Ship of Fools: The Vineyard - its contribution and its future?

Thread: The Vineyard - its contribution and its future? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026070

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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?

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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]

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!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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 ...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

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]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

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)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Shiprat (# 12808) on :

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.

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.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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]

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

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-à-jour ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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 ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@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."

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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...

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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 [Biased]

[ 17. September 2013, 18:58: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by Shiprat (# 12808) on :

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.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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.'

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@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.

[Killing me]

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@ Gamaliel

The way you present your observations is incorrect.

the influence of Charismatics upon Baptists was one of my assignments at college 4 years ago and Vineyard had next to influence upon Baptists.

Nigel Wright looked at joining New Frontiers and the point you make about him wanting to remain a Baptist was that he firmly believed the Holy Spirit could do as much within the Baptist framework as outside of it. He was quite clear about this in his lectures!

Also you mention that the charismatic scene became a spent force within mainstream churches but this was far from the reality of what was happening.

In regards to Wimber he certainly inspired many Baptists but he had little influence over them and I think this is an important distinction to make.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

sorry to double post...

the sentence should read that Vineyard had next to no influence over Baptists.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I respectfully disagree.

Nigel Wright may have toyed with joining NFI. He also seems to have toyed with joining what was then Harvestime.

I used to be in a Baptist church which had a strong Vineyard influence upon its modus-operandi ... particularly in its early days as a church plant. This was modified and ameoliorated to a large extent when they got a minister and things evened out in a more 'Baptist' direction - which pleased me, I must admit as I much preferred the Baptist way of doing things.

So no, sorry, I don't accept that the influence of the Vineyard, NFI or Ichthus or any of the other 'new churches' on the Baptists was negligible. Far from it. In fact, some of them, as I've highlighted earlier, defined themselves in those very terms. The Baptists weren't calling the shots at all.

Eventually, as it seems to me, they rallied and became confortable in their own skins which is only right and proper.

And of course the charismatic strand in the traditional denominations wasn't dead in the water in the early 1980s ... it only appeared that way to those of us who'd jumped ship for the exciting new 'new churches'. The reality, of course, was somewhat different.

I thought I'd made that clear.

In any event, from a 'new church' perspective - which is the one I would have had at that time (1984), it did appear that the Vineyard visits and their collaboration with Anglican and Baptist charismatics reaffirmed or reinvigorated the charismatic scenes in those respective traditions.

That, I would still maintain, was one of the contributions the Vineyard made. They convinced some on the 'new church' side of things that it was perfectly possible and acceptable to do these things without having to hive off to join NFI or Harvestime/Covenant Ministries, Pioneer or whoever else.

That's the point I'm making.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think thee and me might have a different definition of accuracy, Truman.

I know whose version I prefer.

[Razz]

You've got pcckets full of holes.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@Gamaliel

The point I am making is that Vineyard in the UK was non-existent until 1987 when the Mumfords started the movement here.

Wimber wasn't interested in creating a Vineyard from North America and it was only when David Watson urged the Mumfords to go and see Wimber that they felt the call from God to build this movement called Vineyard UK.

Vineyard was not originally part of the R1 & R2 groups because it came along much later and by that time Baptists had already been influenced by the likes of NFI (mainly where a number of Baptist Churches became both part of NFI and held onto their Baptist Union identity).

Gerald Coates and Pioneer would have been influential too and I am sure Baptists and other mainstream churches looked at the various new movements springing up but Vineyard simply was not one of these especially at the beginning of the charismatic scene.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@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.

Prove it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I remember talk of the Vineyard planting churches here as early as 1984. It didn't happen immediately but it was clearly on the cards right from the word 'go' and there were various people who offered to help and support such an initiative - including some Baptists I knew.

So yes, I agree in principal but not in the detail and yes I am well aware that the Vineyard wasn't part of the R1/R2 scene because I was involved with that at the time and the attitude towards the Vineyard was quite mixed.

Some even articulated the view that Wimber was going against 'what God wanted' by strengthening the hand of the charismatics in the older denominations. The party-line in R1 at that time (far less in R2) was that the charismatics in the Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army and wherever else ought to leave their denominations and join with us.

There were also some concerns about the Wimber methodology and the apparent belief that Christians could suffer from demonic oppression ... that was something we were always reticent about.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Vineyard (alongside other influences no doubt) made a significant contribution at that time in strengthening the position of those charismatics who wished to remain within the traditional denominations - mainly Anglicans, but also Baptists to a certain extent.

I'm not saying the Vineyard was the only influence or the only game in town - I've already mentioned David Pawson, I've already mentioned Spring Harvest.

What I'm saying is that collectively all these influences helped to strengthen and maintain the momentum of the charismatic renewal within the traditional denominations at a time when some were expecting it to dissipate or the action to move almost exclusively towards the 'new churches' - whether R1 or R2.

And yes, you are right about NFI and those Baptist churches who were part of that whilst retaining their Baptist identity. They too, were part of the overall equation.

