|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I may be accused of being simplistic but......the church scene is complicated these days; it's not quite so clear cut, as it was, say 30 years ago.
I am no fan of Rob Bell (after all I am an evangelical ''fundamentalist'' ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) and home grown folk like Dave Tomlinson, but they are the Emergent Church post modern age pioneers and certainly not restorationists.
The platform is varied and the strident Protestant ''my way or no way'' approach has perhaps passed its sell by date?
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanceWilkins
Apprentice
# 16393
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
There are definitely cultish aspect of some of these denominations.
1) So many meetings requiring 100% commitment that members often don't have outside friends or activities.
2) Only speakers and materials from within the denomination are allowed.
3) A requirement to tithe, which may be unspoken. My NF church didn't formally require it but the introduction to church life booklet implied a possible curse for those who didn't give to the local church. This in some ways was worse than legalistic tithing. Either way as tithing is not found in the New Testament I rate it as spiritual abuse.
4) A 'spiritual' hierarchy that could only be entered by total commitment and tithing.
5) An inability to challenge doctrine or leadership decisions.
6) No say in how the money is spent.
Whatever they are trying to restore it sure ain't the New Testament church.
I have followed this thread with great interest. My own CE church seems to follow the above charateristics in their pursuit of a building extension on Rick Warren principles, and the result is a massive debt that must be serviced in the future.
Some of us do not spend all our lives in church (I come, I pay, I stay, I go -- and occasionally play the organ) and so we are looked down upon. Fair enough; but the lives of the totally committed must be very boring.
One incident last Sunday -- a lay member gave a talk in the sermon spot as to his ability to exorcize demons: a disturbing development which suggests that we might be moving even more towards a cult within our church.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Comfort the afflicted.
Afflict the comfortable.
Posts: 17 | From: UK | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not so sure the church scene was less complicated 30 years ago, Saul. It's just that we were all 30 years younger and therefore probably more disposed to see things in clear-cut/black-and-white terms ...
As for whether traditional evangelicalism has 'had its day', I would suggest that it both has and hasn't. It has in terms of the zeitgeist - if you're wedded to the spirit of the age then you're widowed to it in the next. Evangelicalism is a form of 'Modernism' - or at least a reaction to it that depended on the same paradigms and frames of reference. It is very propositional. I well remember a long standing evangelist I knew who'd spent almost his entire career 'witnessing' to university students saying that the whole approach didn't work any more.
Back in the day he'd make a proclamation about something or other and the Marxists and the humanists and so on and so forth would try to howl him down. Now everyone just says, 'Hey, that's cool. If that's what you want to believe and it works for you then that's fine by me, dude ...'
So, to that extent it's past its sell-by date.
However, there are sufficient people around who want clear-cut/black-and-white answers to everything that it will continue to flourish. If anything, we're seeing the hardening of the evangelical arteries in some circles.
As for the CofE parish heading in a similar direction - yes, this is happening. I spoke to a woman priest last night about the kind of direction movements like New Wine are taking and it was very reminiscent of the sort of thing we used to see on the restorationist circuit as well as independent charismatic evangelicalism per se.
Run away ... run away ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LanceWilkins:
My own CE church seems to follow the above charateristics in their pursuit of a building extension on Rick Warren principles, and the result is a massive debt that must be serviced in the future.
Some of us do not spend all our lives in church (I come, I pay, I stay, I go -- and occasionally play the organ) and so we are looked down upon. Fair enough; but the lives of the totally committed must be very boring.
One incident last Sunday -- a lay member gave a talk in the sermon spot as to his ability to exorcize demons: a disturbing development which suggests that we might be moving even more towards a cult within our church.
Hmmmm, I recognise this as several shipmates know this is the sort of thing that became increasingly common in a former church of mine. There is so much pressure on CofE churches to adopt new methods in order to try to grow numbers (a practice very commendable when looked at objectively), that I fear questions are not being asked as much as they should. Is the time ripe for another '9 O'Clock Service' scenario again, where an extreme example brings things to a head?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by LanceWilkins:
My own CE church seems to follow the above charateristics in their pursuit of a building extension on Rick Warren principles, and the result is a massive debt that must be serviced in the future.
Some of us do not spend all our lives in church (I come, I pay, I stay, I go -- and occasionally play the organ) and so we are looked down upon. Fair enough; but the lives of the totally committed must be very boring.
One incident last Sunday -- a lay member gave a talk in the sermon spot as to his ability to exorcize demons: a disturbing development which suggests that we might be moving even more towards a cult within our church.
Hmmmm, I recognise this as several shipmates know this is the sort of thing that became increasingly common in a former church of mine. There is so much pressure on CofE churches to adopt new methods in order to try to grow numbers (a practice very commendable when looked at objectively), that I fear questions are not being asked as much as they should. Is the time ripe for another '9 O'Clock Service' scenario again, where an extreme example brings things to a head?
