|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Vineyard - its contribution and its future?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This is a spin-off from the thread about the Vineyard and Kingdom Theology.
Love it or loathe it, I think the Vineyard has undoubtedly had a significant influence on the UK charismatic evangelical scene - probably one of the most significant influences of all over the last 30 years.
Anglican charismatic initiatives such as HTB and New Wine all bear Vineyard hallmarks.
The charismatic scene within the Baptists has also been heavily influenced by this Californian import.
I have my own views about the rights and wrongs of the Vineyard approach but I recognise that it has brought some distinctive emphases to the UK scene.
I'm more of an observer than a participant in the charismatic evangelical scene these days, but I'm interested in how things develop. I also believe that we 'need' these guys as they are entrepreneurial and relatively successful ... although I would wish, of course, that some of their emphases would be modified over time.
For what it's worth I would identify the following as key Vineyard contributions. I'll then suggest whether I believe they are realisible or good, bad or indifferent.
- An 'democratisation' of the numinous: The sense that the theandric elements and thaumaturgy are the domain of the whole Christian community and not the preserve of a 'spiritual elite'.
- An emphasis on immediacy and 'intimacy' in worship - although this can spill over into a kind of cloyingly sentimental, 'Jesus-is-my-boyfrind' approach.
- A casual and quite laid-back approach that can be both appealing and off-putting in equal measure.
There are plus and minus sides to each of these, of course, as indeed there is with anything else.
Some whacky things have followed in its wake - the Kansas City Prophets, some of the more outlandish elements from Toronto - but give them their due, the Vineyard have tended to admit mistakes (eventually) and to distance themselves from some of the loopier elements.
However, and I think it is a big however, the laid-back, apparently non-threatening Vineyard approach has, I believe, led to a lowering of the guard against some insolubrious emphases. It's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security because the Vineyard people tend to be very sweet.
It's as if they are carrying a computer virus without realising it. They ought to be debugged if at all possible.
Thoughts?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
It's as if they are carrying a computer virus without realising it. They ought to be debugged if at all possible.
Well, they can only be 'debugged' if we know how a properly functioning computer should work. In this case, do we have any idea of the workings of the "perfect model" to which this particular example should conform?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Can I ask why "Vineyard" specifically? Is it because SCK is such a frequent and helpful poster here on the Ship? Or do you think Vineyard has a particular distnctive?
I have friends in Vineyard churches but also in New Frontiers and Pioneer churches and would see some considerable cross-over especially with Pioneer.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can't add any deep and meaningful comment about this at all, but just want to say that I attended a Vineyard service for the first time last Sunday evening. The people were friendly. I didn't know any of the songs, but they were easy enough to pick up.
According to the booklet I picked up they clearly get involved with the social concerns of the surrounding area. However, although the setting was industrial and close to the city, I was surprised to note that most of the attenders seem to have come in from the suburbs, rather than the surrounding area. (They probably attract more students as well during term-time. )It's not the only church like that of course, but I'd be curious as to how their catchment area and demographic might change in the future.
[ 15. September 2013, 15:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The 'debugged' comment was rather tongue-in-cheek, EE.
However, I think the Vineyard could do with a certain amount of debugging as indeed so could everyone else. It's just that they have different bugs. Anglicans have other bugs, Catholics have different bugs, whoever else likewise ...
@Mrs Beaky - I s'pose I've picked the Vineyard as an example because whilst I believe that NFI and Pioneer, Ichthus and other groups and movements have also had a significant role, the influence of the Vineyard seems to have been out of proportion to its actual members.
For instance, I believe it is possible to detect Vineyard influences right across the wider charismatic spectrum whereas the influence of NFI - say - tends to be restricted to a particular constituency.
For instance, I see many Anglican and Baptist charismatic leaders who admire New Frontiers but not many who would want to adopt their modus operandi.
With the Vineyard I think it's more of a 'mood' or ambience as much as anything else and this is why their influence has percolated so far.
I might be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
@SvitlanaV2 - yes, your impression accords with me. These groups do tend to attract students and ex-studenty types and are largely a suburban phenomenon even if they meet in inner-city areas.
I have no crysal-ball but my forecast would be that they would gradually become more mildly charismatic than they are now and more 'socially' oriented. In the fullness of time I expect them to morph into another mildly charismatic version of the old 'Non-conformist Conscience' only with a simpler set of sing-a-long songs.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is the Pioneer thing still going? I thought it'd disbanded or morphed into a fragmented set of more laid-back 'streams' ...
I think there's a fairly crowded 'market' at that end of the spectrum - hence the overlaps.
But the Vineyard does seem to be offering a more casual and apparently laid-back alternative to some of the more authoritarian charismatic groups. Indeed, I'd go so far as to put them down as a factor in the decline of some of the more authoritarian groups that flourished in the 1980s.
Once it could be demonstrated that charismatic blessings and church growth wasn't contingent on hooking up with some kind of authoritarian 'apostle' then essentially the game was up.
