quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why couldn't these men have been 'bishops' (small 'b') Polly. They exercised oversight over a number of churches. Isn't that what bishops are supposed to do?

They might want to call them 'apostles' because they think it's more biblical or because they don't like the term 'bishop' because it brings baggage with it, but that's effectively what these guys are and have been doing. They've been 'bishop-ing'. Ok, so they don't have pointy hats and a curly stick but they've been functioning in that role within their own particular sphere.

I really can't see what's contentious about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I can easily agree with you. Both 'Apostle' and 'bishop' are valid Biblical roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I can easily agree with you. Both 'Apostle' and 'bishop' are valid Biblical roles.

---

Except that the use of 'apostle' confers a certain spiritual imprimatur that allows the NF to believe that its system is superior to one overseen by bishops ("we don't believe in unregenerate infants being baptised by unregenerate bishops").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I can easily agree with you. Both 'Apostle' and 'bishop' are valid Biblical roles.

---

Except that the use of 'apostle' confers a certain spiritual imprimatur that allows the NF to believe that its system is superior to one overseen by bishops ("we don't believe in unregenerate infants being baptised by unregenerate bishops").

---

The quote you used was my personal thoughts.

---

quote:

---

Your suggestion about NF can only be answered by NF. I admit it is possible they likely thought that in the early days, whether they do so now is another question. Change has happened in NF over the last 40 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Mark Betts. Would your friend possibly be so kind as to reply to my questions - or at least as many of them as he is comfortable with?

---

Somehow I don't think he'd appreciate it. He'd welcome you to his church, with the intention of converting you, but these type of questions wouldn't be appropriate from someone who hasn't even set foot in the "true" church.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think that NFI would claim to be the 'true' Church in the way that the Orthodox or the RCs would. Neither, as Mark has rightly reflected, would they claim that their 'apostles' were on a par with the original 12 'Big A' Apostles ...

I don't particularly have a problem with the use of the term 'apostle' to refer to living people - but I'd be very wary how I applied it.

As for what they do, well, I suspect some of these guys do actually 'bishop' (or even 'apostle') a lot better or more effectively than their counterparts in the historic Churches ...

But that's getting beyond the point of the OP, which is about how they operate in NFI terms.

I've been in a similar outfit to NFI and know that to all intents and purposes there was rather more weight put on the 'apostolic' role than was healthy. I can't compare them in that sense to Anglican Bishops nor RC Bishops or Orthodox ones as I've had less experience of those - although the ones I've met tend to be pretty decent sorts from what I've seen - although I have met a retired Anglican one I'd tend to give a wide berth ...
 

---

Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :
 
But doesn't the word 'apostle' just mean 'sent one'? Like, isn't that the actual definition of it? And if so, then couldn't really *anyone* be an apostle?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, of course. But provided you understand what you mean by it and aren't making extravagant claims - such as restoring the Church above and beyond its apparent original 'purity and power' as we used to say back in my restorationist days ...


 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I think the fantasy of there once having been a "pristine" early Christianity that we must return to falls into Bonhoeffer's category of dangerous wish-dreams that actively hurt the Church.

There was never, ever, EVER a "pure" Christianity. Ever. Read the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles, fer cripe's sake. These are, IMHO, less guidebooks for the church than histories of how earliest Christianity attempted to work out its self-identity and the various theological and social problems that "The Way" created for them in terms of belief and practice and engagement with the dominant culture. Other than a couple of Luke's rather rose-colored descriptions of community spirit (which he later contradicts as he records things like friction between Jewish and Gentile converts, who does what within the Christian community and so on), I don't see a lot of "pristine" anything. People are people.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes ... which is why I am no longer a restorationist ...
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhflan:
But doesn't the word 'apostle' just mean 'sent one'? Like, isn't that the actual definition of it? And if so, then couldn't really *anyone* be an apostle?

---

New Frontiers have their own version of apostolic succession, where the only people that can be 'apostles' are appointed by current apostles. Of course, this is separate from historic apostolic succession. (Am I the only one who finds the numeric parallel between Christ and the 12 disciples, and TV and his 12 apostles to be a bit ominous?)

Also, the NF church I was a part of said that the apostle was more than a 'sent one' and was in fact the plumb-line mentioned in Amos 7:7 by which all of Israel would be measured.

I don't know how wide-spread that belief is, but I'm pretty sure they learned it from one Dave Devinish, who is their apostolic over-watch.

Also, NF (at least the local branch) don't let just anyone into a position of leadership.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

(Am I the only one who finds the numeric parallel between Christ and the 12 disciples, and TV and his 12 apostles to be a bit ominous?)[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes ... which is why I am no longer a restorationist ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Raphael:
I live in a little world which until I read this knew nothing of Newfrontiers.

I looked them up on Wikipedia and also looked up Mr Virgo there too.

Is there much really to be worried about? They seem to be reaching out to where some other churches are not having success.

---

quote:

---

They are also larger than I expected.

I understand the comment about 12 apostles, however could it not be that Mr Virgo is following closely his Lord's model of having twelve chosen men.

I've not come across 'apostle' as a ministry name in a church, is it common in churches of this type. As a term it has a little more Biblical foundation than Bishop, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Wiki article on "Apostle"
The word "apostle" has two meanings, the broader meaning of a messenger and the narrow meaning of an early apostle directly linked to Jesus Christ. The more general meaning of the word is translated into Latin as 'missio', and from this word we get 'missionary.'

---

quote:

---

Looking at one of the new frontiers congregations I was surprised at the venue they met in, which I happened to know. That venue could not really accommodate more than 60. Somehow I had the image in my mind of 100+ in their congregations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The picture is mixed, of course, in many respects New Frontiers is more balanced than independent churches of that ilk. It's a mix of the good, the bad and the indifferent just like anything else ...

---

quote:

---

But doesn't the word 'apostle' just mean 'sent one'? Like, isn't that the actual definition of it? And if so, then couldn't really *anyone* be an apostle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
On the o/p - I understand the UK apostolic 'sphere' leaders are David Devenish,, Dave Holden, Guy Miller, Mike Betts and Jeremy Simpkins. You can presumably find out more about them from the NF website.

How were they recognised? No idea. There may be some other people recognised as apostles - hopefully some other people can shed some light on this.

---

quote:

---

from "Apostolic foundations"
The Philippians plainly felt they were in partnership with Paul. They sent finance to him. He brought them to birth, and he continued having a link with them. Paul developed this kind of relationship, even with some churches, like the Colossians, which he had never actually visited. Epaphras, who worked with Paul, had planted the Colossian church but it was evidently in ‘Paul’s sphere’.

While Paul was based in Ephesus, ‘All Asia’ heard the word (Acts 19:10) and some churches were planted which Paul didn’t actually visit because those working with him did the work. He was stabilising, bringing apostolic teaching, daily pumping out revelation at the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus (Acts 19:9), and his partners were going out starting churches within his apostolic sphere. So a sphere for Paul was an ongoing relationship with a number of churches, what the theologians call ‘the Pauline churches’.

So that’s a Bible concept. Paul was an apostle and churches that he related to were in fellowship with him in his ministry.

It is important we see that he said, ‘I have the care of all these churches.’ He often wrote that he was praying for them. So it’s an ongoing, affectionate link, not a ‘headquarters’ mentality. It’s not impersonal or static; it’s something very dynamic and life-imparting.

In 2 Corinthians 10:13, Paul argues about his sphere and says, ‘We will not boast beyond our measure but within the measure of the sphere which God appointed to us as a measure to reach even as far as you.’ Paul says that God has given him a sphere which did have some geographical aspect to it. ’You are within my God-given sphere. I have measured as far as you. I am not over-extending,’ he says (2 Cor. 10:14).

---

So there you go.

I also found out that Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles, but the first of the "apostles" (broader sense) which NewFrontiers claim to be a continuation of.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I understand that a number of men have been 'recognised' as apostles in Newfrontiers to their new apostolic spheres.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I also found out that Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles, but the first of the "apostles" (broader sense) which NewFrontiers claim to be a continuation of.

---

Where's the continuous link? "Patterned after" might be a better term than "continuation of." Even that's being pretty generous IMO.

The rest of the material that you quoted resembles NF's SOP: decide what you want to see or do then try and proof-text it.

[ 05. June 2012, 19:45: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I also found out that Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles, but the first of the "apostles" (broader sense) which NewFrontiers claim to be a continuation of.

---

Where's the continuous link? "Patterned after" might be a better term than "continuation of." Even that's being pretty generous IMO.

The rest of the material that you quoted resembles NF's SOP: decide what you want to see or do then try and proof-text it.

---

...SOP...? In my world that stands for 'state of play'
 

---

Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

If there isn't some sort of verifiable source, then I think this will mean whatever it needs to mean at the time, depending on who is concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
]...SOP...? In my world that stands for 'state of play'

---

Standard Operating Procedure
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
]...SOP...? In my world that stands for 'state of play'

---

Standard Operating Procedure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I also found out that Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles, but the first of the "apostles" (broader sense) which NewFrontiers claim to be a continuation of.

---

Where's the continuous link? "Patterned after" might be a better term than "continuation of." Even that's being pretty generous IMO.

The rest of the material that you quoted resembles NF's SOP: decide what you want to see or do then try and proof-text it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm away from home right now and not really in a position to take part in this thread at present, but I would simply like some clear evidence of this from a reliable source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auntie Doris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

If there isn't some sort of verifiable source, then I think this will mean whatever it needs to mean at the time, depending on who is concerned.

---

I am not even sure what that sentence means!

---

quote:

---

Who dare carelessly to claim to be an apostle knowing that one day he will face Jesus and give an account of his life? The thought has scared me for a long time.

---

quote:

---

Some would be more comfortable than others to regard themselves as apostles.

---

quote:

---

I commend them to you as men worthy of being followed. Paul did not nominate Timothy as an apostle but was happy to commend him and encourage the saints to receive him as they would Paul himself.

---

quote:

---

leader of Newfrontiers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Take a look here:

http://newfrontierstogether.org/Groups/152963/Newfrontiers/Magazine/Current_Issue/Firstline/Firstline.aspx

"Other non-Biblical alternatives such as hierarchical ecclesiastical structures or church leadership by democratic process have been tried and found wanting."

"In this magazine I tell something of our story, introducing a number of friends who are already exercising apostolic responsibility within Newfrontiers."

"Although these brothers will gradually develop their own spheres of service we will maintain our common values and trust God to fulfil His promises to us as a family of churches that will have world-wide impact."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
NewFrontiers do sound an awful lot like the original Reformers of the 16th C - eg. Luther. I often wonder how one disagreement turned into 96 theses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
...Urm, have you actually ever read the 95 theses? They make sense in the context of Luther's argument even if you don't agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - I just read them - but there is still that giant leap between seeking to reform this one problem from within and founding your own rival church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I think there were a lot of small steps in between.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I think there were a lot of small steps in between.

---

Does this mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry (Terry Virgo for example) can decide the churches have got it all wrong, and found their own "church"?

