveness for the devastation that resulted. (Peter Fowler’s marriage broke up as a result of the emotional damage he suffered.)

In the 25th January 2003 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald magazine Good Week-End, journalist Greg Bearup wrote the following:

And then Brian’s father, former minister Frank Houston, confessed to being a paedophile. Finding out his father had abused a child back in New Zealand was, Houston tells me, “like the jets flying into the twin towers of my soul”. It was, understandably, one of the hardest issues he has ever had to deal with. “Basically I received a complaint, so I confronted my father and he admitted it.” Houston removed his father from all roles in the church, but did not contact police in New Zealand because the victim was old enough to do that himself. He said that he was candid with his congregation, although he has been criticised for not acting quickly enough. “I told our church what had happened [several months after he found out], but as soon as I found out I told the elders of this church and the Assemblies of God,” Houston says. “To my congregation, when I told them, I used words like predator and sexual abuse and so on — I did not try to hide it.” It is a matter that appears unlikely to go away, and Houston tells me that, since the initial allegation was made public, other alleged victims have come forward.

It is not clear whether Brian Houston was referring to Peter Fowler’s allegations, which had by then been subject to some sort of settlement between Fowler and AoG-NZ or to the earlier investigation carried out by John Lewis. What is clear is that he was referring to a number of victims. There is no doubt that these allegations must be treated separately since the 2000 investigation could not possibly have included Peter Fowler’s allegations, which only came to light later.

Regrettably the allegations against Frank Houston are more widespread. Recently on Anthony Venn-Brown’s website[2] there appeared the text of a speech given by Peter Laughton on 13th February 2007 who was a former assistant pastor to Frank Houston at the Christian Life Centre in Sydney. He was a homosexual who allegedly became a Christian through attending CLC but has now tragically reverted to his homosexual lifestyle having left his wife and children. In that speech he claimed to have had counselling sessions with the senior pastor, which he described in the following terms:

My counselling sessions by the senior minster were nothing more than sexual abuse disguised in the form of the need of a father’s love and discipline. [what follows is too offensive to publish].[3]

It is of course possible that Peter Laughton has jumped on a bandwagon and made up false allegations against Frank Houston who is no longer alive to answer, but it is hard to understand why he would do this. In the light of the two separate enquiries and the admission by Frank Houston of past sexual immorality one would have expected that these allegations would have been taken more seriously by Danny Nalliah and others.

What makes these allegations even more serious is that at least one of the incidents occurred when Frank Houston was general superintendent of New Zealand Assemblies of God – a position he held from 1965 to 1977. It represented a terrible abuse of his position of trust, which he then tried to conceal for the rest of his ministry. To lead a child of God into sin as Frank Houston has done carries with it a frightening warning from the Lord:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offences; offences must come; but woe to that man by whom the offence comes! (Matthew 18:6-7).

Doesn’t Peter the apostle also warn about those, like Frank Houston, who have abused their position of authority to bring people into sin?

These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest; to whom the gloom of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through licentiousness, those who escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the slaves of corruption: for by whom a person is overcome, by him also is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them, and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning (2 Peter 2:17–20).

One of the most important qualifications for ministry is that a man be blameless. This could not be said of Frank Houston since 1972.

Mark L.R. Mullins, London

If Assemblies of God in Australia had been more open about the behaviour of Frank Houston and openly rebuked him by publicising the full extent of his sinful conduct as Paul enjoined us to do in 1 Timothy 5:20 (“Those that sin rebuke in the presence of all, that others also may fear.”) this outrage would have been avoided.

How such a man could be worthy of honour is beyond belief. Is it not like honouring the wicked Haman instead of righteous Mordecai in the book of Esther (chapter 6)?

And finally let us look to ourselves in this dreadful business:

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed in case he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Footnotes

1 See Sydney Morning Herald article dated 27th March 2002 By Kelly Burke, Religious Affairs Writer
2 Venn Brown is a former AoG in Australia evangelist and now an open homosexual activist.
3 For the full text of Peter Laughton’s speech please go to: http://alifeofunlearning.blogspot.com/2007/02/peter-laughtons-speech-13th-february.html

Source: Mark Mullins, Honouring the late Frank Houston, CWM, https://www.cwm.org.au/3/37-40/311-3, Published September 2008. (Republished September 14, 2013.) [Archive]

2014/10/20 Peter Fowler emailed Philip Powell – Wednesday 2014/09/19 (9:30 PM):

Fowler writes (emphasis added),

I have not been invited to appear at the Royal Commission, as my evidence relates to events that occurred outside Australia. However, I have given extensive evidence by telephone and the RC solicitors contacted me again today to ask if there were any questions I would like them to pose to Brian Houston when he appears tomorrow. I said that there were two:

1. 1. NZ AOG formally advised me in 2003 that Brian Houston, Hillsong, Australian AOG and the Houston Family refused to cooperate with their investigation regarding my allegations and that they may have also deliberately obstructed the criminal investigation of Frank Houston’s sexual abuse in New Zealand. Why did Brian Houston refuse to cooperate and why did he ultimately obstruct the NZ investigation?
   2. Did Brian Houston, Hillsong or the Houston family, compensate NZ AOG for the $25,000 settlement that they made with me in 2003.