I'd suggest that the growth of Spring Harvest, the influence of the Vineyard and the rise of New Wine and the reinvigoration of Anglican renewal as well as some refocusing among the Baptists effectively put paid to the more hard-line restorationists with the exception of New Frontiers.
Equally, and this is something I'd need to explore further, I think that Elim and some of the older Pentecostal denominations also began to develop a more contemporary feel and to impinge on the same territory from a more working-class base.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
The 'debugged' comment was rather tongue-in-cheek, EE.
However, I think the Vineyard could do with a certain amount of debugging as indeed so could everyone else. It's just that they have different bugs. Anglicans have other bugs, Catholics have different bugs, whoever else likewise ...
It may have been tongue-in-cheek, but since your facial expression or tone of voice cannot be communicated by this medium, then I have no choice but to take your words at face value, and to assume that you are making a reasonably serious point by way of an analogy. I can't read your mind, to state the obvious.
But even if it was tongue-in-cheek, your next paragraph above reveals that you indeed think that the analogy is making a serious point. And my question is: how do we define a 'bug', unless we have an idea as to how the 'debugged' system is supposed to work? One person's 'bug' could be another person's effective program.
If we cannot discern the faults in any denomination, because we have no standard by which to define what we mean by 'fault', then clearly no debugging needs to take place. I know 'grown up' (ha ha) post-modernism likes everything to just hang out. Fine. But this luxury requires the following sacrifice: the relinquishing of the ability to find fault with anyone or any organisation (unless one wishes to do it without any pretence at integrity). You cannot have it both ways!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'debugged' comment was rather tongue-in-cheek, EE.
However, I think the Vineyard could do with a certain amount of debugging as indeed so could everyone else. It's just that they have different bugs. Anglicans have other bugs, Catholics have different bugs, whoever else likewise ...
This is fine, and I agree that all flavours of Christianity have their faults and weaknesses. But your comment...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's as if they are carrying a computer virus without realising it. They ought to be debugged if at all possible.
...suggests to me that you consider the Vineyard movement to have faults / weaknesses in a way that doesn't apply to (most) other streams of the Christian faith. Is that the case or not?
If it is, then let's talk about that. You've already raised some weaknesses you see in the Vineyard and I'm happy to join in with a conversation about them, how they might be ameliorated etc. But are there others, or do you think those weaknesses you mentioned are particularly dangerous?
However, if you don't see the Vineyard weaknesses as particularly notable or dangerous, your above comment seems to have rather derailed your own thread!
(Sorry if this comes across as overly defensive of my Christian stream, btw.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No South Coast Kevin, you're not being overly defensive at all. Far from it.
I do think that there are some dangers with the Vineyard approach. The whole idea of somehow transmitting or conveying the 'anointing' as if it were indeed some kind of spiritual virus was very much a Vineyard emphasis at one time - and it could veer towards the Gnostic at times.
But that's true of other groups besides the Vineyard.
I s'pose my main concern is that it's very laid-backness and non-threatening nature could lull the unwary into a false sense of security and lead them to accept some unwelcome aspects which weren't necessarily part-and-parcel of the movement but, as it were, hitching a ride along with it.
I would cite the Kansas City Prophets as an example of that which Wimber and co quickly recognised as dangerous.
There are also throw-back elements to various strands of US 'new thought' and some echoes of 'Latter Rain' and so on which derive from the loopier end of US Pentecostalism ... only given a nice, non-threatening Californian make-over.
Eutychus is good on that sort of thing.
I'm not singling the Vineyard out for censure. The good probably outweighs the bad.
But as an example of the sort of thing I mean would be the belief which you have articulated that if we would only learn to pray authoritatively and use 'commanding' prayers against sickness and so on then we might see more healings and deliverance and so on ... well, that strikes me as an eccentric and possibly harmful emphasis.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@EE - no, I'm not saying that a post-modern let it all hang-out approach is the right way to go. Far from it.
For what it's worth, I'd consider the Vineyard and any other group or denomination as kosher insofar as their beliefs and practices accord with the broad thrust of the over-arching Christian tradition ... the central dogmatic core that we all have in common.
On that basis, I would regard them as fairly mainstream.
However, I do think there are emphases that need to be checked out and questioned.
As indeed there are anywhere else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Pre-emptive nudge here, I see some familiar faces on this thread about charismatic Christianity - please, please can we keep things civil. I would love for this thread to run its course without needing any hostly warnings.
That will mean being careful of tone and humour around what is quite a sensitive subject.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do think that there are some dangers with the Vineyard approach. The whole idea of somehow transmitting or conveying the 'anointing' as if it were indeed some kind of spiritual virus was very much a Vineyard emphasis at one time - and it could veer towards the Gnostic at times.
Hmm, is / was this a specific Vineyard thing? In any case, if it's no longer a Vineyard emphasis then maybe we've learnt our lesson. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But as an example of the sort of thing I mean would be the belief which you have articulated that if we would only learn to pray authoritatively and use 'commanding' prayers against sickness and so on then we might see more healings and deliverance and so on ... well, that strikes me as an eccentric and possibly harmful emphasis.
