|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: NewFrontiers after Terry Virgo
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have no doubt that there are many wonderful and well functioning NF churches, but the problem I've had so far is that in the dysfunctional churches (which are well testified to) have no higher court of appeals or denominational authority to appeal to when one feels that the local leader is abusing his power.
To be honest, while I'm sure that there are dysfunctional churches in NF (and SGM) this due process complaint I do think is unfair. Why should they have due process? Why should people be able to complain or feedback and expect to be heard? That is not the model of church government these churches use.
My point was: either act like a denomination or don't. Denominations take responsibility for their church leadership. These guys want the authority of denominational leadership without the responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
They believe God sets people aside to take decisions for the church.
Well, with all due respect then: they're not doing a very good job. They're supposed to be 'apostles' even as Paul was an apostle. Paul corrected the churches he had planted when they went off the deep end.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If you want to be in a church with due process where the members can publically make decisions about how the church is run...join a congregational church!
A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!
I agree, I'm not interested in members making decisions about how the church is run, but "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said" is a bit too reductionist when it comes to the type of complaints I'm referring to.
Again, I'm sure there are lots of wonderful NF and SGM churches out there; but I do think that NF needs to start taking actual responsibility for all the fellowships that bear it's name. Maybe a "court of appeals" is too much, I'll grant you, but surely some sort of quality control is in order?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, Leprechaun, whilst the point you made is an obvious one from where you're standing, it's not immediately obvious when you're on the inside of an outfit with 'apostolic oversight' etc. Particularly when you've had it drummed into you over many years that congregationalism doesn't work - with plenty of horror-story anecdotes to prove it.
After I'd left the restorationist setting I was in and settled in a Baptist church the whole congregationalist thing, including the dreaded 'church meeting' thing (the closest thing the Baptists have to a sacrament, as one wag has put it) came as breath of fresh air. That said, prior to my restorationist period I'd seen congregationalism go badly awry in a Baptist setting with the diaconate effectively running everything and keeping the minister and everyone else in subjection ...
I'm not saying that a congregationalist setting is free from dangers, nor that it is more 'biblical' necessarily. But it does strike me that 'apostolic oversight' and so on has intrinsic dangers - and that's partly because it doesn't accept what it actually is ... and that's episcopacy with a fancy title.
I'm not saying that episcopacy is wrong either. But at least churches which have Bishops are honest and up front about it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Again, I'm sure there are lots of wonderful NF and SGM churches out there; but I do think that NF needs to start taking actual responsibility for all the fellowships that bear it's name. Maybe a "court of appeals" is too much, I'll grant you, but surely some sort of quality control is in order?
Thing is, I do agree with you. One of the reasons I couldn't be part of one of these apostolic setups is exactly this reason. But the setup is that the "apostle" is the court of appeal. If you join these churches, you buy into that person's role. In fact, many people who do join these churches specifically do so because of the lead apostle's reputation. I don't think you then get to make noises about responsibility and accountability and local church autonomy when they make decisions you dislike. (Irish Lord, I'm not saying this is what you are saying - like I said, it seems to me to be the heart of the SGM issue.)
I think, as Gamaliel says, it's similar to the C of E. I can't be doing with all my con-evo Anglican friends moaning about the decisions of synod, the authority of the bishop, OoW etc. No one is forcing you to take an ordination vow that swears loyalty to the bishop!
If "democracy", accountability to the local church, etc are things that matter to you - go to a church that teaches those things - nearly every British and American Christian has that choice. Otherwise the flawed apostle is the person you get to "appeal to". Period.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I would never have believed the degree to which this appearance was shattered when I somehow got on the wrong side of more senior leadership. It was as if the horizontal, 'your friend' environment got turned through 90° into a ruthless, vertical one. I got accused, condemned, and ostracised - and that was that.
![[Frown]](frown.gif) I have read your blog Euty and it makes me very very sad.
Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?
ETA: Sorry to double post - just saw Euty's post at the bottom of the page.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!