Obviously they can, but where is their Authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
At least now I know what the elders mean when they talk of a "Jezebel spirit!"

Seriously though, why should you be given any leadership role if you are in disagreement with their principles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I think there were a lot of small steps in between.

---

Does this mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry (Terry Virgo for example) can decide the churches have got it all wrong, and found their own "church"?

Obviously they can, but where is their Authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I think there were a lot of small steps in between.

---

Does this mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry (Terry Virgo for example) can decide the churches have got it all wrong, and found their own "church"?

Obviously they can, but where is their Authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed with what you say about Luther's intentions, but his career is also a demonstration of the law of unintended consequences!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
There's a huge difference between sola scripura and nuda scriptura.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
There's a huge difference between sola scripura and nuda scriptura.

---

I had to google "nuda scriptura" because I've never heard of it before. However I couldn't help coming to the conclusion that "sola scriptura" will always degenerate into "nuda scriptura" precisely because of the confusion regarding Authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
...In which case I'm surprised that you would object to NFI, as their model of Authority would be near identical to your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
...In which case I'm surprised that you would object to NFI, as their model of Authority would be near identical to your own.

---

I don't accept "sola scriptura" nor "nuda scriptura", so I'd love to know how you worked that out (no disrespect).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In short, I find that all this supports what I've argued here before. Newfrontiers cultivates a culture that is modelled on an authoritarian view of apostleship that it enforces when it suits, but shrouds this in plausible deniability. Nobody can point to where Terry, or anyone else, has said they are an apostle, even if they are "moving" in these mysterious "apostolic spheres".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because the comparison between the Magisterial Reformation and the NFI is about as close as the comparison between Orthodoxy and the NFI.

After all; both are groups that but a lot of stock in having New Testament roots and being presided over by a number of specially anointed individuals.

You would presumably recognise the above as a parody even as it uses words that have a completely different meaning in the two contexts in which they are used.

---

quote:

---

So I don't think your comparison is particularly helpful in advancing this discussion which specifically about 'New Frontiers new apostolic spheres' - though you are welcome to start a thread on Luther and Terry Virgo if you so wish. It doesn't bode well that the first comparison you drew was to a text you hadn't read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
So just to round this off, is there anyone from Newfrontiers out there who can answer the OP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Otherwise there does not seem to be an 'official' list. I could be wrong through!

---

quote:

---

Jesus called apostles. They began to gather communities. They built them up in health and sufficiency in Christ, and then moved on (...) The church should be integrated with the apostolic gift in order to reach the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

The result is a whole raft of insecurity which, I believe, is ultimately used to better exercise control. Nobody quite knows whether they are an apostle or not, and nobody will dare ask either.

---

quote:

---

In April 2009, the Journal of Beliefs and Values published an article reporting on a 2007 study which "set out to examine the psychological type profile of Lead Elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom and to compare this profile with the established profile of clergymen in the Church of England". One of the conclusions is as follows:

"There is a toughness about this style of leadership that is unlikely to be distracted by opposition. The disadvantage is that this style of leadership can leave some individuals hurt and marginalised for what is seen by the leadership as the overall benefit to the organisation"

---

quote:

---

Eutychus Posted: I don't think so either, especially given the lack of clarity surrounding the current handover.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lev:
Apologies for mucking up the link, but you get the idea.

I was a member of NFI for about 3-4 years and it really messed me up. I'm still an loyal Christian, but NFI doesn't do the reputation of the Church much good.

I would strongly advise against getting involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In that case, though, I think many people will be happy to have all the charismatic/New Church bells and whistles without all the authoritarian overtones - something at least half-admitted by one NF leader I'm still close to.

---

Hmm. While that might be the ultimate result - I think that the mid-term future may be a lot more stormy. ISTM that a lot of fairly authoritarian setups tend towards being the most chaotic and stormy when they are in their death throes.

The case of the International Church of Christ (aka 'The Boston Movement') is an instructive one. Generally things don't change until the difference between doctrine and praxis is such that things change fairly violently.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

---

 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This is one of NewFrontiers' in-house phrases, of which there are many.

I don't think they've woken up to its more sordid connotations.

[ 12. June 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As explained above, I'll bet a pound to a penny that no apostles were recognised as such by anybody in this development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As explained above, I'll bet a pound to a penny that no apostles were recognised as such by anybody in this development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nobody quite knows whether they are an apostle or not, and nobody will dare ask either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

---

Would you by any chance know by what means the new apostles were recognised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Hi Drew I only know what's in the mags etc - no insider knowledge I'm afraid.
Leaving aside tussles about the terminology etc it feels, from where I'm sitting, a bit like we have three big diocese(s?) in the UK with a number of suffregans on the ground with local churches (on the whole - I don't know about Ramaruius situ pace Gamaliel) carrying on as normal. I'm wondering whether an Archbishop will emerge or we will develop into seperate but relating juristicions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does this mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry (Terry Virgo for example) can decide the churches have got it all wrong, and found their own "church"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I don't know how he's viewed in the UK, but Devenish is the man as far as the local branch is concerned. They'd follow him to hell and back if he wished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does this mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry (Terry Virgo for example) can decide the churches have got it all wrong, and found their own "church"?

---

Borderline irrelevant historical point, I don't think Terry Virgo did found his own church. He was invited to be a minister at an existing church under another chief pastor, and it evolved into what became Christ the King Church later.

Though maybe your scare quotes round "church" are meant to imply that you are not talking about his church at all - that is the assembly of Christians of which he is or was a minister - but a connexion of churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The quotes around "church" simply indicate that some would question whether such a church (the one which Tom, Dick or Harry built) is a real church. But, granted, maybe this isn't the case with Terry Virgo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Yes, but who gave you the power to decide who else can call themselves a church? The idea is ridiculous. The spiritualist church is a church - not one I have any sympathy for or agreement with whatsoever, but it is a church as defined in law nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

Irish_Lord99 posted: Well, earlier in the thread Ramarius said that David Devenish was one of new UK sphere leaders. I know that he's already revered as an Apostle by the local NF church, and I wonder how many of the new appointees were simply 'apostles' to begin with?

---

quote:

---

Eutychus posted: The authority is definitely there, but I am convinced that their reluctance to use the term outright is a) a cloak of false humility which also serves to fend off any challenges: "well, we never actually claimed to be apostles, so..." b) a means of highlighting a culture of informality rather than the authoritarian principles on which it has been set up (since "apostle" in this world has a lot to do with apostolic authority over other people).

---

quote:

---

To pick up on ken's point, it's one of the more embarrassing holes in Terry Virgo's CV that he has never actually planted a church of his own - widely regarded as one of the defining characteristics of apostles.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62 posted: that's an important question for JWs and NF-ers alike

---

Not a very fair comparison IMO.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Polly, I think JWs are further down the "heterodox" road than NF (though I think TV is pretty heterodox about Eph 4 - at least as far as I understand him).

But my comment related more to ecclesiology than soundness of faith.

Wine and bottles?
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Polly, I think JWs are further down the "heterodox" road than NF (though I think TV is pretty heterodox about Eph 4 - at least as far as I understand him).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once I agree with Mark Betts. Finally a post of his worth reading.

Mentioning NF in the same breath as groups like the JWs is pretty offensive (to both, actually).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Whatever the reason NF have for not publishing a list of 'Apostles' within their ranks I do not agree that it is to do with having a false humility or any other 'sinister' reasoning. With having family still in NF churches they are pretty clear who has specific apostle oversight in their different regions. There's no confusion at the local church level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Whatever the reason NF have for not publishing a list of 'Apostles' within their ranks I do not agree that it is to do with having a false humility or any other 'sinister' reasoning. With having family still in NF churches they are pretty clear who has specific apostle oversight in their different regions. There's no confusion at the local church level.

---

If I google "list of bishops in the church of england", or change the CofE for any other denomination, I can pretty much find exactly that: a list of names, and their geographical reach.

I'm struggling to find any good reason why NF don't publish a list of those who have responsibility for overseeing their churches. There might be no confusion at the local level, but the phrase 'plausible deniability' springs irresistibly to mind.

When the shit hits the fan (as it inevitably does from time to time), who is to held accountable and responsible? I know who I go to, and importantly, so does everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The Trustees as they are legally resposible and are named.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

---

Would you by any chance know by what means the new apostles were recognised?

---

Hi Drew I only know what's in the mags etc - no insider knowledge I'm afraid.
Leaving aside tussles about the terminology etc it feels, from where I'm sitting, a bit like we have three big diocese(s?) in the UK with a number of suffregans on the ground with local churches (on the whole - I don't know about Ramaruius situ pace Gamaliel) carrying on as normal. I'm wondering whether an Archbishop will emerge or we will develop into seperate but relating juristicions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The Trustees as they are legally resposible and are named.

---

Yup, I think that's what Doc Tor meant by plausible deniability.

The people exercising "apostolic authority" have the power (for instance, to appoint elders who, in an ideal NF world, appoint the trustees) but on paper, absolutely none of the actual liability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once I agree with Mark Betts. Finally a post of his worth reading.

Mentioning NF in the same breath as groups like the JWs is pretty offensive (to both, actually).

---

I had better just add that I don't hate Jehovah's witnesses - I just think they are very wrong in their theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
If there are people who hold trustee-like powers then they are legally liable as are the weak trustees that let them do it. The High Court and Charity Commission could hold them responsible, if they could find them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

That's what I was trying to say; the shorthand was way too short and I apologise for causing confusion. If critiquing styles of governance and seeing similarities thereby is offensive, I plead guilty to being offensive. I don't like top-down non-servant leadership. I don't think Jesus did.

YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?

---

Would you by any chance know by what means the new apostles were recognised?

---

Hi Drew I only know what's in the mags etc - no insider knowledge I'm afraid.
Leaving aside tussles about the terminology etc it feels, from where I'm sitting, a bit like we have three big diocese(s?) in the UK with a number of suffregans on the ground with local churches (on the whole - I don't know about Ramaruius situ pace Gamaliel) carrying on as normal. I'm wondering whether an Archbishop will emerge or we will develop into seperate but relating juristicions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

I don't think there is so much unhealthy in the NF setup. That they're much too precious about it is certainly true, but at the end of the day it works, so stop knocking it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Eutychus will be along shortly, no doubt. There are two things that save top down processes from abuse.

a) leadership humility

b) obeying Jesus 'not so among you' instruction to his disciples re leaders lording it over the led.

That's what servant leadership is about, according to the Jesus of the gospels. I'm sure it's found at local congregational level in many JW and NF congregations. That's not my point.

Both groups have been criticised for 'heavy shepherding'. There are human casualties out there. I've met some of them. It's not silly to point to the example and teaching of the Jesus of the gospels and observe 'your structures could do with some overt checks and balances. Maybe also some moves by existing leaders to modify the prevailing ethos.'