My point isn't about the beginning of the charismatic renewal but how the Vineyard helped to bolster and give a boost to what was already there.

I suppose what I ought to say really, was that the influence of the Vineyard - alongside the growing importance of Spring Harvest - effectively put the kibbosh on 'R1' claims of exclusivity by showing that not all the putative action was taking place there.

I would also reiterate my point that the Baptist charismatics I came across latterly did seem to have a Vineyard 'flavour' to them - although I'm sure there were plenty of Baptists around who could have been described as having a Pioneer flavour or an Ichthus flavour or an NFI flavour.

Heck, there were even some around with a Baptist flavour ...

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well but certainly from the outside the Baptists at that time looked more responsive than pro-active, lapping up influences from the newer outfits rather than developing anything distinctive of their own. This may very well have been a misconception, but this is how it looked from outside and I remember a quite snarky article in 'Christianity' magazine in the late 80s or early 90s which suggested the same.

However, I would argue that there was a renewed confidence among the Baptists from about 1990 onwards and that this continues to this day as far as I can see.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I respectfully disagree.

So would I. From 1985-1995 I attended a charismatic Baptist church. It clearly had strong Wimber influences, including 'Power Evangelism' etc. (I survived, and live to tell the tale...)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Komensky, I rather suspect that thee and me would be waiting for Truman to cough up for some considerable time to come ...

How long have you got?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Run away from anything in church preceded by the word 'Power'. Yes Gamaliel, but alas, I don't have much time tonight, off to the airport in the morning.

I certainly accept that there are sacred mysteries and that God is present in this world (among other places, in the Eucharist every Sunday). In fact, God's omnipresence is only made ridiculous by the talk of 'God is moving here' or 'God is doing something new here'. The idea that God might be here and not there seems silly to me. "I sense the presence of the Spirit' and the such, so easily recreated by a street magician. God is present by his Spirit, that's it, you don't get to do anything about it. No amount of incense or bells or worship songs or falling over can change Him.

It's quite one thing to believe in something that cannot be proven, but it's quite another to insist on something that is demonstrably untrue. I wonder what the Pentecostals of the 1910s would think of how far the goalposts have moved in a mere century; they were sure that their 'tongues' were languages, certain that they had the power to heal people, certain they had the power of prophecy. I can recall Fr Raniero Cantalamessa saying, "hand the reins to God, even if you think you will soon ask for them back, they are his". We simply don't have his power, stop pretending that you do—so many people are hurt by this.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In any event, from a 'new church' perspective - which is the one I would have had at that time (1984), it did appear that the Vineyard visits and their collaboration with Anglican and Baptist charismatics reaffirmed or reinvigorated the charismatic scenes in those respective traditions.

That, I would still maintain, was one of the contributions the Vineyard made. They convinced some on the 'new church' side of things that it was perfectly possible and acceptable to do these things without having to hive off to join NFI or Harvestime/Covenant Ministries, Pioneer or whoever else.

Can I offer my observations? At the time (early 1980's) I was in a Baptist church, which had strong links with the local "new church" organisations. At times, it looked as if we were going to be forced into a decision to either stay in the BUGB or "go over" to the new network (we were wavering between Tony Morton's outfit in Southampton and some sort of link with people associated with Gerald Coates).

The point was that, as far as the local BU people were concerned, we had to do one or the other. We couldn't stay in the BU and be such a charismatic church. And the message we were getting from the likes of Tony Morton was that we ought to make the leap any way, because the "old" denominational structures were dying and "God was doing a new thing".

So at that point, it certainly seemed as if the only way for charismatic congregations to go was outside denominations into the apostolic networks.

What certainly seems to have happened (from my perspective, anyway) is that this began to change around the time that Wimber et al started to become a big name in the UK. It gradually became easier to be charismatic and yet still stay in your denominational structures. How much Vineyard should be credited with this is hard to say. But they were certainly at the forefront of a sea-change in attitude.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Oscar, you have said very succinctly what I have been clumsily trying to say all along in this thread.

I was up north and nowhere near Tony Morton's outfit (although we had links and he often came up to preach until there was an eventual rift between him and the Harvestime boys).

What you describe is exactly what was happening up north at that same time. Many Baptists were wavering on the brink of casting in their lot with the restorationists. Many did. restorationist The church I was in up there was swelled by substantial intakes of Baptists from two churches which split over the issue.

If you read Nigel Wright's accounts you'll see that he was similarly torn and in a quandary.

My guess would be that Polly heard his lectures after that time once Wright had recovered a sense of his own Baptist identity and was comfortable with that.

For my money, Wright's is one of the wisest heads from way back then. Ok, there were some daft things at Ansdell Baptist in its early charismatic days and some later out-workings of that were particularly fruit-cake-y ...

But Wright himself steadied his own way by drawing on the wells of his own tradition.