Hi Leprechaun
You mustn't be reading the same SGM complaints as I am. Far from "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said" the majority of complaints are more of the sort: somebody in my family was molested/raped/abused by a church member and I was told to shut up about it and thrown out when I went to the police, or false accusations were made against me by the leaders. I have come across the former type of complaint in NF thankfully, but I've come across plenty of the latter.
I don't think accepting an "apostolic" type leadership means that you expect to have accusations made against you with no way of appealing them. I think that's what people are talking about when they refer to the lack of due process.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
Oops that should have been I have not come across the former type of complaint in NF thankfully... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, many people who do join these churches specifically do so because of the lead apostle's reputation.
<sigh> I did. When what happened happened, I couldn't believe that the lead apostle wouldn't intervene as it ran so counter to what I'd learned at his feet.
But I found out after the fact that at the very least, what happened to me was supported from the top, and I have the proof.
I don't want to get too personal on this thread. In order not to, let me make a general observation, which other non-NF events I've been an independent bystander to bear out, that once some people get a certain reputation in the christian world, it's often very difficult to publicly challenge them.
The secular press don't want to know unless there's lots of sex and money involved; the christian press don't dare print anything controversial; the publishers want to sell more of the person's books. The reason usually actually invoked is "it would be a bad witness".
[ETA Lep I suppose another way of putting it would be that I willingly submitted to the authority in the way that I thought it would be exercised according to what I'd been told and taught. Which turned out to be a very long way from reality]
[ 19. July 2011, 19:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure how I've "lucked out" unless that term means something different where you're from (where I'm from it means to be very lucky).
I'm meaning it in precisely the opposite way to what it means from where you come from. From your descriptions it sounds like you've ended up with some rather strange people!
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be happy to discuss this - not quite knowing what you are implying.
Chapter 21 of Hattersleys "Blood and Fire" (which you cited on another thread) covers the, sad (IMHO) ground.
NF has been acussed of being somewhat Nepotistic in the past.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
I have read your blog Euty and it makes me very very sad.
Me too, several times. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
We all know that NF isn't perfect, I've tried to use the phrase "in theory" on other threads pertaining to these matters to make that clear.
I hope I'm not coming across as insensitive
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?
Yeah but "People get the (church) government that they deserve" is a bit weak IMHO.
It's all very well saying that people should go into things with their eyes wide open - but most people tend to exercise a judgement of charity when it comes to the church and don't envisage trouble until it actually arrives.
"Who are you accountable to and who could get rid of you if necessary" is not a question that would readily spring to mind for someone who was church hunting.
And the episcopal system has far far far more checks and balances than the apostolic system - and as eutychus says, it's hard to discern when the introduction is "we are all friends here together, and if there is something someone has against me I would like to hear about it".
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
No problem Twangist, but thanks for your concern.
It's probably worth pointing out again that I have made my peace with several individuals within NF who were involved. That doesn't make what happened right but it has brought a degree of closure for me.
However, to my great regret, the fact that I (and indeed they) have not so far been able to achieve anything more than that has served to highlight the kind of dysfunction I'm banging on about. They're very embarrassed about it - but it's not been resolved, either.
I hope the present transition is an opportunity for some better procedures to be put in place by NF for the future, but the lack of clarity (as pointed up by Mark Wuntoo, for instance) does not give me grounds for optimism.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I have read and been interested in this discussion as an outsider.
I have no knowledge or experience of NF churches.
But I do have a "contact" in the form of a couple who belong to one such group ( in France).
Quite frankly I am appalled at what they accept (theologically and at a pastoral level).
And everything written above by folks who I never dreamt had NF connections (until they outed themselves here) simply confirms what I think.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My business partner's been to the Brighton Conference this weekend; I'll ask him tomorrow what he thinks the future holds for NFI.
Pumped him for info. TBH, he doesn't seem that bothered about it but FWIW he thinks the outfit will continue with the regional apostles/ 'diocesan bishops' model being the way forward.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My business partner's been to the Brighton Conference this weekend; I'll ask him tomorrow what he thinks the future holds for NFI.
Pumped him for info. TBH, he doesn't seem that bothered about it but FWIW he thinks the outfit will continue with the regional apostles/ 'diocesan bishops' model being the way forward.