But I guess I've been guilty of shorthand again. None of this is rocket science but the principles are important in any consideration of the way the 'apostolic' dimension works in practice. There is an accountability to the governed to be considered.

---

quote:

---

Criticism

Some critics believe that Newfrontiers and other British restorationists are claiming too much when they speak of "restoring the church."

In 1986, sociologist and church historian Andrew Walker wrote of Newfrontiers that "churches are far more centralised and controlled than those of (...) mainline charismatic fellowships... The situation seems slightly analogous to Japanese business practices: they… export with great success, but import virtually nothing from anybody else".

In April 2009, the Journal of Beliefs and Values published an article reporting on a 2007 study which "set out to examine the psychological type profile of Lead Elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom and to compare this profile with the established profile of clergymen in the Church of England". One of the conclusions is as follows:

"There is a toughness about this style of leadership that is unlikely to be distracted by opposition. The disadvantage is that this style of leadership can leave some individuals hurt and marginalised for what is seen by the leadership as the overall benefit to the organisation"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
They'll have to give account to their creator for this just like each of us will have to for our own actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
They'll have to give account to their creator for this just like each of us will have to for our own actions.

---

Yes, yes they will.

However, in any secular or religious structure, "I answer only to God" (which is effectively what you've just said) is a tyrant's licence. They can use that licence for good or ill, and most likely both at the same time.

Leaders should be accountable to the people they lead, and able to be censured or removed by them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is. I trust my experience within NF and I trust many friends and family who are still part of NF. Of course they have concerns but to suggest NF is a fundamentalist sect led by power mad individuals is far from actual reality despite what some may say on this forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is. I trust my experience within NF and I trust many friends and family who are still part of NF. Of course they have concerns but to suggest NF is a fundamentalist sect led by power mad individuals is far from actual reality despite what some may say on this forum.

---

So, given that, what procedures are in place within NF to protect both the organisation and the individual congregations against the (inevitable, because we're human) abuse of power by a leader or leaders?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is.

---

How consistent and systematic does it have to get before the structures and the rather easily manipulatable ecclesiology have to be looked at?

There's the case of Eutychus as well as the person he references, as well as a couple of more recent rumblings. What stops the same thing happening again? Nothing.

Institutionally they seem incapable of accepting their fallibility - even as individually it serves as an easy excuse.

---

I know an equal amount of people who have left the Baptist Church for similar reasons to being mentioned on this thread. Does that mean the whole Baptist system is crooked?
The same goes for people I know who have left Anglican churches. Are they dodgy too?

There can't be one rule for one church family and another for others.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
That may be Polly, but you have to wonder why every thread about NF always deteriorates into this exact same argument; where as threads about the Baptist or Anglican church and their leadership, etc. don't? How many threads have we had on the newest bishop for any given church that doesn't wind up like this one?

Pretty much every discussion I've seen of NF on various on-line boards ends up this way... except for NF boards of course.

Despite your insistence, I'm convinced that NF is far more dysfunctional than most other denominations.

YMMV
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The difference is that in the denominations you mention there are recognised procedures for dealiing with disputes and at the worst, you can complain that those procedures weren't observed.

I think NF is structured in a fundamentally dishonest way inasmuch as there is a complete disconnect between the way one assumes differences might be handled ("assumed" because you really don't have any idea apart from touchy-feely statements about "family", "not a denomination" and "all friends together") and the way they not infrequently actually turn out.

[ETA: the "appointment" of these "new apostolic spheres" is just another example of the way things are done with no clear procedures, leaving people fill in the blanks with their own assumptions, which may be completely erroneous]

[ 14. June 2012, 19:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
@Irish_Lord99

I realise that I'll never change minds like yours. That's ok and I don't try. I would say your response is flawed simply because if a ton of folk from from NF church suddenly appeared on this forum and posted on these thread their opinions would outweigh those negative opinions.

I post on these threads simply to say that there are voices that speak of a more positive experience of NF but can also acknowledge the problems within NF. I moved in similar circles and similar times to Euytchus (sorry to use you as example again ) but had a good time in NF despite my church going through a split.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The difference is that in the denominations you mention there are recognised procedures for dealiing with disputes and at the worst, you can complain that those procedures weren't observed.

I think NF is structured in a fundamentally dishonest way inasmuch as there is a complete disconnect between the way one assumes differences might be handled ("assumed" because you really don't have any idea apart from touchy-feely statements about "family", "not a denomination" and "all friends together") and the way they not infrequently actually turn out.

[ETA: the "appointment" of these "new apostolic spheres" is just another example of the way things are done with no clear procedures, leaving people fill in the blanks with their own assumptions, which may be completely erroneous]

---

With other denominations I agree they have a better theoretical and clearer procedure when things go wrong. In reality and practice this hugely differs depending on who you are dealing with. The examples I know where people have left due to similar things we have been discussing would testify to this.

i'd disagree with your comment "fundamentally flawed" but then again I think you know that.

 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm sorry, let me put that another way.

In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).

Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.

As Polly will no doubt be quick to point out, it may be that godlier leaders will honour this moral commitment.

But there's no avoiding the fact that if they choose not to, there is absolutely nothing to stand in their way, and no way to object. It's at that point that the "delegated authority" aspect of the teaching (whereby authority flows down from the apostlic top and not at all up from the base) suddenly takes on a more sinister aspect.

Of course you can up and leave, but doing so is much much more of a wrench than an outsider might imagine.

[x-post]

[ 14. June 2012, 19:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Let me try yet again and see if there are any more cross-posts...

I think the heart of what is wrong with NF is its view and practice of authority (and that the unanswered questions about how this new team got appointed are symptomatic of that).

Let me use a personal example, just scroll past if you're fed up with my war stories.

When, in an ambush, I got accused publicly by my two co-elders* of being Jezabellic (backed by the apostolic delegate), my immediate reaction was to ask the church to vote on my leadership. (NF we might have been, but we had kept our bylaws which I had always seen as a "break glass box" option if things went wrong, and recognising the pastor's mandate by a 2/3 vote was in them).

The two elders had already announced they were leaving if I did not step down, so I didn't feel this was forcing a split. I felt it was as neutral a way as could be imagined (in the circumstances) of allowing the church to have a say in who should be leading it. In other words, I was making myself accountable to the people I was serving.

It wasn't until after I had made this suggestion (which was never implemented, basically due to the other side resorting to spiritual blackmail along the lines of "it's worldly to vote") that I realised that while there was a procedure in place for the congregation to remove me as the pastor (put there by me in our pre-NF days!) there was no procedure in place to remove the other two elders (post-NF appointees). As long as they had the blessing of the "apostle" who was "over them", all they had to do was sit tight.

They clearly didn't feel accountable to the church in the way I did. This was proved beyond doubt when a few months after I had left, they left in turn following further fallings-out. They and their "apostle" basically trashed the church and then left it for dead.

I don't think that view of authority is very common in the other groups Polly mentions.

==
*In the interests of proper disclosure both of these elders have apologised to me, over seven years on, and acknowledged what they did was wrong. One of them is no longer an NF elder. Other more senior figures in NF also apologised, but Terry has yet to do so, despite being fully aware of the events at the time and the subsequent measure of resolution and despite being approached by one of his lieutenants for this purpose.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).

---

quote:

---

Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I didn't do any "waiving" nor have my family and friends and none of these have been asked to give unconditional trust.

---

I'm not suggesting anybody asked them to do it or that anybody signed anything.

What I am arguing is that by accepting an absence of any due process, coupled with the subtle but real teaching on top-down authority (as played out in extreme fashion in my story), members are in effect granting their trust in this way.

If you doubt that, how do you account for one of the members of the current apostolic team complaining that if he asked Terry for explanations of NF finances, the latter's response was to act all hurt and say that the questioner didn't trust him? If you challenge those in control, you are accused of a lack of trust.

Of course there may be exceptions to this (I like to think I was one ), but it's in the culture and as I think I have demonstrated, it goes all the way to the top. Which, until there is any clear evidence to the contrary, is still Terry, "leader of NewFrontiers".
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry, let me put that another way.

In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).

Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.
]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:

---

In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).

---

That's no different from being in the Baptist Church where I am now. I think you are suggesting that in NF people are encouraged to do this almost blindly and no matter what but that was never my experience, nor my family who still worship within NF churches or many of my good friends.

NB I'd fully agree that they are being pedantic about insisting they are not a denomination. Of course they are!I use the phrase 'Church family' for any denomination because that's my preference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

It means that things tend to take a long time to do, but as a check on the power of the leader, it's quite impressive.

---

quote:

---

Mmm. I suspect that is really just a matter of perception, most churches are top-down in one way or another. Something being 'non-servant' depends on your understanding of the term servant and this whole 'Jesus wouldn't like this so nor do I' mode of discussion is belittling and silly.

And even where structures are not top down human nature wins out. Who was it that talked about replacing the Pope in Rome with one in every congregation?

I don't think there is so much unhealthy in the NF setup. That they're much too precious about it is certainly true, but at the end of the day it works, so stop knocking it.

---

Well if following what Jesus said is silly we might as well all pack up and switch off the lights !

A few points
1) Most church structures are 'wrong' in so much that they aren't what St Paul was talking about. He was talking to HOUSE churches of around 20 people. NF are NOT restoring the NT church - they are at best restoring elements of the 4th century church as are most denominations. The difference with NF is that the whole basis of Restorationalism is that they are the only correct God ordained way of doing things and that's why you can't criticize it. They are historically wrong in this belief but attempt to use scripture to justify authoritarianism. When scripture is put in its correct historical context of house churches, its clear that they have no justification for their hierarchy at all. When do we see one apostle put in charge of the church by Jesus - WE DON'T ! I wonder why !

2) They allow no other opinions other than the approved party line which is pretty tight. How about I come and preach a sermon on why tithing is legalistic rubbish. Anyone in NF want to invite me ? Are you free to do so or are you looking over your shoulder.

3)NF are anything but clear about their finances. How much does Terry Virgo earn ? I can look up the heads of other denominations. Why not NF ? I am not accusing him of anything other than nativity. I actually think he is a very nice chap. However history is full of nice sincere Christians who get it wrong and do damage inadvertently to others.

4)Jesus told his followers not to lord it over each other like the gentiles. How exactly isn't NF lording over the flock when they preach tithing, demand almost unquestioning allegiance to leaders, and have no formal system for holding leaders to account. This is lording it over the flock plain and simple. It is SPIRITUAL ABUSE and relies on a warped interpretation of scripture to maintain the hold they have over members.

There are plenty of people hurt by this denomination some of whom are no longer Christians. NF should stop being in total denial of what abuse is going on. They should open themselves up to proper open debate instead of constant double speak and self denial to keep the hierarchy happy.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Opps I'm not accusing Terry Virgo of nativity. I'm sure he is a great guy but he's not that good !
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Two things...

1. quote:

   ---

   Originally posted by Arminian:
   When do we see one apostle put in charge of the church by Jesus - WE DON'T ! I wonder why !

   ---

   What about St Peter?