I think there was a definite sea-change in thinking from around 1984 onwards and I think the Vineyard did contribute in no small way towards that ... but theirs wasn't the only voice around, of course.

By about 1990 the thoroughly authoritarian and exclusivist phase of the restorationist thing had all but run its course. By about 1994 when the Toronto thing came along most of the restorationist churches - with the possible exception of New Frontiers were coming virtually indistinguishable from any of the independent charismatic groups or the charismatics among the Free Churches - such as the Baptists.

There were further developments in the late '90s with a move towards more liberal positions and post-evangelicalism in some sectors.

Things move on.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@Gamaliel & Oscar

The distinction between Wimbers ministry and that of the Vineyard Church Movement in the UK must be made.

Many churches including Baptists were drawn into the charismatic scene through Wimbers ministry. Terry virgo speaks about how Wimbers ministry encouraged him and others in the early days of New Frontiers.

But it is not correct to speak of a Vineyard Church Movement having influence at the time because it did not exist at the time and was only a fledgling movement in the very late 1980's not 1984 like you mentioned because Wimber rejected the idea consistently of Vineyard coming to the UK

The story of Vineyard and the Mumfords can be read using the website below.

http://www.vineyardchurches.org.uk/resources/an-introduction-to-the-mumfords/6/

By the time Vineyard had begun NFI and other charismatic streams were established. For Baptists churches were already on the path to exploring or either joining one of these movements.

What's more if you read McBain or Harper then there is no acknowledgement of Vineyard Churches being on the scene.

What is probably more true is that since the 1990's Vineyard has had an influence and quite a big one on main stream churches but only since then.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Polly, I was there. I distinctly remember discussions about the Vineyard planting churches in the UK from the time of the first Wimber team visits in 1984.

It was pretty obvious even then that there would be Vineyard churches operating in the UK within a few years. And so it turned out.

The Wimber team visits of 1984 have been strangely overlooked, in Nigel Wright's opinion (and I could cite the references if it would help).

Whatever one thinks of what went on they were certainly significant and were regarded as such at the time.

I haven't picked all of what I'm saying out of books and articles. I was there. I was involved. I heard discussions about these things. I heard leaders discussing these things. I heard Baptist leaders discussing these things as well as 'new church' ones.

In broad terms, yes, I agree with you - there was a momentum going on within the Baptists and others that wasn't dependent on Wimber nor was it dependent on NFI or Pioneer or any of the others .... but as Oscar says, for a time in the early '80s it did indeed look - in many parts of the country - that this was being eclipsed by the seemingly inexorable rise of the 'new churches'.

It was partly - and I said partly - down to the Wimber team visits in 1984 and subsequent events within the 'denominational scene' - as we would have called it back then - that the Baptists and others were able to ride this out and to stick to their guns for charismatic renewal within their own settings rather than being tempted to hive off into the new churches.

I repeat. I.was.there. I.was.involved.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Likewise for me....

I don't want to get too specific about who influenced what; all I can say (as someone very much involved at the time) was that in 1982/3 it looked as if our church was going to have to leave the BU and join an apostolic network.

By the time I left the scene (at the start of the 90's), such pressures (both from the denomination and from the apostolic networks) were receding.

WHY this happened is - of course - entirely open to debate. All I can say is that by the time I left the church (on my journey into Anglicanism), I was very much aware of Wimber (although I never heard him speak). And I was aware that he was bringing a very different perspective to that of the likes of Tony Morton or Gerald Coates (both of whom I heard on a number of occasions).

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@ Gamaliel

Sorry old chap but saying you was where qualifies what?

You were in discussions with john Wimber and Baptist leaders from BUGB who discussed this? Part of the group led by David Coffey??

The irony is that you want to argue with a Baptist Minister who has studied the particular issue of the development of charismatics and Baptists as part of my degree studies.

Secondly the Vineyard history is well documented on their website and also in recent Christianity Magazines all stating that Vineyard UK did not begin as a movement until 1987.

So yes I doubt whatever you felt you were part of in 1984 wasn't actually the discussions of Vineyard becoming a church movement in the UK because the Mumfords were still in Anglican ministry and moved in circles with Sandy Millar and Michael Harper in 1984.

Wimber is well documented in saying that he didn't want to start a Vineyard UK and even tried to persuade the Mumfords not to do this (see the previous weblink).

Lastly it is more accurate to speak about Wimber's ministry influencing British Charismatics. In general this is true for Anglicans and Baptists but as I have said before there is no evidence that there was widespread influence from the Vineyard Churches in the UK at least until the very late 1980's and more specifically from 1990's because they didn't exist as a movement. In fact the first real influence that came from Vineyard from 'over the pond' was with the Toronto blessing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Polly, sorry old chap, but I wish you'd actually read what I'm saying.

Wimber himself might not have intended to set up a UK operation in 1984 but there was certainly an expectation that he would. Heck, I even remember hearing some new church leaders who wouldn't have ordinarily been disposed to such an initiative saying publicly that they would support such an initiative and that they'd even contacted him to offer help and support.