I suppose, if we were honest there is the potential for error in ANY church of whatever hue. I think the nature of these debates has shown us that the likelihood for error maybe heightened in certain 'streams' of the church and the charismatic/Pentecostal one is particularly liable IMHO.
It's more clearly marked and viewed in the USA and church life in the UK appears to be not so frenetic and/or ecstatic/enthusiastic in some respects.
But the potential IS very much there - bums on seats pressure - is I am sure a factor. Of course the specific element of this thread is restorationism and it sits rightly within Pentecostalism and the charismatic church movement. But the 'The 9 O Clock Service' fiasco showed us that where growth is evidenced - it isn't always totally kosher.
Growth and numbers don't always correlate with servant hearted leadership and good Christian doctrinal teaching. Joel Osteen's mammoth sized Texas church surely shows us that.
On a probability basis, I would say Pentecostal/ charismatic churches are more likely to go into error due to their theology, nature and leadership, than say a Catholic, Orthodox or High Church Anglican outfit.
Saul
[ 30. January 2012, 14:53: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I would tend to agree, Saul, but would point out, in the interests of balance, that there are, and have been, a number of almost 'cultic' non-canonical Orthodox churches - ie. independent groups with some kind of self-appointed or break-away bishop and no allegiance/connection to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
That doesn't mean that ALL Orthodox groups (or quasi-Orthodox groups?) that aren't affiliated to Constantinople are whacky, but there are more dangers of things heading that way if you're Orthodox and in a non-canonical group.
The same applies to those individual Catholic churches that aren't in communion with Rome and the various Anglican break-way groups. I'm not including the various 'Eastern Catholics' in this category, just those odd ones with the headquarters in someone's shed.
All that said, even 'kosher' Anglican, Baptist or other churches can become a bit whacky at times. I suspect that we won't see any immediate or large scale repeat of the 'Nine o'Clock Service' scandal, but what we could see is the steady erosion of sound common sense in some otherwise level-headed parishes and congregations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would tend to agree, Saul, but would point out, in the interests of balance, that there are, and have been, a number of almost 'cultic' non-canonical Orthodox churches - ie. independent groups with some kind of self-appointed or break-away bishop and no allegiance/connection to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
That doesn't mean that ALL Orthodox groups (or quasi-Orthodox groups?) that aren't affiliated to Constantinople are whacky, but there are more dangers of things heading that way if you're Orthodox and in a non-canonical group.
The same applies to those individual Catholic churches that aren't in communion with Rome and the various Anglican break-way groups. I'm not including the various 'Eastern Catholics' in this category, just those odd ones with the headquarters in someone's shed.
All that said, even 'kosher' Anglican, Baptist or other churches can become a bit whacky at times. I suspect that we won't see any immediate or large scale repeat of the 'Nine o'Clock Service' scandal, but what we could see is the steady erosion of sound common sense in some otherwise level-headed parishes and congregations.
There is no monopoly on error - any denomination, any group, any movement. Any individual. Even ''cuddly'' South Coast Kevin could be vulnerable!
I think someone mentioned the disgraced senior charismatic leader - Tony Morton from the Southampton area; he was apparently, whilst a full time charismatic Minister, having a bit on the side with another woman. The old three demons that pull a man down being power, money and of course women/sex.
Being charismatic is no vaccination here! I have seen and heard of it too many times.
There is a realisation in the Pentecostal/charismatic axis, certainly here in the UK, that has seen some of the gross excesses manifested in the USA will not be tolerated. We are, after all, a small island, and word gets around easily, especially with a voracious and hungry media more than happy to publicise a Christian church leaders weaknesses. Some of the Restoration leaders were charismatic leaders (in the character sense of the word) and were vulnerable on a number of levels.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it's a broader issue that individual culpability and sin - as you've said, that can happen anywhere. I remember a letter in The Guardian in response to a piece about a 90-odd year old Greek bishop caught in bed with a parishioner's wife which ran, 'What a great religion! Where can I join?'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Rather, it's an issue as to whether particular styles of church governance and leadership lend themselves to abuse - not so much individual shenanigans such as fingers in the till, trousers round the ankles ... but systemic issues on a congregational or network/denominational level.
That's the issue I'd like to address.
--------------------
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
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Gamaliel says run away from New Wine. Why is that?
I attend a New Wine church, but am not involved in leadership. From what I can see there is an emphasis on the Holy Spirit. Flowing from that there is some emphasis on being 'naturally supernatural', (which I think means being hopeful and prepared to pray for healing or whatever while being aware the Kingdom is now and not yet). It strikes me as perhaps wanting to 'restore' that in a renewal sense (I hope that doesn't sound too pompous) rather than being Restorationist in the sense of church structures/governance or become the ready 'bride'.