2. quote:

   ---

   ...It is SPIRITUAL ABUSE and relies on a warped interpretation of scripture to maintain the hold they have over members.

   ---

   Not being funny, but if it were true, why the smiley?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
So how much does Terry Virgo earn ? Simple enough question for those who are in NF to answer. If its all friends together why the silence ?

---

quote:

---

it would seem that a casual reading of NewFrontiers' accounts does not enable the reader to establish the level of earnings of its leader

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
St Peter - was he really head of the church?

---

quote:

---

I don't think it can be said that one was in overall charge in the way Terry Virgo is in charge of NF.

---

quote:

---

So how much does Terry Virgo earn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But I'm sure Terry has never said he is head of the Church, just the founder of NF.

---

quote:

---

How much do you earn? Why is it so important for us to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's an element of NFI-envy around in some charismatic circles in the older churches and denominations just as there is (or used to be) and element of Vineyard-envy).

It looks good from the outside ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You make NF sound like one of these Prosperity Gospel outfits, like Joyce Meyer - but I'm sure they're not like that. I think they just encourage tithing. If you object to that, why be a member?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
On Niteowl's point about boards of elders. Yes, NF churches have them. In the case I mentioned above, some churches members approached the elders to query the leader's behaviour. They were told a) he's the church leader (as if that somehow self-authenticated his decisions) and b) they 'had to trust their leaders.'

This is, I think, precisely the sort of evidence that supports Eutychus's observations.

What we need to remember here is that the behaviours described by Eutychus, Irish Lord, Aminian and myself all took place in different NF churches in different parts of this country and other countries. This suggests to me the issue is more cultural than individual.

Having said that I must say with Polly and Barnabas that there are many fine believers in NF. It is very much to Twangist's credit, for example, that he participates in these discussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Having said that I must say with Polly and Barnabas that there are many fine believers in NF. It is very much to Twangist's credit, for example, that he participates in these discussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

They might not claim a monopoly, but they would certainly argue that their form of church government is inherently superior to any other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:


The problem I see is that the potential for abuse is greater than in most denominations.

---

quote:

---

How much do you earn? Why is it so important for us to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
How effectively does an Anglican Chapter work as a local gathering of Elders, what on earth have we done with the Diaconate, and how to Church Wardens & PCC's operate within this model as forms of lay eldership?

---

Well, there is a rather Protestant view of Anglican polity that sees church wardens and PCC members as the local church eldership, something like New Testament presbyters; various lay church workers as mapping on to the Biblical structure as deacons; incumbents as equivalent to NT overseers or bishops (with ordained deacons as therefore a kind of assistant bishop - which is in fact what they seem to have been in the late first and second centuries); and our consecrated bishops as merely people appointed to some central bureaucratic or political job with no inherent distinction between their ordination and that of a parish priest. I think I have heard or read things like that argued (or at least hinted at) by some well-known charismatic-evangelical Anglicans. (As a mere Reader I couldn't possibly comment )
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Well, there is a rather Protestant view of Anglican polity that sees church wardens and PCC members as the local church eldership, something like New Testament presbyters; various lay church workers as mapping on to the Biblical structure as deacons; incumbents as equivalent to NT overseers or bishops (with ordained deacons as therefore a kind of assistant bishop - which is in fact what they seem to have been in the late first and second centuries); and our consecrated bishops as merely people appointed to some central bureaucratic or political job with no inherent distinction between their ordination and that of a parish priest. I think I have heard or read things like that argued (or at least hinted at) by some well-known charismatic-evangelical Anglicans. (As a mere Reader I couldn't possibly comment )

---

I can agree with an element of that, but would suggest a more fractal view. In that the Apostolic ministry of Bishops and Priests and Deacons is seen at a smaller scale in the Parish or Benefice. Our Church Wardens certainly act in an eldership capacity.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The tithing thing isn't unique to NFI, of course, Arminian, it tends to be taught that way across a lot of independent charismatic evangelical fellowships ie. completely out of context ...

Andrew Walker drily observed in 'Restoring the Kingdom' that whilst a lot of the 'giving' stuff from 2 Corinthians was taught in the restorationist churches, he'd yet to hear any of the 'apostles' cite the apostle Paul's contention that although he might be entitled to financial support he was prepared to waive it and work in a 'secular' capacity instead in order not to be a burden on anyone ...

I'm sure there are plenty of tithe horror stories.

In our network, very similar in ethos to NFI, we also used to have a 'heap offering' at the annual Bible Weeks. I used to call them 'hype-offerings' as people were worked up in order to give large sums. One year a student friend put all his money into it and spent the rest of the year scrounging food off the rest of us in our shared student house ...

When I mentioned this to the 'apostles' (many years later) as indicative of a flawed system they shrugged it off and suggested that I was to blame for 'lack of faith' ...
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Ah yes, we had a young man here give his last 50cents in the offering basket. He had been unemployed and found a job the very next week, which of course was hailed as a triumph of faith as expressed through giving.

The inconvenient fact that his new employer worked him for three months without ever giving him a cent before he finally quit was quietly ignored.

Of course, shaky teaching concerning tithing has been around in Pentecostal circles for a long, long time; and are hardly unique to NF. In all fairness, I'd say that they actually buy into their own rhetoric concerning the whole matter: I don't think they preach this way just to get more cash in the offering plate.

The observed cognitive dissonance between expected and actual results might as well be added to the pile on top of prophetic words and certain beliefs about tongues.

It's foolishness, but within NF at least, I personally don't think it's malicious.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd second that. There's wishful thinking and naivety rather than maliciousness, I'd suggest.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd second that. There's wishful thinking and naivety rather than maliciousness, I'd suggest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd second that. There's wishful thinking and naivety rather than maliciousness, I'd suggest.

---

Up to a point. When I put these arguments against tithing to a pastor he couldn't refute them but carried on preaching it anyway. It does cause people to give out of guilt.

Anyone from NF want to invite speakers who will preach against tithing ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

"Should you tithe net or gross? Well, do you want God to bless you net or gross?" or words to that effect from one of the NFI big wigs around these parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

quote:

---

In the days before Christ came, God’s people related to God essentially by obeying laws to show their love and devotion to him. This included obeying laws related to giving such as tithes (giving 10% of gross income to the temple) and offerings (ad hoc gifts over and above the tithe).

But once Christ came, the law fell away and the New Testament thunders out that we now relate to God through his grace not our works – we no longer have to obey laws to please him because we have already been made 100% righteous by Jesus’ death.

---

quote:

---

grace raises the bar not lowers it: Grace, when understood, is way more powerful and effective in our lives than the law was

---

quote:

---

So, we see that giving less than 10% per month would be a declaration that the law is more powerful than grace – how tragic that would be!

---

quote:

---

we would like all members to be comfortable and consistent in the principle of the tithe - giving at least 10% of gross income to Godfirst

---

quote:

---

In the Old Testament, Scripture speaks of giving the first tenth (or tithe) back to God, and the New Testament develops this with a generous attitude that assumes a tithe as a starting point for our giving.

At ChristChurch, our goal is to encourage everyone to give a tenth or more of our income to the work of God in the local church

---

quote:

---

In turn, ChristChurch gives a tithe of all our income to the work of Newfrontiers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

"Should you tithe net or gross? Well, do you want God to bless you net or gross?" or words to that effect from one of the NFI big wigs around these parts.

---

It's important to know exactly what he said. The quote makes him sound like some televangelist (such as Joyce Meyer), but then you add "...or words to that effect."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Fails to mention that the passage wasn't talking about giving to ministers, but poor believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

NF seems to operate on two levels. The 'we're all happy and chummy mates' on the surface, and 'submit or leave' if you want influence or leadership positions. (Lead, follow or step aside as PJ Smythe puts it !).

Is this the Iron fist of Calvanism in a woolly glove of charismatic happy clappyness ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

NF seems to operate on two levels. The 'we're all happy and chummy mates' on the surface, and 'submit or leave' if you want influence or leadership positions. (Lead, follow or step aside as PJ Smythe puts it !).

Is this the Iron fist of Calvanism in a woolly glove of charismatic happy clappyness ?

---

Neither. As a Priest I welcome disagreement and those who disagree onto our PCC's. I have heard other clergy say they have 'got rid of everyone who disagrees with them from the PCC' - even if said in jest it betrays an underlying attitude.

But then those second types of PCC's often seem to achieve more and sooner, rather than being bound up in debate and discussion, and that debate can in itself cause hurt and confusion. Which is the better path?

---

I think there's a couple of dimensions to this. If leaders want to take decisions for which they are accountable, without taking account the views of others, that's fine as long as everyone knows the ground rules when you start. Churches are voluntary organisations and you can find out how things work before you join. If you don't like the leadership style, go somewhere else.

The problem is when leaders tell you decisions are made one way, when in fact they are made in another way.

The issue for me isn't so much whether leaders have the right to make decisions, as when they want to make decisions for which they are not accountable, exceed the bounds of their authority, or create a culture in which they themselves cannot be held to account for their behaviour.

The latter is my biggest concern about some NF churches. Ungodly behaviour doesn't become godly because you perpetrate it in your capacity as a leader.

Having said that I know of other NF churches where the leaders are almost paranoid about the need to avoid being controlling. They combine a clarity of leadership, with an openness to the Spirit, and strongly value their members. It's quite a feat if you can pull it off, but really this is the ideal we find in the New Testament.

I'm praying we see more of the latter in our churches and less of the former.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
What R said
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

So what * does* your church teach about giving? And when people ask the question 'should we tithe' what does the leadership of the church teach?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
(old joke - "why is church like a helecopter? - because if you stand too close you get caught up in the rotas)

---

(a bit of light refreshment is much needed here!)
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Welcome, CSL1. That all sounds sadly familiar and I think it shows what the likes of Ramarius and Twangist are up against.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
. I don't take a salary from any form of ministry now and would hesistate to do so again, but trying to fund even basic operations of a church that doesn't have centuries' worth of assets without preaching some form of tithing is definitely a challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
. I don't take a salary from any form of ministry now and would hesistate to do so again, but trying to fund even basic operations of a church that doesn't have centuries' worth of assets without preaching some form of tithing is definitely a challenge.

---

I appreciate that in many places even having a single building that is reasonably well looked after and one minister who is paid well enough that he can afford to raise a family can be a stretch - and a lot of the churches that are able to do this have had property handed down to them from a previous generation.

Part of the problem is that many NFI churches aspire to operate on a different scale all together. Taking their cue from the church growth movement, they see a large multi-purpose building, a calendar packed with programs and multiple staff working for the church as the only possible viable end goal.

So it's not surprising that the pressures to do this tends to dictate a lot of the praxis on tithing regardless of the actual teaching (which as you say manages to turn gospel into law). This happens even in the complete absence of any particular pastor trying to enrich themselves - which I'm guessing is very rare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would have thought, though, that given the typical numbers of an NFI congo, and their typical demographic (middle class upwards), that the funding of such buildings should not pose too much of an issue; I would have thought there would be fewer financial problems there than a struggling inner or outer city CofE gaffe trying to maintain a 19th century or older building with a couple of dozen or so active congregants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't recognise this tangent at all - I've never ever heared tithing preached in a NF church.
We are a grace movement (in theory).