Of course I wasn't personally in discussions about all of that - all I'm saying is that there was certainly an expectation over here at that time that this is what would happen. Even if Wimber himself wasn't intending to follow it through at that time.

There's also a difference, I would suggest, between an operation like the Vineyard having boots on the ground in terms of actual churches and exerting some form of influence. I would suggest that the Vineyard was exercising some influence - certainly in style and ethos - before the Mumfords got the thing underway over here in the formal sense.

The Mumfords couldn't have got started if the influence hadn't been there in the first place.

It's a bit like the influence of US-style camp meetings on the early Primitive Methodists in the early 19th century. A chap called Lorenzo Dow was over here and influenced the thinking of Hugh Bourne and William Clowes. That doesn't imply that there was any formal links between the Prims and the US frontiers-revivalists, simply that there was an influence on their development and ethos.

I'm simply suggesting that it was the same with the Wimber visits of the mid-1980s.

Did you actually read any of Nigel Wright's accounts for your thesis? If you had done so I think you'd find that the Vineyard element is given prominence.

The irony is that I don't want to argue at all. I am simply speaking as I found about events where I was a witness and - to some extent - a participant.

If you want to get all hoity-toity and 'I'm a Baptist Minister and I've written a thesis' with me then that's fine, that's up to you.

But I was there. I SAW it.

It's a bit like the two South African lads I once met who said that they'd heard De Klerk (I think it was) on the radio saying that there were no South African troops in Namibia. They heard this as they were in a South African armoured troop carrier heading across the Namibian desert.

As I've said further up-thread, I don't dispute the broad thrust of your thesis, nor do I discount the influence of Coffey or Pawson or McBain or any other Baptist. Far from it.

I think you'll find that my comments about the Baptists have been positive on this thread (and elsewhere) and that I've been endorsing the position of those who chose to remain within the BUGB rather than abandoning it for the ostensibly brighter lights of restorationism.

Oscar the Grouch and I were eyewitnesses of all that.

Read my lips. I.did.not.say.that.the.Vineyard.movement.started.iin.the.UK.before.1987.

What I said was that the Wimber visits - the Wimber visits - got that? VISITS - V.I.S.I.T.S - had a significant impact (among other factors) on subsequent developments.

Nigel Wright acknowledges that.
Anyone else involved acknowledges that.

Polly doesn't because he doesn't want to admit that there are gaps in his analysis.

Tough.

I was there. I saw it. End of.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@ Gamaliel the difficulty is that not just on this thread but on others you change your tune when you realise your facts are not quite correct.

For example...

earlier in this thread you state

quote:
I distinctly remember discussions about the Vineyard planting churches in the UK from the time of the first Wimber team visits in 1984.

and then on your last thread

quote:
Read my lips. I.did.not.say.that.the.Vineyard.movement.started.iin.the.UK.before.1987.

Can you decide what your opinion is because there simply was no talk of Vineyard churches in the UK from Vineyard until 1987. I will admit that British Charismatics expressed a desire that there was but that is very different.

My line has always been just so you are clear....

quote:
Lastly it is more accurate to speak about Wimber's ministry influencing British Charismatics.

and not Vineyard Church in the UK which is what you have been stating all along until you corrected yourself in your last post

quote:
Did you actually read any of Nigel Wright's accounts for your thesis? If you had done so I think you'd find that the Vineyard element is given prominence.

Sat in his lectures for 3 years, read his books and even talked to him about the way he still considers himself a charismatic and that he did more than "toy" with the idea of joining NFI because he actually went with Mike Wood (Streatham in London) to enquire about joining NFI.

What you are failing to listen to both from my suggestions and EM is that although many Baptists went to see Wimber the drive for Charismatic identity happened mainly from within Baptists.

quote:
I was there. I saw it. End of.

The other niggle I have is that you are stating your own experience as the general experience for the whole whereas I see it more as the minority to what really happened.

In addition the time line for who influenced who and when has repeatedly shown your facts are incorrect but then again I don't expect someone who thinks 6 weeks (shore leave) is only 6 days to grasp that.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

There seem to be two different questions here:

A) Did Wimber and his team from Vineyard Church in the USA have a significant influence on Baptist charismatics in the middle 80's?

B) What influence did the Vineyard UK Church (Mumfords et. al.) have on Baptist charismatics (inevitably post-1987)?

Polly seems to be addressing (B), while Gamaliel addresses (A).

I'm with Gamaliel in observing (from my own experience) that the answer to (A) is "at least some influence".

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
There seem to be two different questions here:

A) Did Wimber and his team from Vineyard Church in the USA have a significant influence on Baptist charismatics in the middle 80's?

B) What influence did the Vineyard UK Church (Mumfords et. al.) have on Baptist charismatics (inevitably post-1987)?

Polly seems to be addressing (B), while Gamaliel addresses (A).