I can see that these regional leaders might work but will there be a central supremo? Maybe it will be the 'Spirit of Terry', rather as The Ship has the Spirit of Erin ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Quite frankly I am appalled at what they accept (theologically and at a pastoral level).
What do you think is appalling about them theologically?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Quite frankly I am appalled at what they accept (theologically and at a pastoral level).
What do you think is appalling about them theologically?
Thomism without the fun bits?
Some of the issues raised in this thread are far more to do with what I call the Leadership Culture. It us not exclusive to NFI or evangelical or charismatic movements, I suspect it was a problem in the heyday of the Anglo-catholic revival.
Both leaders and led get trapped in the culture. As unreasonable expectations get projected onto leaders priests or apostles/bishops the cost of honestly admitting to mistakes and failures becomes too high.
I know a number of leaders who have been through the mill because they admitted a mistake, shattering the illusion and creating a complete lack of confidence in their ministry. Yes I have been on the receiving end of leaders who cannot countenance their own weaknesses too. One reason I am not in the New Churches anymore.
Hebrews 5 is a useful reflection, which I bogged on recently.
The future of NFI will relate to how they deal with failure. I tend to see NFI as healthy compared to other movements, even New Wine. But as Mark Driscoll and effimigate has demonstrated Calvinist Charismatics with Seatbelts are not immune to getting it very wrong. Same could be said of Archbishops.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
"Who are you accountable to and who could get rid of you if necessary" is not a question that would readily spring to mind for someone who was church hunting.
Really? That's the first question I asked. Also, "how are your accounts audited?"
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I think their first big mistake, way at the beginning, was calling themselves "apostles". What a set-up for hubris!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I can see that these regional leaders might work but will there be a central supremo? Maybe it will be the 'Spirit of Terry', rather as The Ship has the Spirit of Erin
That's a disturbing comparison. There was talk of something like a "The Ship after Erin" thread a while back, I guess to be started, if you dare, in the Styx...
Some major differences being that NF doesn't have a Styx and that here, folks normally got fair warning before being chewed up by the gator.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be happy to discuss this - not quite knowing what you are implying.
Chapter 21 of Hattersleys "Blood and Fire" (which you cited on another thread) covers the, sad (IMHO) ground.
NF has been acussed of being somewhat Nepotistic in the past.
well indeed. I must confess that have not read Hattersley's book - but that's only because I have half a dozen of the others. Now, if you want to read the real story of post William Booth Salvationism you need to read
1929, by General John Larsson.
This book tells the story of how the Founder's son was deposed. It tells of the 'constitutional crisis' that nearly divided (destroyed?) The Salvation Army in the UK. A crisis that was caused by the policy of the Founder as regarding the nomination his successor. Had it not been challenged the Salvation Army would have been led throughout much of the Twentieth Century by the Booth family as a 'salvation dynasty'.
It is indeed a salutory lesson that maybe the new churches, still in 'first-generation leadership' should take heed of.
I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?
Maybe Mr Virgo and all the other 'celebrity' leaders of 'Ministries' should read 1929.
There really is nothing new under the sun.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
I think their first big mistake, way at the beginning, was calling themselves "apostles". What a set-up for hubris!
Of course, this isn't a new thing. The Catholic Apostolic Church did the same thing back in 1835. In their case the Apostles were the only ones who could ordain ministers, so when they died, the Church was doomed to expire as well. Of course, this was all done within the belief that Christ's return was imminent, of which the restoration of the Gifts of the Spirit were a sign ...
[ 20. July 2011, 07:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
I think their first big mistake, way at the beginning, was calling themselves "apostles". What a set-up for hubris!
Of course, this isn't a new thing. The Catholic Apostolic Church did the same thing back in 1835. In their case the Apostles were the only ones who could ordain ministers, so when they died, the Church was doomed to expire as well. Of course, this was all done within the belief that Christ's return was imminent, of which the restoration of the Gifts of the Spirit were a sign ...
Sad.
Mudfrog: quote:
I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?
