quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But I think it's fair to say that this is a significant story given how powerful a force (for good or ill depending on your perspective) New Wine is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
We caught it from you. John Wimber. Tho' Raleigh is a ways east I realise. Half way to us almost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Just spent 15 minutes explaining New Wine and why it polarises people and accidentally deleted it! Doh. Too late to start again.

In a nutshell, it's a network of charismatic evangelical churches who host massive gatherings each year and many of my good friends have found that those have made their faith and that of their children come alive in a way that the mainstream church doesn't.

However, I consider it a quasi-fascist movement (seriously) in that it seeks to sweep away the existing liberal church establishment (it's predominantly Anglican) and replace it with a 'purer' form of Christianity ie a hard line one with a lot of emphasis on alleged 'miraculous' healings, demons and deliverance and homosexuality being the root of all evil!

So, my interest in why its leader has stepped down may be in large part a case of sour grapes but equally this is a potentially very significant event in my church world.

See New Wine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The worry for the rest of the Anglican structure is that New Wine does have form on this. Soul Survivor, the youth wing of the movement, was "spun off" from New Wine some years ago and has been gaining traction amongst many youth groups in many churches throughout the country. Soul Survivor itself has spun off large youth-led churches which attract a lot of young people in a couple of places in London.

---

I tend to find this kind of argument amusing at one level; after all, such networks are usually viewed with a certain amount of patronising disdain by the other churches in their area. The sole motivation for keeping them 'on board' appears to be a financial one - and has there ever been a movement in the ascendant which hasn't brought financial pressure to bear?
 

---

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
Presumably it is to do with "conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a
clerk in Holy Orders" (to quote the said Measure). Doubtless all will become known in due course.

The threats of withdrawing financial support often seem to be made by evangelicals. It happened when Jeffrey John was nominated bishop of Reading. And as for leaving the CofE, unlike the Ordinariate people it does seem to be so much bluff and bluster.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The fascist characterisation is not right. Charismatic movements in the UK have generally heaved out the quietist and anti-social-gospel dimension of earlier conservative evanglicalism. My experience of them is that they are generally (but by no means universally) conservative on the gay issue, progressive on the role of women in the church (excepting New Frontiers), progressive on positive social action re poverty at home and abroad, progressive on active lay involvement in the life of the church.

In May 1997, I picked up by car Mike Pilavachi (Soul Survivor leader) and Matt Redman to take them to Norfolk conference where they were taking part. Mike couldn't stop talking (not uncommon with him) about the election results and the sweeping Labour successes. You'd have thought the millenium had come. I reckon his politics are old Labour and it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that he has a lot of sympathy for much of the Corbyn political agenda. Particularly on the middle east conflicts. For example, he didn't like Iraq War 2, was very much in support of the Jim Wallis anti-war moves at that time.

I think some New Wine church leaders do get pretty cheesed off with their share of the quota (often substantial because of the size of their churches) being used to support parishes which basically diss their Anglo-Wimberism ecclesiology. From their perspective the message they get is "we see the financial benefits of your congregation raising, offering-increasing capabilities, but we don't think much of you". I guess you can understand it, whichever side of that divide you happen to sit on.

Unlike the generally top down government style of New Frontiers (which may be changing gradually post-Virgo), I think the New Wine churches within Anglicanism do live relatively comfortably within the established C of E structures. No doubt there is some mutual "rubbing up the wrong way" but that's not the same as deliberate, fascist-like motivated, subversion. I haven't seen any of that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think mr cheesy's analysis is correct - and yes, Tyler, I would also make a distinction between New Wine and HTB ... but for the purposes of the point I was making I grouped the two together.

I would also baulk at the 'fascist' thing ... one might as easily say there was a Stalinist tendency there - a focus on big leaders and big congregations.

The Dead Horse issues are more of an issue for New Winers than other Anglican charismatics ... such as the HTB types.

What I'm not sure about is how many charismatics there are within the CofE these days who are somehow outwith even the outer rings of the New Wine Saturn as it were.

From where I've come from, it looks like New Wine and Soul Survivor stole New Frontiers' thunder to a certain extent after Terry Virgo shelved the big Stoneleigh Bible Weeks ... and became some kind of medium to pass on and sustain the Wimber legacy/influence on the UK charismatic scene after the Toronto Blessing began to fade.

As time has gone on, large congregations such as those at Trinity in Cheltenham have built up sufficient critical-mass to act as if the rest of the Anglican set-up is something of an irrelevance. For the other New Winers, particularly in an area like the one I live in where suburbia meets rural, they have had to come to terms with the fact that the 'New Wine size' doesn't fit all ... and that not everyone in their parishes wants to go down that particular route - even though they'd like them to.

Consequently, there's been some adjustment and accommodation - often against the inclinations of those who've drunk deeply of the New Wine and who need to sober up a bit ...



Whatever has happened with this chap in Cheltenham I can't see it dislodging the New Winers from their intentions and trajectory ...

New Wine is also bigger than its CofE constituency and receives support from Baptist charismatics and other non-Anglican charismatic evangelicals.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Sorry. I nearly said "I know this is a bit gossipy and if a host wants to remove it do" so... Whatever you decide.