I'm with Gamaliel in observing (from my own experience) that the answer to (A) is "at least some influence".

A fair assessment but I have also stated that Wimber did have an influence at the time but more as part of his (global) ministry rather as head of Vineyard trying to start a movement in the UK.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
There seem to be two different questions here:

A) Did Wimber and his team from Vineyard Church in the USA have a significant influence on Baptist charismatics in the middle 80's?

B) What influence did the Vineyard UK Church (Mumfords et. al.) have on Baptist charismatics (inevitably post-1987)?

Polly seems to be addressing (B), while Gamaliel addresses (A).

I'm with Gamaliel in observing (from my own experience) that the answer to (A) is "at least some influence".

A fair assessment but I have also stated that Wimber did have an influence at the time but more as part of his (global) ministry rather as head of Vineyard trying to start a movement in the UK.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the contrary, Polly, you don't appear reading what I wrote but what you think I wrote.

I do remember hearing discussions about whether Wimber and his team would plant churches in the UK in 1984 - and in subsequent years leading up to 1987 when that finally started happening.

Discussions isn't the same as it actually happening. There appeared to be a widespread expectation at that time - and not only in the 'new church' circles in which I moved but among certain Baptists I knew - that a Vineyard church planting initiative in the UK would be very welcome.

The fact that this didn't happen until 1987 doesn't mean that there wasn't speculation and discussion about it beforehand. Heck, I distinctly remember the issue being raised in one of the 'fireside chats' or 'family-conferences' as church meetings were called in the restorationist churches back then. The question was asked what the position of the leadership would be should a Vineyard church open up in our area.

This was a few years before 1987. The Vineyard wasn't operational in the UK at that time but its influence was clearly felt.

I am not back-pedalling at all. Simply correcting your apparent inability to read my posts properly.

I'm glad I wasn't your thesis supervisor ...

So I stand by this quote:

Read my lips. I.did.not.say.that.the.Vineyard.movement.started.iin.the.UK.before.1987.

Can't you see the difference between things being mooted and discussed prior to 1987 and them actually starting in 1987?

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Your admission that UK charismatics expressed a desire for there to be Vineyard church plants in the UK prior to 1987 is exactly what I was saying. I have never said anywhere in this thread that there were Vineyard churches in the UK before that time. Nowhere have I suggested as much.

What there was - as you have acknowledged - was a Vineyard influence - from the 1984 Wimber team visits primarily but - from what I've read in Wright's account, from earlier visits by Lonnie Frisbee too. As early as 1982 in fact.

My opinion hasn't changed. My opinion of you has though, and if you carry on like this I'm going to call you to Hell and give you the thrashing that your supercilious and hoity-toity attitude so richly deserves.

Just be clear what my line is before you start sounding off and punching shadows. You are accusing me of saying things that I haven't actually said.

Ok, so I might have been conflating Wimber's ministry with the Vineyard as a whole (although I don't think I've consciously done that, but can see why you might assume so).

Please bear in mind that the Wimber team did operate sans Wimber in various parts of the UK in 1984. He was at the big rallies and his teams went out into other parts of the UK by invitation.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you are reading rather too much into what I'm struggling to say here.

If you think that I am trying to play down or denigrate the Baptist contribution to the overall charismatic scene in the UK - that's not what I'm doing. Quite the opposite in fact.

I can only conclude that you are feeling unnecessarily threatened for some reason or proprietorial about your own constituency and defending it against imagined threats from elsewhere.

That certainly isn't my intention.

I don't dispute that Wright actually intended to join NFI at one point. He was rumoured to be teetering on the brink of joining Harvestime when I was up north.

I think you're arguing at cross purposes.

Also, the 6 weeks shore-leave I referred to a while back was to an actual 6 weeks I'd spent ashore.

This time I went away for no more than 6 days. I never claimed to be going away for longer.

So get your facts right you fucking officious jumped up twat.

And come and see me in Hell.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Polly

A fair assessment but I have also stated that Wimber did have an influence at the time but more as part of his (global) ministry rather as head of Vineyard trying to start a movement in the UK.

I wasn't saying anything different.

I stand by what I wrote. And I'd like an apology please because you've misrepresented me several times on this thread. And I don't like it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Come on, apologise.

I did not say that the Vineyard had churches in the UK before 1987.

What I did say was that the Vineyard had an influence here from 1984 and perhaps earlier in some places.

What's so wrong about stating that?

I demand an apology.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

ADMIN

Gamaliel, This thread is not the place to demand apologies. You yourself opened a Hell thread to hash out whatever personal issues you have with Polly. Either find a way to further the current discussion, or drop it.

Kelly Alves
Admin

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:

For example...

earlier in this thread you state

quote:
I distinctly remember discussions about the Vineyard planting churches in the UK from the time of the first Wimber team visits in 1984.
and then on your last thread

quote:
Read my lips. I.did.not.say.that.the.Vineyard.movement.started.iin.the.UK.before.1987.
Can you decide what your opinion is because there simply was no talk of Vineyard churches in the UK from Vineyard until 1987. I will admit that British Charismatics expressed a desire that there was but that is very different.