Heck, just look at the Crystal Cathedral's leadership woes.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have no doubt that there are many wonderful and well functioning NF churches, but the problem I've had so far is that in the dysfunctional churches (which are well testified to) have no higher court of appeals or denominational authority to appeal to when one feels that the local leader is abusing his power.
To be honest, while I'm sure that there are dysfunctional churches in NF (and SGM) this due process complaint I do think is unfair. Why should they have due process? Why should people be able to complain or feedback and expect to be heard? That is not the model of church government these churches use. They believe God sets people aside to take decisions for the church.
If you want to be in a church with due process where the members can publically make decisions about how the church is run...join a congregational church!
A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!
I thought that on this issue you and I sang off pretty much the same hymn sheet. Nice to have it confirmed.
I'm sure those caught up in its "fun" don't have exactly an idealistic view of Synodical operations within the Church of England, but the principle of giving a voice to those who sit in the pews can be found there as well. The ethos of NF seems somehow to operate against any such developments in that network.
I feel you're likely to agree with me that congregational set-ups aren't by any means perfect and also produce casualties. As a worryingly long line of ex-Baptist pastors can testify. An old joke, and I've cracked it before, but since it comes from Billy Graham, it has a certain resonance.
"Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
Of course we have politicking and lobbying within, and some of it can get quite nasty. Seen that. A judgmental group with the bit between its teeth can be just as dangerous as a powerful individual leader. Not sure we should pat ourselves too much on the back. But we do have some checks and balances.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?
Well, these things can go either way. On the one hand Crystal Cathedral, on the other hand Lakewood and the Osteens (where the transition seems to have been handled smoothly). Mega Churches are (usually) run as family businesses, especially when the founder is the pastor. So transition only ever seems to go one of two ways.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?
Well, these things can go either way. On the one hand Crystal Cathedral, on the other hand Lakewood and the Osteens (where the transition seems to have been handled smoothly). Mega Churches are (usually) run as family businesses, especially when the founder is the pastor. So transition only ever seems to go one of two ways.
Ah, but that's the point. What happens when the sheep turn against the son of the founding shepherd? That's what happened in TSA. It was fine for a while but then, when bad decisions started being made, or when people who weren't involved in the 'old days' started having opinions, the people in authority below the top leadership started revolting. The Salvation Army's General was, in 1929, literally overthrown by a revolution.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Thanks for the recommendation Mudfrog.
The current state of play in NF isn't what a lot of people (there've been threads on here before when I was lurking) were expecting in terms of succesion. At the moment that seems like a smart move.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?
Yeah but "People get the (church) government that they deserve" is a bit weak IMHO.
I think I was more saying that (in the UK and US at least) people get the government they choose. Certainly where I am, all the talk from the house church movements is about the personalities ("gifts") of the leaders. That's fine - but I think you then buy in to being beholden to that leader. As Radical Whig says, I think "how is this church run?" should be higher on people's lists. If it isn't (and I'm not saying anyone here is doing this) one shouldn't get uppity after the fact when it turns out those leaders were fallible after all.
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62
Of course we have politicking and lobbying within, and some of it can get quite nasty. Seen that. A judgmental group with the bit between its teeth can be just as dangerous as a powerful individual leader. Not sure we should pat ourselves too much on the back. But we do have some checks and balances.
Oh yeah! It's not perfect. This emoticon ( ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ) always reminds me of members meetings by reflex. (Although, I must add, my current church is currently very healthy in this regard) I'm pretty convinced no method of church government is perfect pre-glory. All I'm saying is that you pays your money and takes your choice. If "being heard" and "accountability of leaders" and "due process" are important to you then an "apostolically led" type of church will stop being your cup of tea just as soon as the leaders do something you disagree with.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All I'm saying is that you pays your money and takes your choice. If "being heard" and "accountability of leaders" and "due process" are important to you then an "apostolically led" type of church will stop being your cup of tea just as soon as the leaders do something you disagree with.
Perhaps I'm just trying to defend my former stupidity, but the way it seemed to me NF was about being heard, leaders being accountable and there being, if not due process, informal ways of calling things into question.