---

So what * does* your church teach about giving? And when people ask the question 'should we tithe' what does the leadership of the church teach?

---

Church membership involves supporting the church with your prayers, your gifts (i.e. doing stuff, getting caught up in the rotas (old joke - "why is church like a helecopter? - becasue if you stand too close you get caught up in the rotas")) and your money.
Giving should involve faith, is connected to investing in the vision of the church and is part of your worship. (God owns everything anyway).
Joyless legalism (I've given my 10% cos that's want God wants) isn't encouraged!!
It's a 2 way thing as well - church funds have frequently been used to support members in financial need.
Our also church fincncialy supports local Xtian charities which aren't directly anything to with us or NF.
Our Lead Elder does ask people if they are regular givers if he is bringing them into some form of leadership (small groups, youth work etc) but he doesn't know the figures.

---

Pleasd to hear it - especially that your leader doesn't know how much people give. I've met leaders who make a point of finding out.

One specific you missed - when people ask the question 'should I tithe' what do you say?

@CSL 1 - sadly I've seen all these behaviours - impressionable young leaders, character assassination, and the 'we'll make it hard for you to join another church.' The last one is nothing short of spite. I too know a leader who adopted this tactic every time anyone left his church in a manner he didn't approve of. None of the 'importing' leaders took the blindest bit if notice.

Amusingly, I was given that line when I left an NF church. Within a month I had direct or indirect contact from no less than four other NF church leaders asking if I'd like a chat about joining their set up.

The odd bad apple is one thing - but with similar expereinces being shared across three continents it's hard not to conclude there's a problem in the gene pool.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
Arminian -

Yes, exactly, you brought some memories back. About 90% of what you related is exactly what I experienced, including the visit by the distant "apostle" that was then followed by a series of sermons on tithing. I believe we had four straight. The whole line about tithing being unbiblical also, but yet we were expected to give exceedingly. I'd thought that thing about tithing being unbiblical was the pastor's personal rebellion against NFI, had no idea it was just part of the same old strategy.

And to think that they all seemed so nice at first. Young, energetic people, lots of fellowship meals, nice home study groups (though oddly, we virtually never cracked a Bible if at all, just typically discussed the pastor's take on things from the previous Sunday or confessed sins (which I found out later were occasionally used against the flock to keep them in line). The pastor was an externally self-effacing fellow, had an endearingly bumbling personality. But once NFI stepped in, some flaws of his must have been exploited, because thereafter in private, if ever challenged, he became what I can only refer to as an unreasoning, yelling brute. Night-day compared to public persona. I was not the only one who experienced this--I spoke with him in private only after a small group of young men, none of them members of the elder's team, approached me and asked if I, as an older member, might be able to reason with him. At first, I thought they were being unreasonable themselves and didn't believe their stories--was I naive!

NFI seems nice until there's the slightest bit of inquiry or disagreement over their exotic interpretations of scripture and idiosyncratic views on church culture and polity, at which point--so long as it's private and the leaders know they have no particular reason to be nice--the mask comes off. It was a shock.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Some of this stuff makes the "apostolic spheres" sound like the Gustapo!

"Are you paying your tithes?" (slap!)
"Answer me!" (slap!)
"Resistance is useless!" (slap!)

[ 19. June 2012, 20:20: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thank you for your informative contribution

Although back in the day, I did at one point genuinely fear physical violence was imminent (see the sixth paragraph in this section of my story - this is the longer, older version, written not long after the events in question. But I still remember my feelings when I thought the guy was about to hit me).
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
Eutychus - Yes, the violence or veiled threats thereof... Once when engaging in small talk, no argument at all, with the pastor's right hand man on the elder's team ( a very stout, muscular fellow, I referred to him as the "enforcer"), we we laughing about pictures of ourselves back in high school, the long hair and all, and he said "You know, you have just the kind of face there that I used to like to smash in". Very odd comment, how do you take that?

Another bit of hinted violence occurred at a later date during my most contentious private meeting with pastor (who by the way, didn't technically refer to himself as "pastor", but "head elder", I don't know for sure if this is also a NF thing). When I questioned his belief that, per the NT and of course, NF, there must be a single head of the "local church" (evidently another favorite catch phrase), he first asked in a rather loud and angry voice whether I believed the Scriptures were authoritative, then he lunged across the table and grabbed me by the wrist, like he was ready to yank me out of my seat and have it out once-and-for-all, but he suddenly got a terrified look on his face (perhaps "What am I doing, what would be the consequences?") and let loose.

Those two incidents, coupled with his "Get in their faces" directive from the pulpit to the young men, made me very aware that violence might not have been out of the question if someone hung around long enough questioning their beliefs and refused to go quietly.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
I believe this sort of stuff is actually a form of brainwashing. You make contradictory statements and try to use the 'wrath of God' to induce guilt for those who don't fall into line. Cults do the same thing. They seem to use it to shift ground to deflect criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
As a Priest I welcome disagreement and those who disagree onto our PCC's. I have heard other clergy say they have 'got rid of everyone who disagrees with them from the PCC' - even if said in jest it betrays an underlying attitude.

But then those second types of PCC's often seem to achieve more and sooner, rather than being bound up in debate and discussion, and that debate can in itself cause hurt and confusion. Which is the better path?

---

quote:

---

It took me the best part of a year to get free of this stuff to the extent that I can look at NF theology and laugh at it.

---

quote:

---

It took me the best part of a year to get free of this stuff to the extent that I can look at NF theology and laugh at it.

---

quote:

---

It is very difficult to leave NF without leaving God. My wife left and wouldn't go near a church for 10 years.

---

quote:

---

We know of marriages that have disintegrated, people who have left the Christian faith, simply because in the minds of many who leave, NF is THE church.

---

quote:

---

It takes a lot of time to separate NF and their erroneous theology from what is actually in the Bible.

---

This I did experience, I went through about a year of aversion to reading the Bible because there were so many bad memories of hearing it twisted.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've never heard New Frontiers or any other restorationist group claim to be THE church - although back in the day I did hear it said (and I cringed whenever I heard it) that churches that didn't have 'apostles' weren't pukka, proper churches ...



But then, some of our more High Church brothers and sisters would say the same of churches that didn't have Bishops or Apostolic Succession or the three-fold ministries of Bishops, Priests and Deacons ...

All that said, I don't think NFI (or fellowships like it) are particularly healthy places to be - at least not for the longer term.

My own experiences of NFI have been uniformly positive, but I wouldn't want to get involved in a church like that ever again. I know lots of people who are very happy there, but those that are tend to have migrated there from churches that were more extreme in certain ways.

Like I say, it all depends on where you're coming from in the first place.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
There was undoubtedly an attitude expressed and implied at my NF church, by our regional "apostle", and by Terry Virgo himself that THEY were the true restorationists, setting all right, and that other churches, perhaps with the exceptions of the Sovereign Grace or Acts 29 crowd (mentioned below), were flawed. The whole point was to come under the authority of an apostle, this was a necessity, and they were more-or-less the proper ones. Para church ministries, such as those of Billy Graham, Youth for Christ, etc., were strongly discouraged because they did not come under the authority of the apostles.

Your friends may not have had any problems because they had some local leaders who clung to Matthew 20 and were servants, but they would have done so only by essentially disobeying their apostles.

I've been in one church that was worse than New Frontiers, that ended up being word faith, prosperity gospel on closer inspection, with vicious abuse common, e.g., the leaders would split couples when they thought one was on board with their mission, while the other wasn't. Happened often. When they denied the divinity of Jesus from the pulpit, that was the end of our attendance at that church.

New Frontiers was never quite that bad, and of course I can't speak for all New Frontiers churches. But I can say that my experiences perfectly mirror those of many others with NFI and line up closely with the experiences of many in the neo-Calvinist groups targeting young enthusiastic people in the U.S., such as Sovereign Grace and Acts 29. They all very strongly tend towards authoritarianism, they oft twist scriptures to fit some pragmatic purpose (typically church growth, which they usually define as The Mission), they will, when pressed, turn brutal.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm afraid that all of my experience suggests that any NF churches that aren't prone, to some degree or another, to the type of bad stuff being related here are the ones that are not of strategic interest to those at the top.

And when you see the same sort of stories replicated across such a wide dispersal of places, you have to wonder where the modus operandi originates.

I'm sure there are other outfits that are similarly abusive but I'm not sure there are many (within the UK at least) that have such an air of respectability and clout in evangelical circles.

Again, it's the disconnect between the appearance and the reality of how the inner core works that I think is particularly insiduous.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
I agree. I just thought it was our old church, but it seems to be following a pattern replicated in other churches over several continents. If true that is sinister, and dishonest. They should be more open about what they stand for.

If you turn up to a small group of Christians, claim you are only there to 'help', but have a hidden strategy that imports your management, removes the original leaders, moves money away from the local group to a management hierarchy, and prevents any mechanism for accountability of the new leaders - that is pretty disgraceful.

Is there any way of proving if this is happening as official NF policy ? I suppose the only way to confirm this is to research what has happened at other fellowships (that are strategically important).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
CSL1 - yes, I suspect you're right. I've heard horror stories about Sovereign Grace.

I was being 'relative' in my comments. I tend to think that the health-wealth/prosperity crowd are a lot worse than NFI - but pain is pain. It might be worse to be scratched or stabbed by a rusty blade rather than a cleanly polished one, but it still hurts and you could still end up bleeding to death.

It might be worse being shot by a home-made firearm than a highly-tooled expensive military one, but you still end up dead.

I tend to agree that a propensity to authoritarianism is built into the DNA and modus-operandi of all these outfits.

NFI do have some clout here on the wider evangelical scene and that's because they know how to speak the language. A few references to Calvinist shibboleths is enough to convince many that they're on the level.

It also looks nice and shiny from the outside.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
I find the talk of cults, inconsistency and brainwashing interesting. The perception always seems to be that the people directly over you are doing this deliberately. That's understandable, because that's where the direct pressure is coming from, but I think this is wrong on two counts. I don't think it's deliberate, and in most cases, I think the direct leader is probably in a very similar position to you.

The tales of pastors/elders being angry and aggressive sound to me like they're consistent with a fundamentally good person who's under all sorts of strange pressures and doesn't know how to handle it. If you felt pressured and brainwashed, what if you were under pressure over the behaviour/performance of an entire church, and couldn't possibly just walk away because it's your job? It would definitely be difficult.

But I'm not sure that anyone does it deliberately. We're all capable of deceiving ourselves if it matters enough, or if there's enough pressure (see experiments where perception of simple facts could be changed by the views of others, or the 4/5 lights in Nineteen Eighty-Four), and some are much better at this self-deceit and also much better at convincing others of its truth (the name Blair springs irresistibly to mind at this point). There may be some conscious deceit at the very top, but I tend more to the cock-up line of thought, that as long as something gives the desired results, people will convince themselves that it's good.