Oh, I don't think this is particularly a Vineyard thing. It's a 'me' thing, but plenty of people in my church pray in the more conventional charismatic way, asking God to heal. Don't make the mistake of thinking everything I witter on about here is a specifically Vineyard thing!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Doublethink - fair do's and intervention noted. I hope no further warnings will be required.
@South Coast Kevin, yes, like any new and maturing movement the Vineyard will have learned and be learning from its mistakes ... I've already cited Wimber's recognition that certain things he allowed in along the way weren't quite kosher.
The idea of the transference of 'anointing' was something I noticed both during the 1984 Wimber team visits - although I only saw a team sans Wimber in action - and also a decade later with the Toronto stuff. The idea that you could go to a place and bring a chunk of what they had back with you - that you could pick up the power as it were.
It's interesting to hear that this has faded. I suspect, overall, that the Vineyard is less charismatic now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In another 10 or 20 years it will less charismatic again.
I've always thought that Wimber showed integrity in owning up to getting things completely wrong with the so-called 'London Docklands' prophecy.
That said, it took him a while to do so ... but at least he did so in the end. Which is more than I can say from certain charismatic leaders I could mention from those days.
A feature of emerging and evolving groups and movements, of course, is that they have to evaluate things on the hoof. They don't always have the time when they are in the throes of revivalist enthusiasm to step back and take stock. Nor the luxury of a lengthy history against which to benchmark things.
But that can be a positive thing too ... although it does run the risk of significant collateral damage.
And yes, I appreciate that some elements will be a 'me' thing, a South Coast Kevin thing rather than necessarily representing the movement as a whole.
But in the instance I've cited I'd suggest that it does represent a broader expectation that derives from within the movement itself and is based on inferences you've drawn from aspects of the Kingdom Theology framework.
The other thing I'd say, and this is both a positive and a negative characteristic, is that any group/movement that predominantly attracts students and the not-long graduated - which is another feature of the Vineyard - is inevitably going to face problems with not having that many older and wiser people around.
I know of Vineyard churches which effectively close down over the summer or which only really operate during university term time. I wonder what kind of continuity that can create longer term ... but perhaps we're all heading in a more fluid and flexible direction ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think I've found a legacy of the Vineyard that hasn't been mentioned here. It's that of swinging the pendulum back from an emphasis on the divinity of Jesus to the humanity of Jesus.
It was from Wimber that I first heard articulated the notion that following kenosis, Jesus was a (sinless) human through whom the Spirit worked in exactly the same way as through any believer today, i.e. he had no 'extra' access to the Spirit and spiritual gifts over and above that of present-day believers. I think that underpins a lot of the "everybody gets to play" teaching and has had a widespread impact, right through into Kingdom Now theology.
I myself don't hold precisely to that view of Jesus and the Spirit, but as a result I have seen Jesus as a lot more human than before - and perhaps in the long term seen the human side of a lot of other biblical characters and authors in addition to their hagiography - although I don't think that was what Wimber intended.
[ 15. September 2013, 22:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The whole idea of somehow transmitting or conveying the 'anointing' as if it were indeed some kind of spiritual virus was very much a Vineyard emphasis at one time - and it could veer towards the Gnostic at times.
But that's true of other groups besides the Vineyard.
Yup, doesn't sound to me particularly different than passing on the anointing from Bishop to new clergy person.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It may sound like that, Belle Ringer, but in practical terms it's really very, very different.
I don't know any bishops who believe that they are passing on some kind of mo-jo when they lay hands on ordinands. At least, not in such concrete terms.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think you are right to remind us of that emphasis, Eutychus. I never got up close and personal to Vineyard theology - I only attended a small number of events led by the Wimber team ... without the man himself being present.
One was a session where most people (apart from myself and a number of others) had the 'Wimber-wobbles' and were falling down all over the place. I was quite taken with that at the time as there was apparently less hype than I'd seen in Pentecostal equivalents.
Another occasion was a 'prophetic conference' where we were give some pretty naff instructions on how-to prophesy. It really was pants. With the best will in the world it was really pants.
The humanity of Jesus aspect ... well, it seems to me that Edward Irving had some fairly controversial views in this area ... this sort of thing had been emphasised before - certainly in Pentecostal circles. At the extreme it could turn into a form of 'adoptionism'.
I'm glad to hear you found the emphasis positive. I can't remember hearing much of that at the time - but I was aware that there was an emphasis that way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I have a few friends (they're normal!) that attend the Vineyard church. I get the impression from them that they've settled down a bit from the Wimber days. I think it varies from church to church—and given what's been said on the KT thread, there is a big difference between the US and UK versions.
The whole 'Californian' approach really appeals to some people (the sofas, the rock music, the doughnuts) and if that suits people then I think that's a positive influence. There is more than one way to do church.
I found at HTB that Wimber was treated like something of a patriarch. When the former vicar there said 'John Wimber once told me…' people listened intently. The mission, then, was to model HTB, to a large extent, on Wimber's ministry. That aim changed somewhat with a change in vicar.