One of the reasons I joined up was because an NF leader explained how the NF setup wasn't like Covenant Ministries in that it wasn't about such authoritarianism - and on a day-to-day basis, it wasn't. I suppose you could describe it as appearing to be "light" rather than "heavy" shepherding - and I suspect Twangist and David Matthias might be more or less in agreement on that perception.
As things started coming apart for me, we had a meeting with 'our apostolic delegate' for which I'd prepared an agenda at his request. I expected serious and difficult discussions.
What I didn't expect was for one of his henchmen to launch into the meeting by saying "forget the agenda, you're either in or you're out, so which is it going to be?" so intimidatingly that I geniunely thought he was going to turn physically violent on me.
As a member of an "apostolic" movement, I might not have expected due process, but I didn't think that entitled those "over me" to suddenly adopt such a completely different attitude - especially when the movement made such a selling point out of being friendship-based.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think I was more saying that (in the UK and US at least) people get the government they choose. Certainly where I am, all the talk from the house church movements is about the personalities ("gifts") of the leaders. That's fine - but I think you then buy in to being beholden to that leader.
I still think that most people do not run through all the possible ways in their mind that things could go wrong, until they do. See judgement of charity.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Indeed - the first time round, anyway.
My enduring problem now is moving from a "won't get fooled again" mindset to a "judgement of charity" one for just about anything.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Actually, Mrs Eutychus has just supplied the NF translation of "judgement of charity": it's "believing the best".
As in, in the event of misgivings, we were constantly told to "believe the best" of leaders and upbraided when we didn't. So misgivings became treated as a sign of a "bad attitude".
Things noticeably deterioriated in my case when I pointed out that (contrary to what the values might suggest) this "believing the best" only worked one way.
A frequent variation on this was "we trust our team".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think Leprechaun has highlighted an important point. And it makes me feel even more stupid for going along with things where I was for as long as I did ...
I know that wasn't Leprechaun's intention. But it's often the case that 'normal rules don't apply' when applied to church. And not just the more authoritarian set-ups. It's always struck me as odd how people who are doctors, lawyers, business-men, teachers, nurses and other professions and callings that involve decision-making skills, discernment and nous can suddenly lose all of those attributes on a Sunday morning or mid-week 'fireside chat'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think I was more saying that (in the UK and US at least) people get the government they choose. Certainly where I am, all the talk from the house church movements is about the personalities ("gifts") of the leaders. That's fine - but I think you then buy in to being beholden to that leader.
I still think that most people do not run through all the possible ways in their mind that things could go wrong, until they do. See judgement of charity.
Well quite. But the fact remains - if the lead of a powerful individual attracts you to a movement, you can only expect that disagreeing with that person will eventually lead it to go pear shaped - the other people are there for the same reason.
But Eutychus' post has made clear that it's not usually as straightforward as that, and I can see that. It was definitely not my purpose to make anyone feel stupid, and I apologise for that.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think there's any need for you to apologise at all, Leprechaun. I only wish you'd been around to advise me when I was an earnest young restorationist ...
But then, I probably wouldn't have listened to you at the time. 'Saul's armour ...'
Seriously, though, Eutychus is right, some of these outfits did given the impression of being more 'open' than they were. Not so Covenant Ministries, if anything they were pretty upfront about how authoritarian they were and some of us still didn't take the hint ...
I do think that NFI made play of not being like Covenant Ministries, though, but when push came to shove some of the same tendencies were evident below the surface. I suspect that's what hurt Eutychus the most. If he'd been expecting it he wouldn't have been so surprised.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thank you for that, Leprechaun.
In the meantime I'd thought of something else which goes back to this point:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, many people who do join these churches specifically do so because of the lead apostle's reputation.
I think it depends on the type of reputation in question. Terry Virgo doesn't so much have a reputation as a mighty apostle, more as a great Bible teacher with developed theology* and a strong "reformed" line (cf my comments about the shower queue at Stoneleigh compared with the Ichthus Revival Camp).
In view of this, consider this quote from a lengthy post about the SGM crisis, which I think is relevant here:
quote:
these “Reformed” types seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to policing any of their own. It’s like, if a group espouses a certain checklist of stuff, and if they like to quote Spurgeon, it becomes some sort of Jedi mind trick, where the group then gets a free pass for everything else....