I have limited experience of NFI (although what I have was enough to make me absolutely certain that I didn't feel comfortable there), so I can't say for certain that these observations are relevant, but I think it's important to recognise that situations can be a lot more complicated than what we see.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[massive cross-post: I was answering Arminian]

You can be sure that if there's an "official" policy it won't be written down anywhere.

But I'm not sure it's like that.

I think the issue is a combination of a number of factors.

Firstly, there are NF's theological assumptions - specifically, about restoration, authority, and sin as it relates to the flesh. These make it very sure of its own soundness.

Secondly, its organisational structure means there is no effective mechanism of checks and balances and an aversion to written records and procedures. Combined with the first set of assumptions, this means the organisation is blind to its own mistakes.

The result of this is twofold:

Firstly, it enables NF to plough ahead, convinced that it has the right strategy, one that is inherently superior to everything else out there ("let's reach every nation before McDonald's", I once heard one of the current "apostolic team" say), and persuaded that any disasters are "collateral damage" in the great struggle to establish the Kingdom of God.

Secondly, it means that particularly abusive individuals can enter the leadership and get away with mayhem for quite some time before being detected or confronted. As long as they don't fall into sexual immorality (the sin of sins - and of course one that involves the flesh) they are probably quite safe.

Privately, many NF leaders may admit to some of these shortcomings, or at least express concern about them, but so long as the person at the very top of the organisation does not own to them and has not relinquished control, my opinion is that they will not be able to voice them in a public forum without falling out of favour in the organisation.

Going further is difficult, becuase they are trapped in the classic "equity pit" of a spiritual abuse system. They have put so much in that the thought of leaving is just too much to bear.

I only left when I realised that my marriage, my sanity and possibly my life (suicide, not murder!) was at stake. It cost me my livelihood, the church I'd worked to build up for 15 years, many of my friends, many of my theological assumptions, and an emotional impact on us all that has left indelible traces on the whole family.

It was a high price to pay. I don't regret it, but I'm not sure I would have been willing to pay had not the alternative been so stark, and I can understand why others who are not under such a direct and vital threat don't leave or speak out.

[ 21. June 2012, 09:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I think that the Great Gumby speaks much truth!

I can see many of the abuses as being the result of three factors:

*A framework that allows for it
*A leader who's in over his (or her, well, not in NF's case!) head.
*Pressure from the top.

We have actually had a similar instance with our home organization (not NFI) where a new CEO stepped in and was quickly overwhelmed with his job, and instead of admitting to his own inadequacies (and just flat-out incompetence, frankly) he quickly took to bullying and behind-the-scenes politicking to get what he wanted.

One of the local NF pastors is like that to an extent. We still get along perfectly well as friends, but he's a very heavy-handed leader in the church: lots of people are placed 'under church discipline' and the congregation told 'not to communicate with them, or try to hear out there side of the story'. Sometimes it's probably justifiable, but often it's because someone was speaking ill of the leaders themselves.

I do think that much of this stems from a desire to build a large church, and thus please the 'Apostle' that's in charge. As far as they are concerned, pleasing him is paramount. They get all giddy whenever he's about to make a visit, they quote him frequently as a way of providing evidence for their weird theology, and most of the major with the church decisions are really his.

The first time I visited there, I remember one of the Turks asking me if I had read many of DD's books. My response was, "who's he?" The guy gave me an odd look and asked, "Are you even a Christian?"
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I think that the Great Gumby speaks much truth!

---

Careful! Say that too much and people really will be wondering whether you're a Christian.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The first time I visited there, I remember one of the Turks asking me if I had read many of DD's books. My response was, "who's he?" The guy gave me an odd look and asked, "Are you even a Christian?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I think that the Great Gumby speaks much truth!

---

Careful! Say that too much and people really will be wondering whether you're a Christian.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It is a kind of parallel universe, Mark, but I've equally thought that Orthodoxy is like that too, at least to those of us looking into it from this side of the Bosphorus.

In some ways there are parallels between restorationist outfits like NFI and the ancient Historic Churches, but it's all on a very micro scale. They talk about 'binding and loosing' and so on and so forth in ways that remind me of how RCs sometimes speak about the Papacy.

Small wonder that some very conservative evangelicals believe that NFI is the thin end of a very large wedge that leads back to ... cue creepy music ... darn-NNARRN-NARRRNNN!!! - R-R-R-ROME!!



So, on the one hand you've got some restorationists acting as if they are THE ChurchTM and on the other some conversative evangelicals acting as if the restorationists are THE Antichrist.

All very droll if it wasn't so sad ...
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Small wonder that some very conservative evangelicals believe that NFI is the thin end of a very large wedge that leads back to ... cue creepy music ... darn-NNARRN-NARRRNNN!!! - R-R-R-ROME!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was being 'relative' in my comments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I don't think it's deliberate, and in most cases, I think the direct leader is probably in a very similar position to you.

---

It's likely. Extreme cognitive dissonance probably does make leaders and members very defensive. It's possible the anger I and several others experienced from some of the younger leaders in private was simply great pressure and insecurity.

[B62: Reference to named individual removed]

[ 21. June 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you're spot on in your analysis when it comes to the attractions of churches like that - I became involved with a similar/parallel network to NFI when I was 20. I was there for the next 18 years and stuck with it through thick and thin even though I had grave misgivings from the outset - which I overlooked in deference to the close fellowship/friendships and sense of purpose it offered.

I wouldn't make ad hominem remarks about who was or wasn't a 'sincere Christian' though. In NFI terms I've only heard of one leader whose behaviour was so outrageous that it made me go - but then, he wasn't up to anything that wouldn't or couldn't happen elsewhere.

I think you're right, though, that there's a patina of respectability that gives groups like NFI more clout and external respect than they would otherwise have.

It ain't just an NFI thing, but I have very grave doubts about the discernment ability of many prominent charismatic evangelical leaders across the board. There's an almost default acclamation of anything that looks large and lively. 'Never mind the quality, feel the width.'

But then, I'm only peripherally involved with charismatic evangelicalism per se these days.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
CSL1

These are public boards. See Commandment 7.

quote:

---

7. Don't post illegal material

Posting libellous material, copyright violations or links to sites advocating illegal activities puts us in legal hot water, which makes us very unhappy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't make ad hominem remarks about who was or wasn't a 'sincere Christian' though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
CSL1

These are public boards. See Commandment 7.

quote:

---

7. Don't post illegal material

Posting libellous material, copyright violations or links to sites advocating illegal activities puts us in legal hot water, which makes us very unhappy.

---

So as a precaution I've edited a couple of your posts.

SoF has no option but to be cautious. This is a shoestring operation. Defending against allegations of libel is not something we've got the money for.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It would appear from the following that there is a measure of uncertainty, not to say confusion, around developments in New Frontiers.

As an aside, I found Mr Hosier's remarks about the relationship between the church and bishops somewhat amusing given the relationship between NF churches and Terry Virgo. But as with much of what I read from NF, the irony seems lost on the author.

---

quote:

---

Genuine apostolic ministry (by which I mean those gifts that catalyse church planting and global mission) cannot be created by hierarchical authority structures. They need to be given space to appear.

---

quote:

---

releasing authority to a new team (and teams)

---

quote:

---

Newfrontiers must die, in order that Newfrontiers might live

---

quote:

---

It ain't just an NFI thing, but I have very grave doubts about the discernment ability of many prominent charismatic evangelical leaders across the board. There's an almost default acclamation of anything that looks large and lively. 'Never mind the quality, feel the width.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It may not be charitable of me, but I suspect he hasn't listed it because he knows darn well that it might actually prove an attractive option to various NF members and congregations and thereby do him, and people like him, out of a job ...

---

I'd take some issue with this, I think he just has a rather blinkered view of ecclesiology and his arguments all make sense within his own particular frame of reference.

CSL1 explains the dynamic for how young people get involved in such churches. There is a dynamic for those who stay involved at a leadership level, that involves dogma overlaying everything else - of course this is true of everyone to a certain extent, but I suspect statements like "Church meetings are sinful" have never been thought through completely.

Which is why I tend to be somewhat dismissive whenever the academic credentials of their theology circle is brought up. I suspect that whatever they learnt at Westminster West or Spurgeons was heavily influenced by the preconceptions they came in with.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I can see that, Chris Stiles. I'm not sure who is being most uncharitable now, you or me.

I think you're right though, on the 'church meeting' thing. Back in my restorationist days dodgy 'church meetings' in Baptist circles were often cited as the reason for the kind of top-down approach we adopted.

I'd certainly seen/heard of dodgy church meetings in Baptist circles in South Wales, but when I finally emerged from restorationism - via the Baptists as it happens - I found the whole 'church meeting' thing an incredible breath of fresh air.

It was like coming up from a long, dark mine.

People were expressing their views, feeling free to disagree ... what was going on?

The reality, of course, is that NFI and similar outfits use a series of spectral stereotypes to dismiss the way that other churches do things ... and I'm sure we all do that to some extent. The way I've heard some Orthodox talk about what allegedly happens in the Church of England makes me wonder how I've failed to notice the horns coming out of clerical heads or the hoofs sticking out from under the cassocks ...

Equally, the way some Protestants caricature RCs is part and parcel of the same tendency ...

I think you're right that the blog-piece does make sense within a particular kind of ecclesiology - but surely it's a fairly warped kind of ecclesiology to kick off with?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but @Edward Green ... yes, I've not seen that thing about the Apostolic Fathers going astray in print before, but I have heard it several times when I've pressed restorationists on where the Church allegedly went 'wrong'.

I'm not sure whether this represents a trend and I'm not involved with anything remotely restorationist anymore but I have picked up on a view that things started to deteriorate almost from the end of Acts. I've certainly come across some lone-wolf former restorationists who say this quite openly. They appear to maintain aspects of the theology even though they're not involved with churches any more (but seem to be out to gather disaffected restorationists around them so they can continue to beef about it all) ...

There are a lot of restorationist 'ghosts' with no formal church affiliation and who can't settle anywhere but sit on the sidelines castigating all the churches for their failures and short-comings ...
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Oh wow. I appreciate Matt's honesty - we depart from the rest of the Church at the Apostolic Fathers. I have wondered for some time how folks dealt with that tension.

---

I'm not entirely sure whether you are being sarcastic or not
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I took it that Edward was being serious, rather than sarcastic. When I was involved in restorationist circles, this issue was skated around, rather - even if it were acknowledged as an issue.

The historic Churches were seen to have lost the plot at some point, but this point was never really identified or defined. Some suggested it was by the time Montanism emerged in the second century - and the nasty old established Church tried to stamp it out - but the precise 'falling away' point was never really defined that clearly.

I've been taken to task on these Boards before - by Johnny S if I remember rightly - for expressing how surprised I was to find the Sub-Apostolic Fathers so 'Catholic' in tone when I finally got around to reading them.