My biggest 'concern' cannot be laid at the feet of The Vineyard movement, though in my (limited) experience at a big and influential (I think) church, it seems that the Signs and Wimbers movement has caused no small division in the C of E in matters of presentation and theology (I think those two things can be separated though). On the former, it's not to my taste, but hardly dangerous; on the latter, Wimber's pattern of refusal to engage with intellectual discussion or debate set a dangerous precedent—though, as has already been said here, they've opened up a bit more and moved on, in degrees, from hard-core Wimberism. I can't, at present, tease apart the influences from Pentecostal and Vineyard churches in terms of influence on charismatics in the C of E. Getting back to Wimbers lack of engagement with theologians outside of his own circle, the unwillingness to test anything may owe something to his behaviour. I gather from people who knew him, that Wimber tried to distance himself from some of his more bold 'prophecies' and reshape his notion of healing to focus on 'inner healing'.
It's not easy to say that The Vineyard is 'like this' in too broad a sense, as they lack a strong central governance—and that may be a real strength. Time will tell. I wish them all the best, just the same.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I have a few friends (they're normal!) that attend the Vineyard church. I get the impression from them that they've settled down a bit from the Wimber days. I think it varies from church to church—and given what's been said on the KT thread, there is a big difference between the US and UK versions.
Ex-Vineyard here, and there's definitely a lot of variety, with much less central control from on high than in NFI, say. There's genuine local variation, which probably helps to spread the Vineyard style. If you build walls around your church to specify how things should be done and what must be believed, it both keeps people out and ideas in. Where those walls are lower, porous or non-existent, people will come and go, and the ideas will go with them. By being open and welcoming (and having close connections with certain senior Anglicans), trace levels of Vineyardism can be found all over the place.
The one thing that seems to define Vineyard churches above all else (and in keeping with the general style, it's not defined as such, just an acquired habit) is the Book of Wimber. It's an unwritten but generally observed rule that where 2 or 3 Vineyard members are gathered together, there will be a reading from the Book of Wimber, most specifically either the Proverbs of Wimber, the Acts of Wimber or the Gospel of Wimber According to X. This is a fundamental part of Doing The Stuff. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I wish them well too, Komensky. As I said in the OP, we need these folks ...
On the change in emphasis, well ... it is a matter of record that Wimber changed his emphasis from physical healing to 'inner healing' and so on precisely because the physical healings were nowhere near as forthcoming as was initially claimed.
There are some quite extraordinary claims in Power Healing and Power Evangelism that I'm not sure would stand up in the cold light of day.
There was more a semblance of healing, if I can put it that way, than actual instances.
The advantage of an emphasis on 'inner healing', of course, is that you can pretty much make any claim you like without the inconvenience of having it verified medically or psychologically etc.
The same thing happened with the prophecies. The big, grand, revival-level prophecies soon dwindled into jejune observations that anyone could make - although, that said, I've heard from various people that the 'standard' and 'accuracy' of so-called 'words of knowledge' in the early Wimber meetings could be quite astounding.
I've got an open mind on that one, but do think that it led to a rather skewed interpretation of what the Bible actually means by 'words of knowledge'.
As I've said, I'm pretty convinced that the Vineyard will gradually become more mildly charismatic and give it a few years they'll only be 'charismatic' in music style and so on. There won't be so much talk of signs and wonders because there won't be so many apparent signs and wonders to speak of.
The same thing happened with the Quakers in the 17th century. Within a few generations they'd gone from being a fairly loud and disruptive bunch to principled quietists who expressed their faith in less demonstrative - but arguably far more effective - ways ... such as involvement with the Abolition movement, pressing for prison reform and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The charismatic scene within the Baptists has also been heavily influenced by this Californian import.
Some yes but not "heavily influenced" I'd say it was more Douglas McBain/Michael Harper/Pioneer/NFI and House Churches
Much of the charismatic scene in the Baptist emerged from within of its own accord - and influenced others.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well ... yes and no. You'll know better than me, but those charismatic Baptists settings I've come across - other than those which moved beyond the Baptist purlieu into New Frontiers or into Pioneer or Ichthus - struck me as having more of a Vineyard flavour than anything else.
Perhaps it's because the Wimber team visits where I lived were co-ordinated by a prominent Baptist charismatic. I've also read Nigel Wright's accounts of his encounters with Wimberism back around that same time.
Harper's influence on non-conformist settings had waned by the mid-1980s ... arguably it had all but dried up by the time the Fountain Trust was disbanded.
NFI were certainly a major player as far as the Baptists were concerned and there was a lot of sympathy towards them on account of their more 'Reformed' emphasis ... but in practice I didn't see many Baptist ministers wanting to go down that route because of their congregational polity and emphasis on the 'church meeting' rather than elders and so on.
I'm not saying that the Baptist charismatic scene didn't have an influence in its own right. Of course it did. I'm simply observing that Wimboid influences seemed able to penetrate there quite easily - as they did in Anglican charismatic circles - as they were presented in a more laid-back and less threatening fashion ... not in the more tub-thumping Pentecostal style.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gamaliel
quote:
Is the Pioneer thing still going? I thought it'd disbanded or morphed into a fragmented set of more laid-back 'streams' ...