CJ [ed: SGM leader] himself can’t be a big part of the problem…because CJ likes to quote Spurgeon! And CJ has been vetted as holding to the right checklist of beliefs!
I think that could be said of NewFrontiers. They appear respectable within the evangelical world in the UK to the point where they are perilously near to being beyond criticism.
*(This is a part which still does my head in. I've come to discard a lot of the theology, but I really have a hard time understanding how somebody so steeped in the Bible, prayer, study, and so on squares with the things I experienced. It's been very very difficult for me to do anything very theological since. It doesn't seem to do much good!).
[ 20. July 2011, 18:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*(This is a part which still does my head in. I've come to discard a lot of the theology, but I really have a hard time understanding how somebody so steeped in the Bible, prayer, study, and so on squares with the things I experienced. It's been very very difficult for me to do anything very theological since. It doesn't seem to do much good!).
It's a useful reminder that a form of Donatism can sometimes be in the back of our mind. Vis. Pastor A must be beyond reproach, because look at his ministry.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*(This is a part which still does my head in. I've come to discard a lot of the theology, but I really have a hard time understanding how somebody so steeped in the Bible, prayer, study, and so on squares with the things I experienced. It's been very very difficult for me to do anything very theological since. It doesn't seem to do much good!).
It's a useful reminder that a form of Donatism can sometimes be in the back of our mind. Vis. Pastor A must be beyond reproach, because look at his ministry.
And the converse - your church isn't the size of Mark Driscoll's so you musn't be preaching the Gospel/moving in the Spirit appropriately/well enough.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I'm reading this thread with interest, but struggling to understand the context.
Without wanting to derail the thread, can someone explain to me (I have no experience of these "apostolic" churches), how the model of apostolic leadership is supposed to work, and how it is justified theologically? How does one become an "apostle" in the first place?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Wow, I'll try.
The theory is that as Christ prepares his bride the Church for his return, the functions of apostle, prophet, teacher etc. mentioned in Eph. 4 are being 'restored' to the church.
'Apostles' represent a continuation of the NT function of apostle; while care is generally taken to not place them at the same level as the original 12, scriptural evidence for other, further apostles, most notably Paul, is brought to bear.
Qualifications vary, but essentially (again argued on the basis of Paul) one needs the specific calling of Christ. The fruits of this are then recognised by others.
Apostles are seen as having special insight, ability and authority to build the Church. This is worked out through the appointment of delegates (eg Titus) and elders. This is seen as being relationally-based rather than a rigid structure - 'fathering in the Gospel'.
I guess discussions of the qualifications and validity of present-day apostles belongs on another thread. I'd say that a good case can be made for them with a reading of Scripture which sees the NT (particularly the Acts and Epistles) as prescriptive (a blueprint for contemporary churches) rather then descriptive (an account of how the early church attempted to organise itself). These days, I go with the latter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Thank you.
(Oh dear, yes, the massive scope for abuse in this pattern is very evident).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Eutychus, I hesitate to say this and I know I'll attract some ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) funny looks from Twangist, David Matthias and others for even suggesting it, but could it not be that the apparent emphasis on theology and theological discourse in the shower queue at Stoneleigh was illusory?
I mean, compared to some of the other independent charismatic evangelical groups NFI certainly does give the appearance of theological weightiness. But when you compare that with the level of theological debate found in other, more traditional or 'conventional' settings (for want of a better term) then it becomes apparent that it ain't as deep as it looks.
Sure, there aren't any churches around where the ordinary joes in the pews are able to trot out Patristic material, detailed discussions of the Reformers or the finer points of whatever theological position one might mention - but once I broadened out from a restorationist position and started dealing/hob-nobbing with people from a broader spectrum I realised just how one-note we'd actually been.
I would apply this to NFI just as much as to the other restorationist and charismatic groupings. Sure, you'll find individuals who're well versed in matters theological, but on the whole ...