But I think it's fair to say that this is a significant story given how powerful a force (for good or ill depending on your perspective) New Wine is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Whatever has happened with this chap in Cheltenham I can't see it dislodging the New Winers from their intentions and trajectory ...

---

I doubt very much whether the intentions and trajectory are at all monolithic. A lot of people go in church groups, enjoy the company and meal sharing, and the community singing. For the ones I know who go regularly, I reckon the motivation are more koinonia (fellowship and joint participation) than church-political. I'm sure some go to get their opinions reinforced, but perhaps not suprisingly, most of my friends who go are a lot more independent-minded than that. I'm not saying they are typical, but IME any monolithic assumptions about UK charismatics seem to assume, wrongly, that they have suspended making proper use of their brains and their freedoms. That's just not what I find.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Where did I say that they had abandoned their brains and their critical faculties?

Where did I say that they were all on the same page in terms of the trajectory of the whole thing?



What I meant was that the movement is broader than any one individual - and so whatever transpires from this particular incident/suspension isn't going to derail it.

I don't think that the circles that radiate out from New Wine are all perfectly concentric or uniform in any way. Yes, people go for various reasons and people derive different things from their engagement in the camps and events.

But there is a distinct 'agenda' there just as there is in any other 'ginger-group' or movement.

That doesn't imply that it's a necessarily 'sinister' one - that they are out to clone us all ...

You'd never get me to a New Wine convention. I wouldn't just rather eat my own ear-wax I'd rather scoop out one of my own turds from the toilet bowl and wrap it in a wrap - or a specially prepared Staffordshire oatcake - and eat it neat without any seasoning.

That doesn't mean that I don't attend services at my local parish church where there are starry-eyed New Winers or people who want to shunt things more in that kind of direction.

It simply means that if they did shunt things further in that direction then I'd jump off ...

I'm sure there is good stuff about the New Wine conventions and jamborees ... but I've done all that sort of thing years ago, back in my restorationist house-church days. We had good times. But no matter how good, bad or indifferent it is, you ain't going to get me along to a New Wine event anytime soon because it's not where I'm at. I'm not remotely interested in it.

I'd rather go to a stamp-collectors convention despite having no interest whatsoever in stamps, or a model railway convention or pigeon convention or toad-sexing for beginners convention ...

I'd rather go to a let's wrap our own turds in Staffordshire oatcakes and eat them neat without seasoning convention ...

Other than that, I wish them well ...


 

---

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Presumably it is to do with "conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a
clerk in Holy Orders" (to quote the said Measure). Doubtless all will become known in due course.

The threats of withdrawing financial support often seem to be made by evangelicals. It happened when Jeffrey John was nominated bishop of Reading. And as for leaving the CofE, unlike the Ordinariate people it does seem to be so much bluff and bluster.

---

In a debate of this kind, please remember that there are two, fairly distinct, evangelical groupings in the Church of England: there are the charismatics, exemplified by Holy Trinity, Brompton and the core New Winers, and there are the conservatives, exemplified by 'Reform' and St Helen's, Bishopsgate.

The former group, in my experience, are much better at working with Anglicans of a different stripe, than the latter. It is the latter who tend to be vocal in their financial threats.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think that's true, but I wouldn't put financial threats beyond the core New Winers ... even if only as the last, Trident-style nuclear option ...
 

---

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
Higgs Bosun - I guess you are right. My apologies. They all look the same to me, but that says more about me. A taxonomy of evangelicals would be useful (to us way up the candle sorts).
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't go anymore either, Gamaliel, largely because we're past 'life under canvas'. I've never been part of the excesses of restorationism and its allied control-freakeries and I'm glad you got away from it. But that may make me more tolerant of the imperfections of these various expressions of renewal.

Generally, I reckon the UK renewal movement has been a mixed blessing but not a universal curse. I think its greatest value is that it has afflicted the complacent and the comfortable. Its greatest failing was and still is to be found in those parts which trash the existing churches and their more traditional members as dead on their collective and individual feet.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I probably come across as more cynical about the whole thing on these boards than I am in real life.

The problem for me is that whilst I admire the work our local Anglican renewalists do and the way they engage with people, succeed in getting people involved and fired-up about Christianity and church and so on in a way that the less renewal-influenced churches do ... I feel like a spectator rather than a contributor.

Sure, at the risk of sounding patronising, I enjoy the spectacle of the kids eating their jelly and blancmange at their birthday party, but I don't really want a bowlful of it myself ...



At least I've changed the analogy to jelly and blancmange from shit-sandwiches ...



I owe a lot to the renewal in general and indeed, to restorationism ... for all the duff bits.

So my view is probably a lot less jaundiced than it can sound here at times.

I just wish they found some way of doing all that stuff without some of the silliness and 'packaging' that goes with it. But that's probably too much to ask ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
A taxonomy of evangelicals would be useful (to us way up the candle sorts).

---

That sounds like a collective noun. What might you call a group of assorted High Church types - an illumination?

[ 03. February 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
A taxonomy of evangelicals would be useful (to us way up the candle sorts).