It seems eminently clear to me that it's possible for both to be true - I'm not sure what your quibble is.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Host hat on

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So get your facts right you fucking officious jumped up twat.

Kelly has addressed the clusterfuck you seem to be trying to make of this thread (thanks, Kelly!), but this insult must also be noted. The Ship's third commandment makes clear that there is no excuse for this behavior in Purgatory.

A word to the wise -- an Admin has taken note of you. And not in a good way.

RuthW
Purg host

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
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.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

I should have been clearer, I was asking not because I think the Alpha people seem particularly insincere, but because when I encountered Osteen's show, his preaching was just what I needed. (On Pat Robertson I'd concur enthusiastically with the general view, and I don't know about the others.) While Osteen refers anecdotally to miracles fairly regularly, and I always put them mentally in the categories 'explicable', 'not how he tells it' or 'whole cloth', I've never seen him attempt to give words of prophecy, or do the kind of damage televangelists routinely do by implying that people needn't bother with medical treatment. Consequently, I wouldn't say he was trying to trick people. Of course, I can only speak about the TV work, and whether he's genuine or not has never been much of a concern for me, I've been more concerned with the message I was led to than the messenger who delivered it. That said, I can see how anyone who considered 'self-help' a con by definition would bracket him with Robertson et al.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, warnings noted and I'll use this opportunity to issue an apology to all concerned - the Hosts and Polly alike.

I think Doublethink was on the money with her advice for me to avoid charismatic threads for 12 months.

I thought this one would be ok as I don't have a dog in this fight but somehow it's turned into a spat between Polly and myself - and I'll take the blame for that.

However, Polly does seem to have disregarded clear testimonial evidence from others who were around and involved in those days but I'll let that pass.

He's accused me of pedantry in Hell, which is fair enough but from where I'm sat he seems to be the one exercising the pedantry muscles.

That said, I take his point that there is a distinction between Wimber's ministry in the mid-1980s and the Vineyard as an entity here in the UK from the late '80s onward.

What I don't accept is that I was backpeddling to cover my tracks and excuse mistakes I'd made in chronology and so on - not because I'm unwilling to acknowledge and admit mistakes - I've done that here plenty of times - but because I think Polly misunderstood what I was saying - which is fine - but then compounded that by misrepresenting what I'd said.

I'm prepared to let it go, though and to continue the discussion - if there's anything more to discuss, in a constructive manner.

Meanwhile, @Plique-a-Jour, I would make a very big distinction between Wimber and co and the TV evangelists. Both were/are charismatic but the ethos and modus operandi differs considerably.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
At times, it looked as if we were going to be forced into a decision to either stay in the BUGB or "go over" to the new network ...

The point was that, as far as the local BU people were concerned, we had to do one or the other. We couldn't stay in the BU and be such a charismatic church. And the message we were getting from the likes of Tony Morton was that we ought to make the leap any way, because the "old" denominational structures were dying and "God was doing a new thing".

Two quick observations, if I may, as a Baptist who was never associated with Wimber, was out of the country from 1982-86 and who started at Spurgeon's in 1987 when the Wimber "thing" was at its height.

1. The "come out/stay in" issue was not new. One of the strong proponents of this view had ben Arthur Wallis in his book called (if I recall) "The Radical Christian" which appeared in the early 80s. I read it at the time but can't remember his thesis, however I imagine his viewpoint that "God has finished with the denominations" was influenced by his Brethren background, an overweening sense of Restorationism's own importance, and possible Martyn Lloyd-Jones' call to evangelicals to leave the denominations because they were irredeemably liberal. It is for others to judge whether it is fair to add that some charismatic leaders were intent on building their own empires.

2. The issue of whether Baptist churches could also be linked with New Church networks has rumbled into our own times. I cannot say if it has now been resolved; however I can testify that I was asked to be part of a small working party at Baptist House in 2005 or 2006 which looked at this matter. This looked specifically at the situation of Wimbledon Baptist Church, which had a "foot in both camps": not only were there questions of allegiance but it was also possible that the congregation were acting illegally, being in breach of Trust with their building. (We also looked at whether "ethnic" churches could be members of the BU and also of their own national associations, but that is a bit different).

P.S. Spurgeon's College students of the mid-1980s will recall how Nigel Wright - then the New Testament lecturer - was known as "The Fair Face of Evil" due to an unfortunately laid-out book cover!

[ 21. September 2013, 08:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I remember in the early 80s (can't remember the exact date but before September 83 when we moved from London)going with a group from our Anglican parish church to a Baptist church in South London which had a visiting team from Vineyard (USA).
The congregation was made up of individuals (rather than whole churches) from different churches/ denominations so I wonder if the influence at that point was more organic rather than at a structural level?