I ain't saying that your average Methodist, Baptist, RC, Anglican, Orthodox, Whatever Else church is going to contain more theological heavy-weights than the average NFI church. But through university chaplaincies, online discussions, visits to other churches, I quickly found that there was a whole raft more theology out there than I'd ever realised within my restorationist (or even evangelical per se) bubble.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Eutychus, I hesitate to say this and I know I'll attract some funny looks from Twangist, David Matthias and others for even suggesting it, but could it not be that the apparent emphasis on theology and theological discourse in the shower queue at Stoneleigh was illusory?
I mean, compared to some of the other independent charismatic evangelical groups NFI certainly does give the appearance of theological weightiness. But when you compare that with the level of theological debate found in other, more traditional or 'conventional' settings (for want of a better term) then it becomes apparent that it ain't as deep as it looks.
I'd tend to agree. A lot of the talk of theology in NFI circles seems to be of the all sizzle, no steak variety.
In fact, a lot of it seems to function as a different variety of Christianese ('Grace' etc). I think the overall theological acumen of a Christian movement is usually reflected in the group narrative that it tells itself (and that everything else has to fit into). I don't see much difference between the underlying narrative in NFI churches and that in a.n.other generic restorationist/charismatic church.
I know people within the movement like to point to the theology forum - along with the various individiuals within it who have been to seminary. But there are seminary attendees and seminary attendees, and the way they function within the life of the local church can vary quite a bit.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Perhaps I was in the Stoneleigh equivalent of the shopping checkout with the longest queue...
Agreed it was "one-note" but that one note did seem to go a lot deeper than what I'd experienced elsewhere. Seemed 'sounder' than some 'woolly Anglicans' I'd met at uni.... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
That said, even before things went wrong for me, I was disappointed to find that there wasn't much room for theological debate in NFI. There was something I went to a couple of times whose name escapes me which passed for that. They had Paul Reid speaking on women's ministry, which seemed promising in terms of debate.
But it actually seemed to come down to taking apart his arguments rather than interacting with them; certainly no thought of drawing something from them. (Actually, now I come to think of if, that went for the other guys in the shower queue, too). Sometimes I wonder whether my open-mindedness didn't contribute to my downfall.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Agreed it was "one-note" but that one note did seem to go a lot deeper than what I'd experienced elsewhere. Seemed 'sounder' than some 'woolly Anglicans' I'd met at uni....
That said, even before things went wrong for me, I was disappointed to find that there wasn't much room for theological debate in NFI.
I think there a lot of people who mistake theological nous for being able to regurgitate Grudem/Erickson. So 'theological debate' ends up being 'just restate my opinion over and over again and at varying volume'.
TBF that's not unique to the NFI, but in other circles I've found a greater percentage of people (and pastors) who are able to go beyond that.
And there are some examples of people claiming Calvin/Puritans etc. supported the same view, when it's evident that they have never read either.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Chris. Undoubtedly you get the same tendency in Orthodox circles where some people bang on about the Fathers rather than actually reading them or in Wesleyan circles where people bang on about Wesley without having read anything beyond his Journal.
Certainly in Anglican circles you'll find plenty of woolly or 'unsound' people and plenty, both clergy and laity who've never read Hooker, nor Lancelot Andrewes, the Tractarians ... nor acquainted themselves with the poetry of Donne or Herbert, the mysticism of Evelyn Underhill nor much else that could be gathered under the umbrella of the Anglican tradition.
It sounds elitist, but I suspect in any tradition you have to seek out the guardians and protectors of the 'Precious Things' that lie at the back of the shop ... let the League of Gentlemen viewers understand ...
Seriously, as Jengie will tell us, there is more to the Reformed tradition than the Big Name Bloggers cited on the SGM thread. Just as there is more to Pentecostalism than the big name pulpiteering revivalists. Or more to Roman Catholicism than a social club, Bingo on a Saturday night and Mass on a Sunday morning.
New Wine, NFI, SGM ... they're all pretty shallow when push comes to shove and it doesn't take long to swim to the other side of any of them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Now I know what it must feel like to be a blond and have to prove you're not "ditzy" all the time ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
The last couple of posts suggest that you can't really be interested in theology and part of NF.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