---

That sounds like a collective noun. What might you call a group of assorted High Church types - an illumination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Higgs Bosun - I guess you are right. My apologies. They all look the same to me, but that says more about me. A taxonomy of evangelicals would be useful (to us way up the candle sorts).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Can I ask the assembled readers, because this is a bit new to me, where an FCA parish sits on the spectrum?

I only ask because after years of fellow travelling with FiF I find myself in an isolated and very low rural parish where I was startled to see the parish magazine commending GAFCON after the Primates shindig the other week.

I know very little about the CofE evo world, except that I now seem to be in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Can I ask the assembled readers, because this is a bit new to me, where an FCA parish sits on the spectrum?

I only ask because after years of fellow travelling with FiF I find myself in an isolated and very low rural parish where I was startled to see the parish magazine commending GAFCON after the Primates shindig the other week.

I know very little about the CofE evo world, except that I now seem to be in it.

---

GAFCON, I'd say, was in the Conservative Evangelical camp - ie somewhere in the direction of the more stricter Evangelicals. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in England is pretty small beer AFAIU, but I'm guessing they're mostly going to be parishes which use liturgy, stick to hymns, avoid the charismatic, have vicars who do not wear clerical clothing and instead favour dark suits. "Strong" bible teaching will be a priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
seems to be all of that but with vestments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
WRT the position of New Wine vis-a-vis dead horse issues, the comments on the Premier Radio site seem to indicate that Mark Bailey was, if anything, supportive of gay Christians. I don't think that New Wine (unlike, say Fulcrum, the open evo organisation) has a party line on SSM.

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of members "agin", but there are associate churches that are supportive as well. My experience of Trinity Cheltenham is that it is much closer in feel to HTB than most NW churches, even the larger, more prominent ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Mark Bailey was, if anything, supportive of gay Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Can I ask the assembled readers, because this is a bit new to me, where an FCA parish sits on the spectrum?

I only ask because after years of fellow travelling with FiF I find myself in an isolated and very low rural parish where I was startled to see the parish magazine commending GAFCON after the Primates shindig the other week.

I know very little about the CofE evo world, except that I now seem to be in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But I do wonder how long the apparent 'wonders' will last until people get bored of them and move onto something else. That process seems to have accelerated in recent years ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
It is all quite as baffling as how many pleats one should have in one's cassock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But I do wonder how long the apparent 'wonders' will last until people get bored of them and move onto something else. That process seems to have accelerated in recent years ...

---

TBH I suspect they can continue for quite some time - as they are in general of much lower intensity (cold reading via words and pictures, the odd bit of speaking in tongues and so on) than the practices of the charismatics of old. There has been some acceleration - and some NWers seem to haev a soft spot for Bill Johnson and co - but in general it does have a relatively low key 'don't scare the horses' element about it.

---

Yes, I think that's the case and a good observation on your part. It's easy to sustain a low-key, low-level charismatic operation because it doesn't lend itself to obvious questioning and challenge ...

I've had run-ins with our vicar about this sort of thing and now some kind of limbo/truce exists. I don't go to the services where this sort of thing happens and he's given up trying to persuade me of the veracity of it all ...


 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Or indeed how many orphreys on one's chasuble. Wodehouse Short Story

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

They were told that the only way this was possible was to attend an Alpha Course.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can just about tolerate the 9am traditional service at my local parish church - whose vicar and his wife are big New Wine types. I avoid the more New Winey 11am service like the plague.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the Alpha thing might just have been so people got to know you so they could suggest which of the cells you should join.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Yes, I think that's the case and a good observation on your part. It's easy to sustain a low-key, low-level charismatic operation because it doesn't lend itself to obvious questioning and challenge ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
New Wine is also bigger than its CofE constituency and receives support from Baptist charismatics and other non-Anglican charismatic evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
I mean, usually this is still a parody:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfsd03KZAQ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I would really like to set up a discussion group type thing in church, but I think the first response is going to be, "We've got alpha, we don't need that as well".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I find it curiously aspirational...

---

Some bits yes, recognising and affirming doubt, engaging with the wider world .... but the inability of certain individuals to speak without using swear words is far less winsome.

There's one big question with Rev (and irl with all churches). In the drive to be welcoming and relevant, have we maintained a Christian distinctiveness in serving and loving others that makes them want to explore faith and become fellow travellers? To me, the church community in Rev just isn't showing that difference - unlike New Wine churches for example.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
That's an excellent question. I have no idea of the answer. It probably lies somewhere in the description of what makes up Christian distinctiveness, and that's a whole other can of worms. There are probably as many definitions as there are bums on seats, and a couple more too.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What do you mean, ExclamationMark?

Everyone knows that Rev is a documentary ...



Meanwhile, I'm not doling out any criticism of NW that I wouldn't aply to the ordinariate or any other group ...

I don't knock Anglo-Catholics and liberals as much as I knock Anglican evangelicals purely because I'm less familiar with them. If I were more familiar with the liberal or Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum I'd point my pisser that way too.

As it is, I'm more familiar with the evangelical end of things. That's why that end gets more of my shit than t'other end.

I'm an equal opportunities cynic but I can't be everywhere at once.