It will be interesting to see what answers, if any, are forthcoming.

Now that this matter that was first alerted to the world by your humble website, has now reached a Royal Commission Court hearing and is being revealed in the pages of Fairfax and Murdoch, both in print and on-line, it may be time to reflect on what has happened in the 13 years since we first made contact.

My feelings about what occurred to me 42 years ago are mostly lost to time and long buried. Sadly, the outcome left a scar on my life that together with other events from the time has haunted me to this day. However, as I commented on your forum, I have forgiven Frank and I’m no longer carrying any burden of blame. I believe he was essentially a good man who was tormented by what some may describe as personal and sexual demons… and others may see as the result of his own sexual abuse and oppression as a child. Either way it does not matter anymore. I have forgiven him and that has set me free.

The overwhelming thing that remains for me is what I perceive deeply as the inherent evil of Hillsong and all that it represents. You know exactly what I mean… the worship of wealth and materialism and the lack of any social justice in its approach to community and the Christianity it claims to represent. I find it abhorrent and deeply offensive. Hillsong is not a ministry in any sense of the word I understand. It is essentially just a business and its primary objective is profit and the creation of wealth for its shareholders…Brian and Bobbie! I imagine they will survive the Royal Commission with insincere words and PR designed to protect their empire. Unless Hillsong implodes due to greed, criminality or excessive consumption, I expect it will go on to the greater strength and power, damaging many lives and falsely representing Christ in the process. I can only hope that they will eventually be revealed…in this world or the next, for what they really are….the moneychangers who defiled the temple of God!

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said to them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves —Matthew 21:12–13.

Arohanui – Peter

(Arohanui is a Maori word. There is no direct translation. Essentially it means “Big Love”.)

FINAL NOTE TO PETER FOWLER FROM PHILIP POWELL:

Yes I count you a friend no matter what may be our differences. I admire your courage, your persistency and your courtesy at all times; thank you Peter.

Source: Philip Powell, Christmas – Calvary – the Cross – the Crown, CWM, http://cwm.org.au/3/59-68/360-6801, Published October 20, 2014. (Accessed March 16, 2018.) [Archive]

2014/11/30 Excerpt from CWM Editorial by PhilipPowell

Philip Powell writes,

The Australian Royal Commission Investigation into Sexual Abuse of Children.

The Royal Commission (R.C.) is holding a public hearing in Sydney from Wednesday 22 October 2014 commencing at 10:00am. This is ongoing and can be watched online at:- http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

One thing I feel I must comment on applies to the above. We are advised that the findings will be determined and presumably publicised in July 2015. Our specific interest relates to Hillsong and the two Houstons – Brian and his late father Frank. The record on our CWM websites shows that I and CWM were the first to bring Frank’s dark deception to light, mainly through the contact of one of Frank’s early victims of sexual abuse – Peter Fowler, who has given us permission to publish email comment made by him to me (p.4). On suggestions from our readers I did write to the Royal Commission and may publish my submission in a future CETF if we are able to continue. The R.C. has very strict rules of admission of submission and testimony. They would not admit Peter Fowler based on the fact that his abuse was outside of Australia, but invited his questions to Brian Houston, which are listed elsewhere in this CETF. In the meanwhile the comments by Peter Fowler contained herein serve as some satisfactory conclusion from our perspective and a closure of sorts for him.

My prayer is that this issue of CETF will be a help, challenge and a blessing to you. Please pray for us and the future of CETF and CWM. If you have been helped and feel so inclined please pass this onto your friends and contacts.

Love in Jesus and Happy Christmas,

Philip.

Source: Philip Powell, Christmas – Calvary – the Cross – the Crown, CWM, http://cwm.org.au/3/59-68/360-6801, Published October 20, 2014. (Accessed March 16, 2018.) [Archive]

Email all comments and questions to c3churchwatch@hotmail.com
“Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Galatians 4:16

Categories: Assemblies Of God, Australian Christian Churches (ACC), Hillsong

Tags: abuse, ACC, AOG, Assemblies of God, Australian AOG, Australian Christian Churches, Brian Houston, Christian Witness Ministries, Christianity, coverup, crimes, criminal, CWM, Frank Houston, Hillsong, New Zealand AOG, paedophilia, pedophilia, Philip Powell, repository, Royal Commision, scandal, sexual abuse, timeline, victims