I think there's a fairly crowded 'market' at that end of the spectrum - hence the overlaps.
But the Vineyard does seem to be offering a more casual and apparently laid-back alternative to some of the more authoritarian charismatic groups. Indeed, I'd go so far as to put them down as a factor in the decline of some of the more authoritarian groups that flourished in the 1980s.
As far as I am aware Pioneer is very much alive and well after a time of lying a bit more fallow! It reconvened itself a few years ago and is now working in partnership with the Methodists amongst other things. The Pioneer churches I know are more as you describe here so there is some overlap in as much as they have been influenced by the same teaching and people. NFI has a very, very different feel in my limited experience (visits to friends who worship in NFI churches)
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, thanks for the update. I wasn't aware that Pioneer had reconvened.
If you've ever read any Andrew Walker - the sociologist who analysed the 'new churches' back in the 1980s - there were effectively two strands - R1 - which was the more hard-line - and R2 which was rather looser and more arty.
NFI are effectively the only remaining flag-carriers for R1.
The other major constituent group within R1 - Covenant Ministries (formerly Harvestime) effectively fragmented into smaller offshoots with a limited national profile.
All of them tend to collaborate more with other groups these days.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Another occasion was a 'prophetic conference' where we were give some pretty naff instructions on how-to prophesy. It really was pants. With the best will in the world it was really pants.
Huh? "Pants"-- Is this a cross-pond idiom or a generational one? In either event, can you translate?
[ 16. September 2013, 16:51: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's not an expression I use very often. It was common here back in the '90s with da yoof.
It's probably a Pond thing as 'pants' here refers to underwear rather than to trousers. What you call 'pants' we call 'trousers'. We say potato, you say pot-at-o ... (does anyone say 'pot-at-o?'!) ...
So if something is 'pants' it means it is being compared to undergarments ...
It's coarse but not as coarse as saying that it was 'crap.'
Actually, it was 'crap'.
I was surprised how crap it was. I thought that the Vineyard would have been able to pull off a better how-to guide to prophecy than the stunts they pulled off that day. Well, even 'stunts' is too strong a word. It wasn't even tricky or deceptive.
All they did was punt out some commonplace observations about what people were wearing or that they derived from information about people and then they concocted so-called 'prophecies' about them.
It would have been as if I were to approach you and say, 'Hmmm ... Cliffdweller, huh? Well, do you know, living on a cliff edge can be mighty precarious. So you need to learn to soar as on wings of eagles. If you were to learn to do that, Cliffdweller, and the Lord can help you to do that, then your cliff edge becomes a vantage point ... it's no longer dangerous but a place of insight, a place where you can see into the true meanings and motivations of things ... and the Lord would say to you this day, Cliffdweller that he has set you on that cliff and given you those wings, and it's time for you to rise, Cliffdweller, to rise as on those wings of eagles and ...
yadda yadda yadda.
In short, it was bollocks.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shiprat
Shipmate
# 12808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It would have been as if I were to approach you and say, 'Hmmm ... Cliffdweller, huh? Well, do you know, living on a cliff edge can be mighty precarious. So you need to learn to soar as on wings of eagles. If you were to learn to do that, Cliffdweller, and the Lord can help you to do that, then your cliff edge becomes a vantage point ... it's no longer dangerous but a place of insight, a place where you can see into the true meanings and motivations of things ... and the Lord would say to you this day, Cliffdweller that he has set you on that cliff and given you those wings, and it's time for you to rise, Cliffdweller, to rise as on those wings of eagles and ...
yadda yadda yadda.
In short, it was bollocks.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I am blushing with shame. I heard much of this stuff, and even spouted my share. Gamaliel captures it perfectly. Yes it was truly shite.
--------------------
O. .O
(>.<)
"---"
Posts: 274 | From: Upon the My Oh My | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Some interesting stuff on this thread. I read a recent book on the subject of cold reading and one of the things that happens is that the person who does the cold reading begins to make their observations more and more easily and then eventually believe that they actually have a special power or access to special knowledge. In this sense, I don't think that people who believe they have such a 'gift' are necessarily trying to con people, but rather that they have first conned themselves. On the face of it, people who claim 'words of knowledge' or 'pictures', etc., appear to be bare-faced liars (which, in a sense, they are), but I'm not convinced that they are deliberately trying to lie, but rather passing on their own deception to their congregations.
In the case of clear con artists (Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Bill Johnson, Mark Driscoll, etc.) I believe they are trying to trick people. Derren Brown has made some excellent programmes—with former charismatics—on how the tricks work. A friend of mine who is a famous magician can do cold reading so well that now does it only rarely at his shows because it is so upsetting to some participants. They begin to believe that he has some special power and I've seen them cry. This is precisely the same situation I have seen with charismatic 'prophets' in London; but it's not a joke.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes ...