As it happens, our New Winey vicar is a nice bloke, his hearts in the right place and he means well. That doesn't mean that New Wine gets a get out of jail free card if it comes out with bollocks now and again.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think the difference between the New Wine and the other groups (FiF and the other types of evangelical) is about size. If they left, it would cause significant ripples. If the other left.. not so much. New Wine is much bigger than the Ordinariate and has much more money, IMO.

And FWIW, I wouldn't send my child anywhere near Soul Survivor.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I would have reservations. But I suppose if that's the height of their rebellion...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I find it curiously aspirational...

---

Some bits yes, recognising and affirming doubt, engaging with the wider world .... but the inability of certain individuals to speak without using swear words is far less winsome.

There's one big question with Rev (and irl with all churches). In the drive to be welcoming and relevant, have we maintained a Christian distinctiveness in serving and loving others that makes them want to explore faith and become fellow travellers? To me, the church community in Rev just isn't showing that difference - unlike New Wine churches for example.

---

I hadn't noticed this when I posted my last remark.

I'm speechless.

Which, I suppose is better than making a response peppered with swear-words ...



Either ExclamationMark's irony-o-meter has temporarily broken down or he's pulling my leg.

Sure, I would agree that New Wine churches are offering something distinctive and different to what nondescript middle-of-the-road type churches are doing ... but New Wine churches are made up of people just like everyone else - and people are people irrespective of what kinds of churches they do or don't attend ... and people make mistakes.

I'm sure a lot of NW type churches do a lot of good. Our parish church does and that's kind of aspirationally New Wine-ish ... and I don't knock the Job Club and the various other initiatives that have spun out from there.

I just wish it wasn't ... I dunno ... I just wish the NW style didn't set my teeth on edge so much.

Call me a grumpy old git but I don't want video clips and Power-Point slides, I don't want inane jokes and overly long sermons that could be cut to a third of the length without losing anything - I don't want silly 'pictures' and 'words' and cold-reading crap.

The other end of the spectrum has a whole different set of problems though ... I visited a very High Anglican parish in the summer which was clearly run by a liturgical control-freak who had everyone quaking in the pews and operating with military precision ...

He wasn't there that particular Sunday and the relief among some of the congregation was palpable. They even seemed to welcome the visiting , stand-in priest making mistakes and getting lost in the liturgy ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair, ExclamationMark has put his finger on a dilemma I find myself in.

I continue to support my local parish church because it's local, it does good things and because it is making a difference and introducing people to the faith in a way that few of the other churches here are doing. Sure, the Pentecostals are too ...

But, lovely though the people are in some of the other churches, I don't quite see them having the same kind of influence and impact.

The more liberal Anglican parish hardly does anything at all ... although it's a great venue for concerts and arty events that I help organise and does act as a community hub to a certain extent. But, to be blunt, they're pretty stingy with their money and don't put a great deal of effort into running the place -- which is a great shame as it's in an ideal location and architecturally is one of the best buildings by far in an otherwise architecturally nondescript town ... although there are some decent Edwardian and Victorian town-houses and old mansions around ...

So for the last 7 years I've put up with the cringe-worthy jokes, the Power-Point slides, the crass carol services (well no, I avoid those) and so on by gritting my teeth and thinking, 'Well, at least they're spreading the Gospel ...'

Which they are doing.

Now, I can't expect them to change to suit me. But what does a poor boy do who has been round the block a few times and whilst admiring aspects of evangelicalism, finds the evangelical sub-culture and modus operandi a dirty great big turn-off?

There's the rub.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Couldn't you join the more liberal CofE church congregation and actually help them to become a more active presence in the community? Maybe they're lacking the right people or the ideas to do the kinds of things you want them to do.

It seems a shame to spend time critising a church that's doing its thing and trying hard when the alternative church would be more to your liking with just a little bit of help.

(Mind you, I'm assuming that it's acceptable in the CofE for individual members to set up their own churchy thing so long as they can gather a supportive group around them, and don't automatically expect that the minister will want to be involved. But maybe that's not how things work in CofE congregational culture?)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yeah ... I've thought of that. The new incumbent at the liberal-catholic parish could do with a hand, that's for sure. There are some good people and some excellent retired clergy there - but they're all getting old and frail.

The thing is, I'm not particularly liberal theologically ...

And they could do with some more young people with families - and my kids are flying the nest and not particularly interested in church.

I do contribute to the evangelical parish ... I edit the church magazine and lead prayers in the 9am service about every 5 or 6 weeks ... and people say they appreciate the way I do that ...

But I do feel marginalised there and that I don't fit in. The vicar doesn't know what to 'do' with me, other than involve me with the magazine - because I don't fit his 'model' of how things should be done. I used to lead prayers in the 11am services too but he stopped me doing that, presumably because he thought I was doing it in too 'traditional' a way ... I follow the lectionary and the Calendar and use set prayers - mixed with some extemporarising.

I'm not involved with any of the house-groups and rarely go to any of the socials - apart from the annual Christian Aid quiz - and I missed that this year.