Johnny S pooh-poohed the very idea ...
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Oh wow. I appreciate Matt's honesty - we depart from the rest of the Church at the Apostolic Fathers. I have wondered for some time how folks dealt with that tension.

---

I'm not entirely sure whether you are being sarcastic or not

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...Some suggested it was by the time Montanism emerged in the second century - and the nasty old established Church tried to stamp it out - but the precise 'falling away' point was never really defined that clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

That's about the top and bottom of it. It's a form of independent Protestantism taken to its logical conclusion but with a chimerical attempt to 'restore' what is seen as NT practice and church government - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers etc ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

And as has been pointed out by another here, that's part of the insidiousness, the external respectability. Draws a lot of christians, particularly young ones without much perspective or wisdom, and they make "good close" friends quickly, as typically happens in cultic groups, and then they get hooked and the prospect of leaving is too painful. NFI, Sovereign Grace, Acts 29, and word faith/prosperity outfits exploit this.

Part of the problem is the quick, microwave friendship attitude that prevails amongst younger people, they don't want to take time to get to know people through good and bad, which takes years. You simply cannot, apart from a direct revelation from the Almighty, judge whether someone is wolf or sheep quickly or easily. So they're invited by a nice, new acquaintance to a church that showers them with "love" from the outset, they see the great energy and passion, and they give themselves fully to it, thinking it all led by the Hand of God, but utterly ignoring that God's warnings in 2 Cor 11. And they get hooked and either in time become an abused or an abuser. Other than the transient types, who either leave when they see what's really happening or are shucked out when the leaders find they cannot force them to their knees in worship of their authority, those are the only two categories of people in such a church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
...you don't realise until you're at the receiving end....And when they turn on you... then you understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Edward Green, yes, I can see the similarities. What checks and balances, though, do you see in the more Catholic traditions that prevent them from acting in a domineering or 'cultic' way? If in fact they do ... it strikes me that some of them do act in a very similar fashion ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
The saddest thing was seeing her, basically the same person, only beginning to realise that she herself had done these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I myself personally don't have an axe to grind, I just have to wonder where these leaders get their authority from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well lucky you. Instead of passing judgement on everyone else's experience perhaps you'd like to supply some contribution in the form of a theory about where the leaders get their authority from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Please keep in mind that many of the postings here are from ex-NF/Restorationist members who may have a chip on their shoulders.

---

quote:

---

I am coming to the conclusion that the whole "Restorationist" movement is based on the Montanism of the 2nd C. which was denounced as a heresy by the Church (eventually). So the burning question which everything else hangs on, including elders' authority, is, were the Montanists right or was the Church right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I am coming to the conclusion that the whole "Restorationist" movement is based on the Montanism of the 2nd C. which was denounced as a heresy by the Church (eventually). So the burning question which everything else hangs on, including elders' authority, is, were the Montanists right or was the Church right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Edward Green, yes, I can see the similarities. What checks and balances, though, do you see in the more Catholic traditions that prevent them from acting in a domineering or 'cultic' way? If in fact they do ... it strikes me that some of them do act in a very similar fashion ...

---

In Anglicanism the Parish system and the PCC tame it, but it does exist. Love Bombing is natural human behaviour.

---

It certainly is, and it's all the more effective when a group has a particular intensity or sense of purpose. Maybe that's why it's a weak force in Anglicanism.

Seriously, the other thing that makes love bombing effective is a ready-made social structure which can be set down to virtually fill a person's life. It doesn't have to be church-related, it just has to crowd out any outside interests, so that there's no external support to fall back on when the "love bombee" starts to wonder what they've got themselves into.

It's natural, and IME it's rarely deliberate, but it does happen a lot, particularly in certain church movements. The problem, as I see it, is how to deal with behaviour that can be dangerous and damaging in large groups when everyone does it, but is basically normal and even good in individual cases.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree with what Wood, Matt Black and The Great Gumby have said here. All spot on.

It's a funny thing, though, when I finally got round to reading some of the early Church sources I found that they pointed in a different direction - a more 'catholic' one dare I say ... (tell it not in Gath) ...

I looked largely to find confirmation about the existence of 'apostles and prophets' - 'apostles' translated as 'missioners' in the Penguin edition I had which contained the Didache) but also to quell the nagging sense of cognitive dissonance that I felt the whole time I was a restorationist.

I don't think I ever, in all that time, used the term 'apostle' when referring to any of the leaders in conversation with Christians from outside the restorationist ambit or to non-Christians. Instead, I used fairly neutral terms like 'leaders' and so on. Why? Was I embarrassed at our own claims? Yes, in retrospect, I probably was ...
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a funny thing, though, when I finally got round to reading some of the early Church sources I found that they pointed in a different direction - a more 'catholic' one dare I say ... (tell it not in Gath) ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:

So for Matt to say that the early church got it wrong after the death of the Apostles is pretty big stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by genuinelyconcerned:
One of the new elders (and in NF this means, of course, an 'elder' in his early 30s) is a control freak who has bullied me on several occasions. I've been heavy shepherded before and have walked through that particular journey so I know the signs. He's not a total monster, of course, and he loves God, and I like him and wish him the best, but if you looked very deeply into his eyes you would see the words: 'New Frontiers'.

...I'm going to have a meeting with this dude soon as I want the best for him and the church he is now leading. I'm going to bring up some of the issues I perceive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure NFI, Sovereign Grace and similar independent charismatic/evangelical outfits could be described as 'nominally religious' - rather they represent a rather over-realised form of Protestant pietism in which the somewhat authoritarian structure is in danger of squeezing the grace out to a certain extent ...

Unless necessary checks and balances are adopted to prevent that happening. However, I suspect that the weaknesses are systemic.

Whatever the case, I tend to avoid the term 'nominally religious' these days, as it was one that I used to level at aspects of the historic Churches - Anglicans, RCs, Orthodox - back in my more Puritanical days.

The term smacks of Puritanism. Which in itself is a tendency that NFI, Sovereign Grace etc exhibit in spades.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of time for aspects of Puritan spirituality - in the 17th century sense and as exemplified by moderates like Richard Baxter. They did emphasise 'experimental and practical divinity' and some of their daily devotional practices weren't a million miles for anything you'd find in some of the more Catholic traditions - 'lectio divina' and so on - although obviously with a much more Protestant flavour.

The sad thing is, as has been observed elsewhere, the apparent 'reformed' credentials of groups like NF and Sovereign Grace means that they get cut a lot more slack by the mainstream evangelical press - such as Christianity Today in the US - than other outfits who don't pay such conscious reference to the Reformed or Puritan heritage.

And before Jengie Jon calls me on it, I do recognise that the Reformed tradition was/is much wider than the English Puritan one ...

Something that's struck me about a lot of ex-restorationists is that they can still tend towards a kind of Puritanical perfectionism ...

For a small number the attraction of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism (I know of former restorationists who have ended up in both) appears to lie in their claims of being The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - a simulacra/chimera of which they'd previously believed themselves to be restoring.

Others seem to go into more extreme health/wealth type groups. Some seem to find the Baptists as a congenial re-entry point to the mainstream. as it were ... and a number have found conducive spiritual homes among the Anglicans.

For the most part, though, I've found that a lot of former restorationists end up in parallel or 'ghost' fellowships or associations which are loosely based around one personality or other and where they spend their time slagging off their former affiliation and mourning about what might have been ...

---

Trust me, no puritanical ex-restorationist here! And I loathe single leader cults of personality, prosperity gospel churches, etc. I base my "nominally religious" claim on the following: I believe that many of the members of such organizations, such as NFI, SGI, Acts 29, are genuine and sincere people who are merely misled but in any event do the true work of the church, e.g., evangelism, fellowship, worship, sharing of gifts,spiritual and corporeal. I believe most of them individually represent the True Church. But I believe the systems hamper that work and do not represent the Lord. It's the system I'm knocking, not the people in general, I believe NFI is christian in name only, and in fact is a destructive force that turns christians into abused or abuser. That's my position.

But I'm no puritan and I never really was much of a restorationist, I don't think God necessarily wants us to try and reproduce exactly what a group of people in a different culture and millenium happened to devise in response to pressures and forces that existed in their society.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I recognise myself in much of what Gamaliel had to say. The nearest I came to Restorationism is when I spent around 2 years in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (in England) who pride themselves in being fundamentalists.

I can honestly say that I have never been the same since, which is why I could never permanently settle in a more "nominally christian" church such as the C of E. I don't know if I ever used this term, but certainly this was my attitude.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Genuinelyconcerned. You need to follow your conscience on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm interested in Mark Betts's use of the term though, because most evangelicals would consider the Orthodox Church to be largely 'nominal' too. Probably to a less extent here in the UK or over in the US where people have deliberately chosen to convert to Orthodoxy or else to consciously maintain it as a faith due to their ethnicity etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
CSLI - I'm not suggesting that you ARE a fully-fledged Puritan, but, rather like Mark Betts has acknowledged, I am suggesting that ALL of us who have spent time in fellowships of that ilk - whether charismatic or at the more fundamentalist end of the evangelical spectrum - are going to have imbibed something of that attitude whether we like it or not.

I know plenty of people from that sort of background who aren't formally involved with church in any way any more yet who wouldn't dream of going to the CofE, say, or the Methodists or similar because they think of it as 'nominal'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know you've had a bad experience, CSL1 and I don't wish to minimise that in any way - but I still think you're being a bit harsh. I know a lot of people here in NFI and some who're involved with Sovereign Grace's UK outpost and whilst I wouldn't want to be involved with either myself, I don't doubt their sincerity.

They certainly started out with good intentions. Sure, I think that both 'systems' are flawed but I don't think they were deliberately cooked up in advance in some kind of cynical marketing exercise or ploy.

These things develop on the hoof, particularly where there aren't the checks and balances found among the older churches and denominations.

---

Can't disagree with a word you say. Very few plan destruction and mayhem from the outset, and that includes, in my opinion, Virgo, Driscoll, Mahaney, MacArthur. Hitler was a notable exception, and even then Daladier, Chamberlain, et. al. couldn't quite bring themselves to believe he really meant what he said in Mein Kampf!

Things just happen, "on the hoof" as you rightly put it, as people make decisions for pragmatic purposes, which are standing alone fairly good things, but begin failing to follow the guidance of The Creator.

We must pay the lease
So that dynamic young pastor's brutish tendencies are ignored because he can fill the building.

We must become more prominent to spread the Gospel more broadly
So the Primary Mission of the church becomes growth of the institution and the clever marketing and branding thereof rather than growth of individual lives built up in Christ.

We need strong leaders to deal with these rough-round-the-edges new believers coming through the doors
So, given the inevitabilities of human nature, what starts as Godly shepherding, in humility, lead by example, spins out of control and becomes subjugation for the purposes of domination.