I've been there and done that too, so I have some idea of how it works. I used to be regarded as someone who 'carried a prophetic anointing' to some extent, but all it really consisted of was the ability to say some fairly obvious things in high-blown terms.
If anything, the most 'prophetic' things I ever said when I moved in more full-on charismatic circles were those times where I attempted to steer things back 'to the law and the testimony' and the broad thrust of normal, everyday, non-exciting but life-changing creedal Christianity ...
I only ever once - as far as I can remember - 'brought' anything that could have inflicted some real damage to someone in a personal way ... it scared the living daylights out of me and I never did it again.
So yes, there is a dark side to some of this but that still doesn't mean that we can't laugh at some of it. That's the best way of dealing with it at times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I'm losing track of the (three!) threads on related topics. HTB is still very attached to Bethel and Bill Johnson and on this link. The website makes direct links between Vineyard, Johnson and HTB.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-ŕ-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
In the case of clear con artists (Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Bill Johnson, Mark Driscoll, etc.) I believe they are trying to trick people.
In what sense? I mean, how more so than the Alpha bunch?
[ 17. September 2013, 14:01: Message edited by: Plique-ŕ-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
It's hard to tell and I can only offer my own anecdotal experience. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to people that, on a personal level, seemed very sincere in their beliefs and believed in what they thought was happening. I listed a few other characters that exhibit tell-tales signs of pathology as extreme examples.
I find them all a bit wacky now…
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's difficult to pin-point, Plique-a-jour, but I do tend to think that the Alpha crowd are pretty genuine - even if they get things genuinely wrong at times.
There are tell-tale signs, I think, but like anything else you have to run the risk of getting involved in order to discern them. Antique dealers all have their stories of the one that got away or the convincing fake. It's the same on the charismatic scene.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
In the case of clear con artists (Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Bill Johnson, Mark Driscoll, etc.) I believe they are trying to trick people. Derren Brown has made some excellent programmes—with former charismatics—on how the tricks work. A friend of mine who is a famous magician can do cold reading so well that now does it only rarely at his shows because it is so upsetting to some participants. They begin to believe that he has some special power and I've seen them cry. This is precisely the same situation I have seen with charismatic 'prophets' in London; but it's not a joke.
K.
I realise this is a tangent, but is Mark Driscoll into this stuff? I hadn't come across that.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Driscoll's not my favourite bloke but I don't think he belongs in the same category as some of those dodgy geezers. As we might say in South East London.
[ 17. September 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Mark 'I see things' Driscoll? He certainly believes that he has them, though I'm not sure about his preaching (other than its generally crappiness).
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel and Shiprat.
While I remember, here's a little story. God's honest truth I promise.
A pal (let's call him Ronnie) is with a group visiting another church. Ronnie knows no one in the church apart from the Vic. So he's sitting in the meeting, worshipping the Lord, minding his own business and feels the Holy Spirit drawing his attention to someone in the congregation. Ronnie starts getting a message for this feller about being a 'connector' (bringing people together, catalysing new relationships, that sort of stuff).
So Ronnie's reflecting on this and asking the Lord how to put this across in a way that makes it as clear as possible, and thinking about an image he can use - staple, paper clip, whatever. He gets an image in his mind of a buttoned-up shirt and a clear form of words from the Lord "Tell him he's a button on God's shirt."
So the meeting ends and Ronnie toddles off to have a word with Connectorman. "Morning" says Ronnie "I'm Ronnie [chat chat]. In the worship, I felt God give me a word for you. He wants you to know you're a button on God's shirt" [Quizzical look from Connectorman]. Ronnie elucidates about bringing people together, catalysing relationships etc [still quizzical looks]. "Does that mean anything to you?" asks Ronnie.
"Yeah" says Connectorman "Makes a lot of sense. [pause]. By the way, do you know what my surname is?"
"No" says Ronnie "What is it?"
[pause]
"It's Button."
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Random coincidence, Truman White; that's all.
I don't believe this, but to be fair it is possible. After all, perhaps your mate does this kind of thing all the time and just this once he struck gold. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Random coincidence, Truman White; that's all.
I don't believe this, but to be fair it is possible. After all, perhaps your mate does this kind of thing all the time and just this once he struck gold. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing...
Sure it's possible mate - but you can't dismiss something just because there's another possible explanation. You got to look at the evidence and take a view on what the most likely explanation is given the circumstances.
For me it's the sort of thing that's consistent with a loving heavenly father with a playful side to his character.
[yeah Ronnie does this stuff quite a lot. He's not usually wrong either.....]
Leave it with you
[ 17. September 2013, 18:58: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shiprat
Shipmate
# 12808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
For me it's the sort of thing that's consistent with a loving heavenly father with a playful side to his character.
Fair point. I am willing to believe that amongst all our nonsense God still slips in something kosher now and then.
I think God likes to remind us occasionally that we are don't have the whole story. My observations is that when people are 100% certain of their convictions it can give rise to hubris. This, I believe, is one reason he calls us to walk by faith.
--------------------
O. .O
(>.<)
"---"
Posts: 274 | From: Upon the My Oh My | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The charismatic scene within the Baptists has also been heavily influenced by this Californian import.