My main focus is out in the community in various ways - I'm a town councillor and I chair a local voluntary arts group ... and I juggle all sorts of voluntary activities with trying to earn a living freelance ... although my wife's the main bread-winner. I do think I stretch myself too thinly at times.

I visit the Orthodox from time to time - in the nearest city - but that feels out-on-a-limb for various reasons - although I do like the Liturgy ... but wonder how much critical-mass they can ever muster to make a real go of things.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Actually, it's 9 years ...

But this is about New Wine, not me. New Whine.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, it's 9 years ...

But this is about New Wine, not me. New Whine.

---

You can't put New Wine in Old Whineskins
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
New Whine, very good!

Of course, 'old and frail' congregations are precisely those that need help. I think being pastorally-minded is far more important in that context than being overtly 'liberal' in the pulpit or at the lectern, but IME wanting to serve the community is always viewed favourably. Sometimes that's where the liberal side comes out.

I don't know anything about New Wine, so I've just googled a few of their churches in my vicinity. Interesting.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :
 
Wow! I think this is my most successful thread ever!

WRT a taxonomy of evangelicalism, Bishop Graham Kings (of Fulcrum, the Open Evangelical group) wrote a pretty good article called Canal, River, Rapids

Very simply, Canal = conservative; River = Open and Rapids = charismatic.

However, I maintain that where HTB is Rapids, New Wine is more like a tsunami (!) which may be a slight exaggeration like my quasi-fascist remark but actually I stand by that based on what I saw and heard at the New Wine gathering this summer.

Now it may be because, as a vicar, I was allowed into the Holy of Holies aka The Leaders' Lounge (for SENIOR leaders only ie ordained people) and here people spoke very frankly and fiercely about all the Dead Horse issues in a way that I'm pretty sure would profoundly shock everyone who's commented on this thread so far.

But when I spoke to my friends and colleagues from home who were mere punters and not allowed in the holy of Holies, it was clear that they weren't hearing that hardcore, militant teaching.

But isn't that precisely how an organisation like the BNP operates? "Oh no, we're not racist we just etc etc etc" but once you're in the Inner sanctum it's all nazi salutes and holocaust denial! (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone from New Wine is racist but I DO think their methodology can be rightly described as QUASI- fascist).

Meanwhile, contra people's suggestion that New Wine is less wacky than old school charismaticism etc, I was a Pentecostal in the 90s and for me there was very little difference between New Wine 2015 and a Benny Hinn or Morris Cerullo event from 1995. There were just fewer black faces and more people called Charlie!

[ 03. February 2016, 22:49: Message edited by: Tyler Durden ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's interesting, Tyler and, worryingly, feeds the concerns (paranoia?) I have about my local parish church.

The vicar comes across as tolerant and lenient but when push comes to shove it's his way or the highway .. the old mailed fist inside a velvet glove thing. His wife even more so ... and she has a lot of 'say' ...

A former church-warden here 'came-out'as gay recently and the vicar convened a special meeting of the leadership team to discuss the issue. He was told that he was welcome to participate, receive communion, play the organ ... but if he ever found a boyfriend he'd be barred from holding office or contributing publicly to the life of the church ...

I've wondered whether this was a 'line' coming from New Wine.

In every other respect, there's a moderately small l lefty slant on social issues there.

On the charismatic thing, I get the impression that the vicar and his wife would ratchet things up in that respect given half a chance, but they're savvy enough to play the long game - abd Chris Stiles's observations about not frightening the horses is pertinent here.

I get the impression that the more full-on stuff happens at the gatherings. The strategy of NW clergy in settings that are not completely marinated yet - as it were - is to get as many people as they can along to the gatherings so that they 'catch' the charismatic virus - to mix metaphors - or imbibe the wine fumes - and take it back with them to the parishes.

Whether we see this as sinister or otherwise, fascist or Stalinist, depends, of course, on our own stance and perspective on these things.

I don't know how other groups with a distinct agenda operate - whether Forward in Faith or Reform - so I can't make comparisons or draw parallels.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks for that worrying insight into your experience, which is a lot more recent than mine. It's also very different to my own, but I'm going back over a decade. Speakers' lists can tell you a lot about the way thinking at the centre is going. My 'weather eye' is open.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think this just shows that NW is a "church within a church" inside the CofE. Of course having a whole bunch of people involved from other denominations makes this an even more complex thing.

But as I said before, there are degrees to which any given church/clergy is actually "into" it - as we've seen above it is perfectly possible to attend the conferences without knowing that they have a "line" on any of these kinds of issues and probably entirely possible to attend and avoid all mention of it.

Interestingly, one of the churches I know in the "outer reaches" of the NW influence have a gay couple in a leadership role, so obviously either the teaching or the disapproval has not filtered down that far.

On the Alpha thing - it used to be the case that some churches liked people to go on the course several times. As it was explained to me, God was working through it so there were blessings to be had from it. My friend went on it multiple times as a leader and at least once a year as a punter.