Is it 'cos it risks getting over-egged? Is that something with Charismatic Chrstianity generally?
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I am not convinced one can or should try to "return to new testament Christianity" whatever that means. I am equally unsure the "traditional" hierarchy church model is useful or appropriate today.
I like to wonder what would a church gathering look like if we started from scratch, first identifying the goals -- and that's half the problem. Different ones of us have very different understanding of what a gathering is all about!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You mileage will vary, Tomsk ...
For my part, due to my experiences on the restorationist scene and the charismatic renewal in general I'm happy to maintain the position of a detached observer rather than an active participant.
The 'run away ... run away ...' thing was a quotation from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' and afficionados would have picked up the allusion.
I'm not suggesting that you 'run away' from your New Wine set-up, although I would advise you to keep your eyes wide open and not go along with everything that comes from this particular stable.
I'm sure you wouldn't anyway.
It is interesting though, how the term New Wine is beginning to emerge as a designation for a network of churches - although the same can be said, of course, for Reform, Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism - none of which would presumably see themselves as forming the basis for an emerging denomination or 'stream'.
I always wince a bit when I hear people say that there is 'an emphasis on the Holy Spirit' because in my experience this is short-hand for 'an emphasis on spiritual gifts' rather than an emphasis on God the Holy Spirit Himself. It's as if the Holy Spirit's involvement in things is reduced to the ability to get people to 'speak in tongues' or 'prophesy'. There is rarely any counterbalancing emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit 'behind the scenes' as it were, or the fruit of the Spirit (although these will be mentioned) nor indeed the role/work of God the Holy Spirit in the eucharist.
In my experience, there is very little emphasis on the Holy Spirit within the renewal as a whole other than as some kind of almost impersonal 'faith-force' responsible for enduing people with supernatural gifts, abilities and insight. Sure, there's some teaching on the Trinity and you will hear the occasional exposition but for all the protestations to the contrary I would suggest that the Holy Spirit is treated like a bolt-on afterthought in many charismatic settings just as He is in liberal or some conservative evangelical circles.
The only pneumatic elements that tend to be emphasised are the vocal or showy 'gifts' such as tongues, interpretation and so-called prophecy - which is generally very vague and woolly and simply consists of silly 'pictures' and subjective impressions and things that are dead easy to make-up or to fake. There are the occasional exception, of course.
I'm really not sure what there is to 'renew' here. 99.9% of the 'words' I've heard in Anglican renewal circles have been singularly unconvincing in that regard. I can't really see what they add to the party, other than to give the participants the somewhat illuministic sense that they are somehow hearing directly from God.
Ok, that can give a injection of enthusiasm and something of a boost, but it's largely reading things into the shadows in the fire. Very little of it passes muster as genuine 'prophecy' from where I'm standing.
It's all very self-fulfilling.
I will accept that New Wine is a renewal rather than a restorationist movement, but I suspect the restorationist element isn't that far behind and will begin to take root in some quarters within the New Wine ambit. There are Baptists, Pentecostals and Vineyard people involved with New Wine so the soil is ripe for a form of restorationism to flourish - it has already flourished or fed into these particular movements to some extent or other so could easily do so within New Wine.
I suspect, though, that if restorationism did take root there it would be of a milder and more 'Anglican' order than anything we saw back in the day with the R1/R2 set-ups.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Plenty of people have tried to 'start from scratch', Belle Ringer. What they've ended up with are new denominations.
I would submit that were you and some like-minded friends to attempt to 'start from scratch' you would end up the same.
It's just like trying to reinvent the wheel.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's just like trying to reinvent the wheel.
Maybe it is to some extent, but if our current wheel designs have all gone a bit (or a lot...) astray from the original design given to us then 'reinventing' the wheel is just what's needed!
As I'm sure I've read here recently, it comes down to whether and to what extent we take the New Testament way of being church as normative (i.e. we should emulate it) or just descriptive. It seems to me that the NT gives plenty of instruction as to what our churches (and I don't just mean the meetings / services) should be like. Two elements of this instruction that I think need to be rediscovered today are: Jesus' teaching on leadership, in Mark 10
quote:
You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else.
...and Paul's teaching in various places regarding the body of Christ, i.e we all have different roles and each one of us has something important to contribute to the church. I'm thinking particularly of Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14:26-33.
If servant leadership (as opposed to lording it over people) and mass involvement in church and mission ('everyone gets to play') are an important part of being church, then we must make sure that our ways of being church today encourage these things to happen. Perhaps that means the odd tweak here and there, or perhaps it means a radical rethink of how we structure or church gatherings and even our church organisations.