I think that NFI, SGI, Acts 29 exist now primarily to persecute the church, but I don't believe this is the result of any conscious devilish scheme on the part of leaders or members. Human-made disasters seldom have One Big Reason, they're almost always the result of many choices, each of them having a logic of their own from a given, though faulty, paradigm, all adding up to one big catastrophe that few could have foreseen.

The institutions take on lives of their own, and people come to serve them, even the exalted leaders thereof become slaves of their own creations. Jim Bakker describes the phenomenon well: "My dream became bigger and bigger. And the box got bigger than the message, than the Gospel." "The box got bigger, the outside, the buildings. And all that we were doing. I had to raise about $1 million every two days just to stay alive."
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I reckon that's pretty much on the money and a fair summary of how these things develop.

What I would caution against though (and I'm not saying you're doing this), is an overly dualistic approach that fails to recognise that churches are BOTH divine and human institutions at one and the same time - if I can put it that way. They can be conduits of grace, but also conduits of un-grace.

In Revelation terms they can be both 'synagogues of God' and 'synagogues of Satan' - sometimes, I believe, at one and the same time.

We used to distinguish between the wheat and tares in the 'field of the world' and insisted that there were no tares inside the church ... or if there were, they'd soon be weeded out ...

There are weeds and tares in our own hearts, of course.

We all operate in some kind of context. I've just been reprimanded on Facebook by (to my mind) and overly pietistic friend (with problems of his own) for discussing ethnic/regional differences, issues of dialect and language etc on my blog.

'We are all one in Christ Jesus,' he trumpets ... missing the point of my post entirely.

I've not had that much contact with NF people or Sovereign Grace people for a while now, but those I know in those set-ups seem to be doing alright - although admittedly they've not been caught up in any organisational tussles and shenanigans. All churches have these from time to time.

I've heard Orthodox people talk about jurisdictional spats in a way that reminds me of some of the dafter things that went on in my restorationist days. None of us are immune from these things. Unless we are a 'church of one' and keep ourselves away from anyone else then we're always going to have problems ...

Saying that, I do think that certain forms of church government do lend themselves to greater abuse than others ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
fails to recognise that churches are BOTH divine and human institutions at one and the same time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But this is precisely what NF fails to do. They confuse their local expression of the church with the Church Triumphant and massively over-emphasise the "divine" nature of the Church, this completely failing to see the aspects still prone to human nature.

To my mind, this failing goes a long way to explaining the absence of checks and balances.

Matters' aren't helped by their functional perfectionism, ie the conviction that any remaining sin in the life of the believer is confined solely to their flesh, understanding this as referring solely to their "mortal body". This puts things such as spiritual pride and spiritual abuse right off the radar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem is that the one reformed doctrine they don't take on board is that of simul justus et peccator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
fails to recognise that churches are BOTH divine and human institutions at one and the same time

---

Matters' aren't helped by their functional perfectionism, ie the conviction that any remaining sin in the life of the believer is confined solely to their flesh, understanding this as referring solely to their "mortal body". This puts things such as spiritual pride and spiritual abuse right off the radar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Ah, the heresy John was contending with. I had no idea they were into gnosticism!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Ah, the heresy John was contending with. I had no idea they were into gnosticism!

---

It's very subtle. Here's the short thread we had some years ago on this topic as it relates to Terry Virgo's teaching, originally in Kerygmania and now in Oblivion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
...I know little about Virgo's background and have no idea how he became a charismatic, but wonder if the gnosticism results from his adaptation of some teaching he got in such circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

---

The problem is that the one reformed doctrine they don't take on board is that of simul justus et peccator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
...I know little about Virgo's background and have no idea how he became a charismatic, but wonder if the gnosticism results from his adaptation of some teaching he got in such circles.

---

I'd never imagined charismatics to be associated with gnosticism, but now you come to mention it... I'll make no hasty judgements, but it's worth a thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You might want to make that some charismatics have adapted gnosticism into their theology. Happens more often in churches where the founder isn't accountable to anyone else and/or is free to incorporate any strains of theological thought they please.

---

quote:

---

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the “divine spark”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Very inward looking, accountability only upwards, and not very balanced when you compare it with what Jesus tended to talk about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure it is Gnostic either, but ... sorry Eutychus ... I do think that, like much of NFI teaching (and by extension, evangelical charismatic teaching in general) it is over-realised or over-egged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
CSL1 I couldn't agree more ! But if you point this out to them all you get is 'we shouldn't lord it over others but....' there is always more double speak to justify lording it over the flock.

Their theology series sums it up. If you disagree you can't email them because they are too busy to answer you ! Typical arrogance IMO. They never engaged in proper debate on theology in my time at NF. That's not healthy. Its mind control. As you pointed out Jesus often liked people to come to their own conclusions and wanted them to think. I never got the impression NF wanted anything other than unquestioning, unthinking obedience.

From an NFI publication. Please note:
Because of the very busy schedules of the contributors to these theological papers it is not possible to enter into correspondence related to the themes covered".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
From an NFI publication. [/URL]

Please note:
"Because of the very busy schedules of the contributors to these theological papers it is not possible to enter into correspondence related to the themes covered".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
[Favour to ask of Hosts: The excessive length of the URL in the link to the NF article in the posts immediately above forces the display of this page wider than my computer screen, requiring constant left and right scrolling to read every post. As this may affect many other shipmates as well, could it possibly be edited so that the URL itself is hidden in the code, and a shorter substitute displayed? Pretty please?]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
...From an NFI publication. Please note:


Please note:
"Because of the very busy schedules of the contributors to these theological papers it is not possible to enter into correspondence related to the themes covered".

---

Actually, some of these links look quite interesting. I may read a few when I have time. We don't "do" theological debate at my church, but I imagine if the catechesis was a discussion group it would go round and round in circles with us not growing in Christ at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You might be surprised. I've found discussion and debate actually encourages growth in Christ. ETA: This is because I'm forced to know what I believe and why - and it's not based on what someone else knows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You might be surprised. I've found discussion and debate actually encourages growth in Christ. ETA: This is because I'm forced to know what I believe and why - and it's not based on what someone else knows.

---

Discussion yes. The problem in this case was that someone came along to catechesis with no intention of becoming Orthodox - he just wanted a debate about the merits of baptist theology verses the merits of Orthodoxy.

As we often say, there's a time and a place for everything and we can debate different theologies (politely) on SofF as much as we like.

---

I'd never dream of attending a catechesis class (or catechism as it's known in some circles) and trying to debate. That's for another time and place. I've got a varied background in differing churches due to my missions time but I've yet to find one I've agree with everything on - well, perhaps when I was a child - but there is a place for discussion and debate with everyone from priests/pastors to friends and strangers. We did have discussions in the catechism classes of my youth, but it was generally aimed at convincing everyone "we're right and everyone else is wrong" - which imho is also not the time or place for that.

[ 05. July 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
[Note of thanks to Tubbs for code-editing as requested - much appreciated. ]
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
CSL1 I couldn't agree more ! But if you point this out to them all you get is 'we shouldn't lord it over others but....' there is always more double speak to justify lording it over the flock.

Their theology series sums it up. If you disagree you can't email them because they are too busy to answer you ! Typical arrogance IMO. They never engaged in proper debate on theology in my time at NF. That's not healthy. Its mind control. As you pointed out Jesus often liked people to come to their own conclusions and wanted them to think. I never got the impression NF wanted anything other than unquestioning, unthinking obedience.

From an NFI publication. Please note:
Because of the very busy schedules of the contributors to these theological papers it is not possible to enter into correspondence related to the themes covered".

---

Can't think they're busier than people like Greg Boyd who will enter into discussion. Shame they can't even engage with creative ideas like web chats or time limited forums on papers. This stuff is discussed among selected groups of leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
From an NFI publication. [/URL]

Please note:
"Because of the very busy schedules of the contributors to these theological papers it is not possible to enter into correspondence related to the themes covered".

---

Actually, some of these links look quite interesting. I may read a few when I have time. We don't "do" theological debate at my church, but I imagine if the catechesis was a discussion group it would go round and round in circles with us not growing in Christ at all.

---

quote:

---

The problem in this case was that someone came along to catechesis with no intention of becoming Orthodox - he just wanted a debate about the merits of baptist theology verses the merits of Orthodoxy.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
As yet I have not heard back from New Frontiers on how much Terry Virgo is paid. (Nor Mark Driscoll from contacting Mars Hill either).

So I'm supposed to turn up at their churches, empty ten percent of my wages into their coffers and not have a clue how much goes into their wages, because they are so anointed that to even dare to ask the question is a sign of rebelliousness?

I can think of no other walk of life where this level of trust is demanded. Personally I think Christians should stop being naive. Transparent accounts or no donations. I do not believe God told them to make their salary top secret.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
A number of NewFrontiers churches tie leaders' salaries to teachers' salaries within schools.

---

This information is in fact already here, buried back on about page 4, here. Enjoy your read
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
I see that the admirable David Devenish has launched his 'new' apostolic sphere with a branded identity and a conference in 2013.

A conspiracy theorist may attach some significance to this conference being held on the Stoneleigh show ground, home for many years of the premier Newfrontiers annual corporate event. I'm personally more inclined to see this as a practical proposition for what is hoped to be an event for 4000 delegates.

Perhaps some clarity around other regional spheres will begin to emerge on the back of this move.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Not another conference. Boy to these people love conferences. Do the leaders actually do much other than fly around the world attending conferences ?

Seems a nice jolly to me. Big salary, little or no accountability to the congregation, and frequent trips abroad to listen to the party line.

Of course they all have to have the official charismatic smiley face picture. Give me a grumpy but genuine git any day !
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
If there's any chance of a decent salary to go with that grumpy but genuine git position, where do I send my CV?
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Apologies for double-post, just followed the link. "Continue to press into all that God has promised ...". Fox ache, what an overblown euphemism for "Plod on with life doing the same old same old".

I'n not sure I could cope with a life that was constantly so full of joyous excitement I had a permanent shit-eating grin welded to my face.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 

quote:

---

I'n not sure I could cope with a life that was constantly so full of joyous excitement I had a permanent shit-eating grin welded to my face.

---

Absolutely. I joked with my wife that the endless church banners showing glowing ecstatic people were very discriminatory towards grumpy middle aged men, and lacked diversity.

Far better to drop the mask and be honest. Much less stressful than the pressure outfits like NF can put on people. I'm glad I left. Oh bugger - they just made me smile !
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In my NF days I once noticed (I can't for the life of me remember how) that the head of an ecstatic blonde had been photoshopped onto the body of some other worshipper in quite a prominent ad for Stoneleigh. I asked somebody about it but the reason was not forthcoming.
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

I'n not sure I could cope with a life that was constantly so full of joyous excitement I had a permanent shit-eating grin welded to my face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So; New Apostolic Sphere = Patriarchate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Looks like those in the ranks are not sure whether this is a "breakup" or "the family growing up and leaving home". But apparently there is no longer any event attended by all these leaders. Read more here: The Emperor's New Frontiers.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0