Which seems odd, but I suppose it was just seen as a way to get people introduced to each other and the church.
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

A former church-warden here 'came-out'as gay recently and the vicar convened a special meeting of the leadership team to discuss the issue. He was told that he was welcome to participate, receive communion, play the organ ... but if he ever found a boyfriend he'd be barred from holding office or contributing publicly to the life of the church ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
there are degrees to which any given church/clergy is actually "into" it - as we've seen above it is perfectly possible to attend the conferences without knowing that they have a "line" on any of these kinds of issues and probably entirely possible to attend and avoid all mention of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think this just shows that NW is a "church within a church" inside the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Be careful what you wish for. I mean reading up your complaints currently seem to be that they are too large and exert influence through the perception that they might threaten to leave - I would suggest that if that is your concern, then you'd have even more to complain about should they decide to focus their energies inwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
To Tyler's post above - I hadn't heard anything along those lines, I do wonder if some of this is an adoption of some form of Dominionist thought via their association with Bethel.

---

From a distance, I'd agree with this analysis. I think the threat of Dominionism is heightened by this happening within an established church.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This worries me too - although I don't see Bethel/Dominionist influence catching on across the wider CofE ... thereby creating some kind of Constantinian Charismaniac Monster ...

One of the first things I observed to our vicar when I moved here was how it struck me how worrying it was that some left-field and out-there tendencies that I'd have been wary about even in my full-on restorationist days were now filtering into the charismatic scene within the CofE.

He laughed and dismissed this idea ... he assured me they were all too sound and sensible to be taken in by anything whacky ...

Besides, even if some of it was whacky, rather that than a kind of dead uniformity with boring old liturgies and so on ... at least you could steer something when it was alive ...



I thought, 'uh oh, here comes trouble ...'

I know that there are voices within the leadership of NW which are wary or unconvinced about Bethel - but as Nicky Gumbel and HTB have shown, pragmatism rules in influential charismatic evangelical circles.

If something's seen to work or to get bums on seats then critical faculties are suspended and 'soundness' goes out of the window in pursuit of short-term gains that often turn out to be illusory.

Watchman Nee famously observed this in Shanghai in the 1930s and too few charismatic evangelicals have paid any attention.

The Bethel bug seems to have permeated many of the groups I used to be involved with, I'm afraid to say ... as the restorationist networks of the 1980s and 1990s have separated or dissipated, they've become all too prone to Bethel and similar ...

It is a worrying development.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Unless labels have changed, I think the overarching issue may not be Dominionism as such but New Apostolic Reformation, which includes Dominionist thinking but is not confined to that.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think it's hard to draw a line between the two.

If you believe in contemporary apostleship that is the same as NT apostleship, you effectively believe in one, not multiple, churches within a territory (as is the case, at the bottom line, for the Roman Catholic Church). That may not be asserted loudly, and working compromises are made, but that is the logical conclusion of that starting-point.

While the spectre of Dominionism/NAR taking over the old CoE might seem like a distant nightmare, having leaders of that ilk move up the ranks and take over key positions is very definitely an agenda. As rehashed here many times, it's an outworking of the old "Bash Camp" ethos of recruiting elites who are "our people".

And because it knows a thing or two about business management, fund-raising and event organisation, the movement has the numbers to have an impact, both in terms of bums on seats and in terms of finance.

However, step outside this universe and its actual impact on the world around it is tiny.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes. One of the things that struck my wife and I after we'd moved out of restorationism -- and also my brother-in-law when he later stepped outside of that orbit - was just how invisible the leading-lights and main guys (and they were almost invariably guys) actually were outside of their own ambit.

Incidentally, this doesn't just apply to 'new church' apostles, of course, it also applies to some of the historic Churches outside their own particular territories and spheres of influence.

Some of my Orthodox friends were excited that the Ecumenical Patriarch was due to visit London recently. Some even wondered whether there'd be press interest in the visit ... was there heck ...

The Ecumenical Patriarch could ride round the UK on a unicycle and hardly anyone would cover the story ...

Coming back to New Wine ... yes, I think there is a 'let's take over the world' agenda there - and it is different to the HTB one. For all my reservations about HTB and Nicky Gumbel ... and I'll admit that these reservations are based on a kind of cussed South Wales Valleys knee-jerk reaction against Old Etonians as much as anything rational ... from what I've been hearing recently, HTB are happy not to overly interfere with people of a different churchmanship or persuasion to themselves.

I get the impression with the New Wine franchise that, were they to have their way they'd adopt a slash-and-burn approach. At our parish church they've sold off a lot of the old fixtures and fittings - which is fine, none of them were of any particular artistic merit or note (although they've not been able to interfere with the fabric of the building that much due to English Heritage regulations).

The candles have disappeared from the altar/communion table and been replaced by the word 'Jesus' in 3D plastic-lettering (barf!) and the old brass cross has been replaced by some kind of coloured glass one which you can't actually see unless you look carefully because it's transparent.

Ceremonial was always at a minimum at this particular parish - it's always been very low-church evangelical. But they've moved it to an even more minimum minimum ...

None of which is particularly alarming or suspicious in and of itself, but it does indicate the trajectory. That said, the former incumbent at the liberal-parish interfered with the wording and structure of the communion liturgy and the new incumbent is replacing what he took out ...