Some yes but not "heavily influenced" I'd say it was more Douglas McBain/Michael Harper/Pioneer/NFI and House Churches
Much of the charismatic scene in the Baptist emerged from within of its own accord - and influenced others.
EM is spot on with this.
Vineyard in the UK was not established enough at the time to influence Baptists. I wouldn't doubt that some would have gone to see Wimber but Vineyard as a church movement didn't happen until much later until after Charismatic Baptists had been established.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White
Sure it's possible mate - but you can't dismiss something just because there's another possible explanation. You got to look at the evidence and take a view on what the most likely explanation is given the circumstances.
Let's suppose Mr Button believes the word to be "of God", and also that Ronnie believes the same. And suppose both feel blessed in their relationship with God in the context of the sharing of this word.
If that is the case, then, quite frankly, what the hell difference does it make what anyone else thinks?
Sometimes I get the feeling that there are observers of the church who seem to think other Christians have to obtain their approval before they can do anything. If God wants to work in this way among some of His people, then the opinion of any observer on the sidelines is frankly irrelevant.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Sorry, Truman White; I was unclear - I meant I don't believe what your mate said was just a coincidence! However, I do think confirmation bias is a possible explanation and certainly something us charismata enthusiasts should be aware of in general. It's easy to forget the times we say something we think might be from God and it doesn't have any particular resonance with people.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry, Truman White; I was unclear - I meant I don't believe what your mate said was just a coincidence! However, I do think confirmation bias is a possible explanation and certainly something us charismata enthusiasts should be aware of in general. It's easy to forget the times we say something we think might be from God and it doesn't have any particular resonance with people.
Cheers Kevin - I get confirmation bias (you get it in all walks of life....) and it's a fair challenge to say we should consider it.
@ Shiprat - cheers to you too and.... yeah we do spout some tosh in the name of 'prophecy.'
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
So where, exactly, do we find in the Bible the idea that one can have a gift that works just some of the time and the rest of the time can be greeted with a shrug of the shoulders? Where does the notion that something like a prophetic gift need practise? These notions are taken as axiomatic in many charismatic circles that I know. In the OT, giving a false prophecy earned you the death penalty. The underlying assumption of a few comments here is that, 'sure, there is a lot of guff and deception, but let's keep encouraging it because God just might find some way to do something good through it!". The Signs and Wimbers doctrine *must* be obeyed, regardless of the integrity of those who take part or any costs it may have on people's lives—that seems to be the only possible outcome in some quarters.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Yo Komensky. You got into trouble in OT if you gave false prophecies that turned propel away from YHWH. It was the issue of apostasy that could put you on the fast track to Sheol. Elsewhere in OT you'll find debates between prophets - inaccuracy didn't automatically make you a false prophet.
Most of what I see passing for prophecy in charismatic churches is harmless - if anything it gives people a much needed shot in the arm and, as EE pointed out above, if it's doing good to everyone involved what's the problem? Or to be more bullish about it, why is it anyone else's business?
But we're danger of getting off onto a tangent that we've covered on other threads.
There is a question here from the o/p which ties into your point. There has always been a strong emphasis in Vineyard that "everyone gets to play." So charismatic ministry is encouraged in the body of Christ and not left for a few specialists. So what's the pros and cons of that? Con is in a lot of churches prophecy is pretty dumbed down - just say the first thing that comes into your head. Positive side is where churches encourage members to mature in their gift and release a lot of energy into their church communities and beyond.
I've seen both. At its best, prophecy not only encourages and guides the saints, it also points unbelievers to Christ. Couple of months ago I was at a New Age do with a church group running a stand, and a couple of people we spoke to and prayed with decided not to bother with the other stall holders. The insights we were giving them were not only accurate and relevant, but also positive and hit core issues in their lives as opposed to just tips on being happy. I know quite a few churches share their faith in this way.
Reckon we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we said we'd give up on areas of ministry because some people are mediocre at it.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
So where, exactly, do we find in the Bible the idea that one can have a gift that works just some of the time and the rest of the time can be greeted with a shrug of the shoulders? Where does the notion that something like a prophetic gift need practise? These notions are taken as axiomatic in many charismatic circles that I know. In the OT, giving a false prophecy earned you the death penalty. The underlying assumption of a few comments here is that, 'sure, there is a lot of guff and deception, but let's keep encouraging it because God just might find some way to do something good through it!". The Signs and Wimbers doctrine *must* be obeyed, regardless of the integrity of those who take part or any costs it may have on people's lives—that seems to be the only possible outcome in some quarters.
I think some of what you're asking is found in Scripture, some is not. You do see some sense of a gift "not working every time"-- i.e. when the disciples aren't able to cast out demons. At the same time, Paul's instructions about when/how to speak in tongues does suggest the gift is at least partially under the person's control. The "practice" part might fit with the pattern we see in the NT-- the way Jesus sends disciples out to minister in an apprenticeship type way; the way Paul says to "seek after" the gifts (although this seems to be primarily seeking after the "highest" gift-- love).