The teaching and praxis was completely new to me and I remember feeling a mixture of concern and also a strange attraction.... I also remember thinking (and I hope I can say this as someone with dual citizenship and cultural heritage)that the Vineyard team from California were so very culturally different from South Londoners that it might present a few challenges in communication!

That said I think they and their teaching were mainly very positively received and most of the individuals present would have returned to their church congregations to attempt to share what they had discovered and thus exercise some influence on the ground. I have no idea how many church leaders might have been present who then might have tried to introduce the teaching/ praxis to their churches.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I remember in the early 80s (can't remember the exact date but before September 83 when we moved from London)going with a group from our Anglican parish church to a Baptist church in South London which had a visiting team from Vineyard (USA) ... I also remember thinking (and I hope I can say this as someone with dual citizenship and cultural heritage)that the Vineyard team from California were so very culturally different from South Londoners that it might present a few challenges in communication!

I suspect that the church may have been Lewin Road Baptist Church where the late Douglas McBain was Minister. He had been involved in the charismatic movement as early as the mid-50s when he was a young minister in Wishaw, Scotland and, I think, was later active in the Fountain Trust. He finally became the London Baptist Association's Superintendent (the nearest thing we had to bishops!)

The Wimber team also visited Nigel Wright's church at Ansdell (Lancashire) although I don't know if it was at the same time. Wright also mentions the cultural mismatch, but I do wonder if the Californian exoticism had a subconscious appeal to staid Brits?

Didn't Wimber also have an influence on Anglicanism through David Watson? I seem to remember hearing that Watson became quite enamoured with Wimber who was making prophecies about his healing from cancer? (Of course, these turned out to be wrong).

[ 21. September 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... we ought to make the leap any way, because the "old" denominational structures were dying and "God was doing a new thing".

I heard this sort of thing in charismatic Anglican circles in the early 90s. It was also meant to be heralding the end times, IIRC, although since this was post-Hal Lindsey folk were a bit more reticent about booking the Second Coming in for a week next Tuesday. More coded talk about "trumpets being at the lips" and stuff.

It's not that different from what the Simple Church people are saying now. The problems, IMV, and tangential to this particular thread, always come when people start thinking that because they're sure God's doing something with them he can't possibly be doing something else somewhere else...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, the two groupings that arose from the Albury Conferences in the 1840s - one strand of the Brethren and the Catholic Apostolic Church - also believed that there were part of a reversion to New Testament Christianity in the Last Days. I don't know if either of them "dechurched" other Christians - some of the Brethren probably did.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Didn't Wimber also have an influence on Anglicanism through David Watson? I seem to remember hearing that Watson became quite enamoured with Wimber who was making prophecies about his healing from cancer? (Of course, these turned out to be wrong).

You're absolutely right. I remember it well.

And as David Watson died in 1984, this pretty much "proves" the point that Gamaliel and I (amongst others) have been making. Namely that Wimber and his organisation were already beginning to have some significant influence by 1984.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I might have saved myself some bother and embarrassment and Polly a Hell-call if I'd prefixed my initial remarks by outlining what I believe to have been the main influence of the Wimber visits of the mid-1980s on the 'new churches' (of which I was a part at that time) rather than pontificating about their influence on Baptists and Anglicans - who were influenced in a different way.

Baptist Trainfan is absolutely right about the Arthur Wallis 'come-out' thing and the first time I heard Arthur preach - at a 'celebration evening' in a large northern city - this was exactly his message.

The over-riding effect of the Wimber visits a few years later within the 'restorationist' ambit was to challenge that particular sacred-cow. That's why questions were asked at the restorationist equivalents of 'church meetings', that's why people began to wonder what they would do should Wimber decide to start planting churches in the UK - and yes, I completely agree with Polly that this wasn't his original intention and didn't actually come about until the Mumford thing about 3 years down the line.

But the influence was there.

The immediate effect on the 'restorationists' was for them to modify their harder-line views somewhat, although still to claim that the charismatics in the traditional denominations would be better off in the longer term coming out and setting up new churches - even if they didn't do so within the immediate orbit of the restorationist apostles. Hence the rhetoric - how genuine it was, I don't know - that if the Vineyard were to cross the Atlantic they would do whatever they could to help.

I heard that said several times before the Mumfords set up the first Vineyard church in the UK.

I would suggest, conversely, that the effect on the charismatic Baptists and Anglicans was to strengthen their existing resolve to stay where they were and to work within their existing structures. I'm not saying that the Vineyard was the sole influence on that, but it was among several factors in the air at that time. Douglas McBain in his book about the charismatic renewal among the Baptists, 'Fire Over The Waters' identifies Spring Harvest as another key factor.

Andrew Walker takes a similar line in his updates to his original book about the house-church movement - 'Restoring the Kingdom'. He felt that the rise and growth of conferences like Spring Harvest helped convince charismatics within the traditional denominations that they could have everything the 'new churches' had in terms of worship style, signs and wonders and so on, without having to submit to one or other charismatic 'apostle.'