So these tweaks and accommodations happen all ways round ... not only on the evangelical side of things but in liberal catholic parishes too - and indeed in way, way, way up the candle Anglo-Papalist parishes ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression with the New Wine franchise that, were they to have their way they'd adopt a slash-and-burn approach. At our parish church they've sold off a lot of the old fixtures and fittings - which is fine, none of them were of any particular artistic merit or note (although they've not been able to interfere with the fabric of the building that much due to English Heritage regulations).

The candles have disappeared from the altar/communion table and been replaced by the word 'Jesus' in 3D plastic-lettering (barf!) and the old brass cross has been replaced by some kind of coloured glass one which you can't actually see unless you look carefully because it's transparent.

---

William Dowsing would have been delighted (not that he'd have known about plastic).
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Re NAR/Dominionism, it's interesting how this strand connects over to the Presidential Election thread and Ted Cruz. (I noted that Sarah Palin also got an "honourable mention", if you can call it that.) Maybe the influence on the wider world may be on the increase?

Eutychus, I do see the link with Catholicism so far as the continuation of the Apostolic concept is concerned. No wonder the conevos in the US have been getting out of their prams re Bill Johnson. Loads of stuff in the net about his "false teaching", much of it from folks who seem to have fallen off the the horse on the other side.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha - I wonder why 8 inch tall flanged plastic letters spelling out 'Jesus' are considered acceptable but plain and not very ornate candlesticks aren't?

It's like I said about the Advent candles. The vicar refuses to have them in the traditional colours - purple and so on - because 'it's not in the Bible' - and has them all plain and white instead.

I've wanted to ask him where Advent candles can be found in the Bible too ... if he's going to be that pernickety then surely we shouldn't even be having Advent candles in the first place?

I'm reminded of a story a university friend told me. She'd grown up in a well-known evangelical Anglican parish - which I won't name - and on one occasion someone objected to there being flowers at the front, in case visitors thought they were worshipping the flowers and not God ...



Some of these people are so narrow-minded their ears meet in the middle ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Barnabas ... way back in the day there was a lot of con-evo concern about New Frontiers because the apostolic network thing there was seen as the thin end of a very large wedge that would lead to ... [cue creepy music] ... Rome!

Dang-DARRN-DAARRRNNN!!!

There's a similar dynamic in some con-evo opposition to Bethel. Mind you, if you look at some Bethel sites you can understand why ... they go on pilgrimages to sites connected with particular revivalists and healing evangelists ... they even lie on their graves to 'absorb' the 'anointing' and so on ...

So, yes, the parallels with Catholicism are there should one wish to interpret them that way.

There are ironies all ways round here.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Be careful what you wish for. I mean reading up your complaints currently seem to be that they are too large and exert influence through the perception that they might threaten to leave - I would suggest that if that is your concern, then you'd have even more to complain about should they decide to focus their energies inwards.

---

I don't see the distinction - I believe the end game is out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
It is at this time; however were evangelicals more generally to have had a less schizophrenic attitude towards church hierarchy over the last few decades, ISTM that we would now be hearing complaints that evangelicals had too much influence within the CofE.

---

quote:

---

The logical conclusion of your remarks about numbers and money is that there is a school of thought that thinks this is in some way 'unfair' and the only acceptable position would be for evangelicals to have far less voice and influence compared to their size than is the case for any other group within the church.

---

quote:

---

Regardless of merits of the theologies of the various groups, that in itself is unsustainable for anything other than the very short term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First, I don't really understand what you mean.

---

quote:

---

Well see I don't think it is sustainable to pretend that everyone in the room is on the same page when clearly they're fundamentally not on the same page. On some level the various groups are feeding off the ability of the Established Church to fund and train large numbers of their favoured clergy - with a view, I think, to eventually walking out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
whatever one can say about NW I don't it's really possible to accuse them of feeding off the EC to fund training.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... My view is that everyone would have been far better off if the Church of England had split years ago. I've always thought that there are around 5 different churches within the Church of England, it just so happens that NW is one of the more viable - if some of the others split, the chances are that they'd not survive long...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. God is never served by division. This is not a new heresy, but that doesn't stop it's being a delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Re NAR/Dominionism, it's interesting how this strand connects over to the Presidential Election thread and Ted Cruz. (I noted that Sarah Palin also got an "honourable mention", if you can call it that.) Maybe the influence on the wider world may be on the increase?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
whatever one can say about NW I don't it's really possible to accuse them of feeding off the EC to fund training.

---

How do you figure that? The "normal" pattern of new churches starting is to begin their own training regime. NW's pattern is to get people through the CoE's training system which costs (to them) nothing. If I'm correct that the long-term aim is to leave, how is that not "feeding off" the system?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I think emotional spontaneous charismatic religion is faux religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The informality thing can often be a veneer, I've found. It's all 'Bill', 'Ted', 'Fred' and so on ... but woe-betide you if you step out of line ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. because it's more than compensated for by transfers elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I think emotional spontaneous charismatic religion is faux religion.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. God is never served by division. This is not a new heresy, but that doesn't stop it's being a delusion.