At the same time, from my experience in Pentecostal circles, I gotta agree with some of your critique. The notion of "tarrying" in prayer to ask for a gift often looks more like badgering God to me. If you're badgering God to do something about the children being murdered in the Congo, I think that's great. Badgering God to give you the gift of tongues, though, looks more like a 3 year old having a tantrum until he gets another cookie. The "practice" part IMHO is be fine when it's simply "get out there and take risks by asking big things of God with some expectation and humility, waiting to see what God might do". When it gets dicey though is when you "practice" with parlor tricks like the horrendously fraudulent "leg lengthening" stuff. You don't learn a real skill by practicing a fraudulent one.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I have to say, Truman, that whilst I wouldn't dismiss your friend's experience out of hand, I'm not entirely convinced by it either.
In fairness, there's the apparent coincidence with the bloke's name being 'Button' but other than that it doesn't add up to a great deal and strikes me as fairly inconsequential.
What was the point of it? Other than to encourage Mr Button that God was aware of what he was doing in terms of making connections and so on ... but the proof of that would be seen in the connections he was making and whether they proved to be significant or strategic or not.
But hey, what do I know? I've only been involved with charismatic Christians for 30+ years ...
Ultimately, though, things like this only hold currency and validity to the extent that the participants believe them to do so ... in the same way that a pound coin is legal tender here but not in France.
The same thing could be said of any other religious practice too, of course.
I'm not sure that it is a case of it not being anyone else's business though ... although I agree with that to some extent. After all, if these things are happening then surely that affects all of us?
I certainly believe that God has a sense of humour and can do quirky things at times and this might well be one of those occasions. I'm not sure I'd want to build a whole edifice of practice on it.
Mind you, if you go around doing that sort of thing often enough you are bound to 'hit the jackpot' sometimes ...
I once 'prophesied' to my brother-in-law that he was going to be some kind of 'bridge-builder' across various streams (in the 'new church' sense) and across troubled waters purely on the basis of having seen a footbridge across a series of waterfalls in a spectacular Scottish gorge.
Was it a prophecy? Did anything happen as a result? Did my brother-in-law become some kind of intermediary between estranged groups of Christians?
No he didn't. It wasn't a prophecy at all. It was wishful thinking.
If your mate goes around conveying the genuine article, then more power to his elbow, but if I had a fiver for every duff prophecy I've heard I could retire tomorrow.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the Vineyard influence on Baptist charismatics ...
I'm not sure whether ExclamationMark and Polly are being overly proprietorial or whether I've not explained myself properly - probably the latter.
Of course the charismatic scene among the Baptists was well established before the Wimber visits of the mid-1980s. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
But so was the Anglican charismatic scene, probably slightly older than its Baptist equivalent. But the influence of the Wimber visits and subsequent Vineyard presence on the Anglican charismatic scene was considerable and significant.
Arguably, the charismatic scene across the historic denominations was something of a spent force - or at least on the back-foot - following the disbanding of the Fountain Trust. For a few years it looked as if the 'new churches' - Harvestime/Covenant Ministries, New Frontiers, Pioneer, Ichthus and so on had stolen its thunder.
Certainly those of us who were involved in the 'new church' scene in the early '80s thought so ... notwithstanding some of the big rallies like 'Let God Speak' with David Pawson and the growth of Spring Harvest.
Whatever one thinks of the 'manifestations' it seems to me that the Vineyard influence gave the charismatic scene across the Anglican, Baptist and other older or 'mainline' churches a renewed confidence and the sense that they were still with the programme. If nothing else they confirmed charismatic Baptists and Anglicans that they didn't need to align themselves with the orbit of some charismatic 'apostle' in order to 'do the stuff.'
Nigel Wright is good on this sort of thing. He's written candidly on how he narrowly avoided becoming a restorationist and chose to remain a Baptist - indeed to recover a sense of his Baptist identity. It was a close run thing. I well remember his church from Blackpool coming over to the Dales Bible Week in Harrogate. We were all expecting them to join us at some time or other.
Even many years later, talking to the minister of a large Baptist church which had planted out a number of satellite congregations, I was struck by how the minister used the various 'new church' or independent groups as a reference point.
'Such and Such a group is like the Vineyard,' he said of one of the plants, 'Whereas So and So is more like New Frontiers ...'
Sure, Baptist charismatics have been influential - David Pawson for a kick-off, Douglas McBain - but the charismatic Baptists I've come across have tended to have a somewhat 'Vineyard' feel about them. I don't mean in terms of 'signs and wonders' and the Wimber-wobbles so much as a more laid-back ethos than is common among the often quite frenetic 'new church' folks.
And yes, that does run alongside an avowedly Baptist polity in terms of church government and so on - and often some pretty decent preaching and teaching too.
So, please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to denigrate the Baptists nor their contribution, I'm simply testing out some observations.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Gamaliel wrote
if I had a fiver for every duff prophecy I've heard I could retire tomorrow
And if I had a fiver for every accurate one I heard I could pay for it.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