That's what I meant in the OP about the Wimber influence being one of trying to 'democratise' the holy, as it were - to take it beyond the preserve of particular gifted individuals or leaders.

How successful this has been is a moot point but it certainly struck chord that needed striking at that time.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

@ Gamaliel

I think we have both calmed down now and as apologies are coming my way I'll return the compliment.

I did unduly antagonise you on purpose and taking pleasure in winding you up and especially as you bit the proverbial hook all too well. I am sorry for antagonising you it was at the very least unsporting.

I have also re-read your posts and still believe that I have not mis-read or mis-represented you but with a waving olive branch suggest that you check your posts in the future so to avoid "clumsily" posting.

My points have been following on your comments specifically about charismatics and Baptists and in particular what the influences were. I have a little knowledge about other mainstream churches and have tried to stay away from commenting on these.

As EM posted earlier the main influences within Baptists at the time came from within but I never dismissed the influence of Wimbers ministry which as you stated above was far from insignificant. It is this point I was challenging you on. In addition I felt it important to distinguish between his ministry and the Vineyard movement because one was not established in the UK until later. This is despite many from the UK churches undoubtedly hoping for and expressing a desire for Vineyard to set up shop in the UK. All this correlates with study that I mentioned I have done. But I note that you now accept this so thank you.

I'll also recognise that for a few churches this was different but in the main I feel my observations are generally correct.

quote:
However, Polly does seem to have disregarded clear testimonial evidence from others who were around and involved in those days but I'll let that pass.

But this is something that you consistently do to others including myself. There is a definite sense that you feel your experience within Charismatic circles is the experience and others is not genuine. There are others who have had as much experience in these circles as you have and at one moment you acknowledge it then dismiss it moments later.

I don't doubt you were there in the early 1980's but many others were including myself. The difficulty with Baptists was that there was no standard response. There couldn't have been because of Baptists prizing autonomy. How one church responded was not how others did. Paul Fiddes was part of a working group who was asked by the BU to offer a response to the Charismatic Issue in the early 1980's. This had limited but not insignificant value and success.

I could go on but won't as it is time to let things pass.

I do agree with much of your most recent post though and the insights offered.

BTW please practice your insults cos you gave a few people a laugh and my 10yrd old can do much better than that and she hasn't discovered swearing....yet!!!!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks Polly. Sure, I accept all of those points and wish we could have come to the same level of agreement at some point yesterday.

I acknowledge that I have a clumsy posting style and don't tend to check what I've written. I type very fast and in a knee-jerk fashion. I must learn to preview my posts. I will do so more in future.

I also forget what I've typed at times and also have a tendency to over-emphasise a point initially then to pull back from it to a more nuanced or moderate position. It's a rhetorical device but it gets me into hot water.

I'm sorry to hear that I give the impression that mine is the only experience that counts when it comes to reminiscing about those charismatic days - that's certainly not my intention but I can understand how it can come across like that. Again, thanks for pointing it out. I'll watch out for that tendency in future.

I knew you were winding me up and I can understand why, because I can be a pain in the arse on these issues. So yes, I painted the target on my own backside.

What I resented was the suggestion that I was backpeddling to cover my tracks ... I wasn't. As I was typing I found myself remembering more and more detail and the whole thing sort of splurged and evolved. Had I started over again I would have tried to make myself clearer from the outset.

Anyway, for what it's worth, for my money Douglas McBain was one of the most insightful of all the commentators on the development of the UK charismatic scene - and I think that his contribution, along with that of other Baptists hasn't received the recognition it deserves.

I was feeling a bit raw yesterday as some scabs had fallen off old wounds (nothing to do with churchy things or the Ship) and this may have coloured my mood and my posting style.

For which I apologise.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyway, for what it's worth, for my money Douglas McBain was one of the most insightful of all the commentators on the development of the UK charismatic scene - and I think that his contribution, along with that of other Baptists hasn't received the recognition it deserves.

I absolutely agree. The end of his life was tragic - he fell off a ladder while working on the roof of his house.

Another sane Scottish charismatic Baptist (happily still with us) is Jim Graham, who followed David Pawson at Gold Hill in 1968 and stayed there for many years. He combined charismatic spirituality and Reformed theology even better IMO than Douglas (and I sat under his ministry on many occasions).

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Admin

Gamaliel,you seem to be trying to apologize, but I am afraid all we have now is a somewhat softer version of a very personal dispute that is being hashed out in opposition to the purpose of this thread. This is why we have Hell- to contain personal exchanges such as this.

It seems like you are trying to follow host/ admin direction in this, but your post immediately before this one suggests it is a struggle. That post was equal parts apology and justification for the argument.

Therefore, for the good of the Ship, we have to insist on a two-week break for you. And this is one case in which I can assure you we are sincerely hoping you can enjoy your break.

Kelly Alves
Admin

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0