---

Rubbish. Let me introduce you to the multitude of churches who are not Anglican (but in some sense came out of the Anglicans) but who do a pretty good job of serving God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not denying that. God lives with and works with the foul-ups we make. I still think God would rather we/they had not split.

---

quote:

---

Both sides of the Great Schism contributed to it and both sides of the Reformation contributed to the split. In the case of both divisions, it would be better if there was still one church and not a multitude of bickering sects each claiming to be the one true lot.

---

quote:

---

There are too many divisions as it is. Anyone who contributes to, or advocates, yet another one is dividing the kingdom, not furthering it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

A former church-warden here 'came-out'as gay recently and the vicar convened a special meeting of the leadership team to discuss the issue. He was told that he was welcome to participate, receive communion, play the organ ... but if he ever found a boyfriend he'd be barred from holding office or contributing publicly to the life of the church ...

I've wondered whether this was a 'line' coming from New Wine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I think the problem is when you restructure your whole existence (individually and as a church) around these kinds of experiences.

To me, the best way to explain it is that it is an addictive spiritual drug. It draws you in, attempts to exclude other inputs, and leaves you wanting more.

That's not a healthy form of religion IMO. Of course, it isn't the only unhealthy spiritual obsession.

---

I'm in complete agreement with you on all three points. Folks who become inward looking and needy consumers of religious highs are in a lot of trouble. And those who pander to those needs even more so.

On the other hand, there seems to me to be everything right in recognising that the honest, spontaneous, expression of joy and sorrow does not have to be self-indulgent. In worship terms, it needs to be other-directed. In terms of service to one another, weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice seem to be ways in which we actively express our love for others.

But I think your concerns about addiction and manipulation (even self-manipulation) are spot on.

[ 04. February 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I guess it's all just another case of New Wine in Old Bottles!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think we have to be very careful in the way we judge or assess other people's worship experiences - and also our own. Of whatever stripe and style.

I also think we need to be very careful - and I'm looking at you mr cheesy - - when asserting we think we know how God 'thinks' about this, that or the other.

We none of us have any idea what God 'thinks' about people remaining in particular ecclesial structures or leaving them. Whatever answer we come up with on that one - whether he's pleased/displeased approves/disapproves probably says a lot more about us than it says about the Almighty.

Coming back to the worship thing ... yes, I think it's possible for charismatic worship to become delusional and almost self-hypnotic ... that used to happen to me at times when I was a full-on charismatic ... although I could sense it happening at times and would 'pull-back' from it.

Of course, it wasn't always like that and 9 times out of 10 it was no more hypnotic or delusional than what you might find in any more 'conventional' or mainstream style of church - only with more up-tempo songs.

I can imagine some people becoming all oozy-woozy and carried away at t'other end of the spectrum - with bells, smells and chant. Although, with that side of things there's often a bit of discomfort - hard pew, standing up for a good while etc to stop you being lulled into a trance-like state ...

Of course, we are wrong to evaluate any form of worship by the palpable 'hit' or buzz we may or may not get out of it. That's not the point.

What I do find disingenuous about some forms of charismatic expression, though, is that it's billed and punted as something spontaneous and unplanned when very often it's exactly the opposite. At least with more bells and smells type services everyone there knows it's a ritual, that there is a certain amount of stylised behaviour and that particular things are meant to happen at particular times ...

They aren't being 'conned' into thinking that it's all happening as if by magic ...

I'm not against joy and spontaneity. I'm not against exuberance. I am against the deliberate manipulation of emotions in order to achieve a particular effect.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
To lighten the load a bit, I'm pretty sure Adrian Plass wrote in one of his "diary book" series about a fictional book entitled "Spontaneous Worship; (How to Ensure it happens every time)". Something like that, anyway. It made me smile.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
There is a reason I called my blog "New Whine".

I am not against charismatic worship. I have enjoyed it and benefited from it - I was a long-time Spring Harvest attender, and relished the style of worship there. I also enjoyed a lot of the talks and teaching, because there was some very helpful insights - not always because I agreed with them. Sometime, they helped me think why I disagreed.

For me, the problem in the last decade or so is that this wing of the church has gone down a theological line that I cannot accept (anti women leaders, anti alternative sexuality). They have driven me away because they have aligned with one part of the charismatic evangelical church. And I go to the very dodgy Greenbelt instead.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To lighten the load a bit, I'm pretty sure Adrian Plass wrote in one of his "diary book" series about a fictional book entitled "Spontaneous Worship; (How to Ensure it happens every time)". Something like that, anyway. It made me smile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we have to be very careful in the way we judge or assess other people's worship experiences - and also our own. Of whatever stripe and style.

I also think we need to be very careful - and I'm looking at you mr cheesy - - when asserting we think we know how God 'thinks' about this, that or the other.

We none of us have any idea what God 'thinks' about people remaining in particular ecclesial structures or leaving them. Whatever answer we come up with on that one - whether he's pleased/displeased approves/disapproves probably says a lot more about us than it says about the Almighty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to this from 2012, there is a net loss of between 100 and 200 stipendiary clergy every year from the Church of England - table 7

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not a charismatic, but places where emotions are seen as part of God's blessing rather than part of one's sinful nature and to be quashed have been good to me.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0