PS - Thanks all for the further details about Brian McLaren and that Time poll. Sobering to realise that his views are not half as controversial among many Christians as they are among my closest fellow-travellers...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As I'm sure I've read here recently, it comes down to whether and to what extent we take the New Testament way of being church as normative (i.e. we should emulate it) or just descriptive.
A lot of the verses you quote were written to correct error. Which *actual* new testament church would you like to be in? Corinth? (Rich off in their social mobility cliques, mass immorality, church divided over which preacher they prefer, chap sleeping with his stepmother) Galatia (one half of the church refusing to have quiche with the other half, the chief pastor having to be told off by some unknown upstart), Thessaly? (Half the church refusing to work because they believe the lord is coming soon).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A lot of the verses you quote were written to correct error. Which *actual* new testament church would you like to be in?
Chris stiles, what a good question that is! No idea of my answer... I think I should have said 'the New Testament's teaching on what the church is meant to be' rather than simply 'the New Testament way of being church'.
I totally agree with you that none of the NT churches were getting it wholly right. Indeed, it seems many if not all of them were getting it very wrong in various ways. But looking at Paul's corrections surely gives us a good outline of what churches should be like? For example, in the Corinthian church not all the people were using their talents for the encouragement and strengthening of others, so Paul urged them to provide opportunity for all to be involved and share their talents.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, that you can find aspects of all that everywhere and also where you might least expect.
I've been quite surprised to see members of Orthodox and RC churches challenge their priests quite directly when they've disagreed with them over something or other - far more directly than would have generally have been the case in restorationism which stressed 'every member ministry'.
It might look like a bloke in a robe or with a funny hat is six-feet above contradiction but it could equally be that the bloke in the suit or in the Hawaiian shirt is the one who really acts like that.
I'm still trying to get my head round what your fellow travellers think of as objectionable in Brian Maclaren's theology/approach ... his apparent universalism?
Anyway, from my experience the 'everybody gets to play' thing does indeed lead to lots of busyness and involvement - but it doesn't necessarily lead to any improvements. It can simply mean that we spend a lot more time and nervous energy mopping up the mess to a certain extent.
--------------------
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 South Coast Kevin:
I totally agree with you that none of the NT churches were getting it wholly right. Indeed, it seems many if not all of them were getting it very wrong in various ways. But looking at Paul's corrections surely gives us a good outline of what churches should be like?
Sure, so there is evidence of it being prescriptive, but very little of it being descriptive.
Which doesn't mean it isn't worth aiming for - but does mean that we shouldn't make achieving it a mark of a 'New Testament church'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still trying to get my head round what your fellow travellers think of as objectionable in Brian Maclaren's theology/approach ... his apparent universalism?
I think his apparent suggestion that you can stay within a different religious context whilst 'being a follower of Jesus' is problematic.
A lot of what he says just seems like vague warm guff though. If you agreed/disagreed with McLaren, how would you know ?
That said I think at least part of the animus towards him is down to one of positioning - as someone pointed out when the Rob Bell fuss kicked off; most of these new movements are all aimed at the same set of young (mostly)white, males, who they hope will stand upstream of culture and then go on to change the world.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, that you can find aspects of all that everywhere and also where you might least expect...It might look like a bloke in a robe or with a funny hat is six-feet above contradiction but it could equally be that the bloke in the suit or in the Hawaiian shirt is the one who really acts like that.
Yep, fully agree. The things I'm banging on about are certainly not confined to new / simple / organic church set-ups and, yes, I know you can have modern-seeming churches where the leadership is grotesquely hierarchical and the congregation desperately passive.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...looking at Paul's corrections surely gives us a good outline of what churches should be like?
Sure, so there is evidence of it being prescriptive, but very little of it being descriptive.
Which doesn't mean it isn't worth aiming for - but does mean that we shouldn't make achieving it a mark of a 'New Testament church'.
Not sure I follow you, sorry. I'm happy to avoid using the term 'New Testament church' if it bothers anyone, and I'm not thinking along the full-on restorationist lines (the lines that claim we have to 'restore' the church in order that Jesus will return). I'm just thinking about what church is supposed to be and how it's supposed to function.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Plenty of people have tried to 'start from scratch', Belle Ringer. What they've ended up with are new denominations.
I would submit that were you and some like-minded friends to attempt to 'start from scratch' you would end up the same.
It's just like trying to reinvent the wheel.
No, actually, most of them end up in house churches.
The wheel is it's been badly misformed for centuries. That's why church history is so full of evils like burning of supposed heretics, witch hunts, wars about which denomination the people would be forced (or forbidden) to adhere to.
Very possible the whole concept of "wheel" is wrong, God's model was "wings," but "wheel" is so deeply engrained we tend to recreate it. Those who proclaimed "priesthood of all believers" set up a new priesthood between the people and God -- the wheel model took hold again, not because it's God's model but because it's what we've all been taught since diapers, and we don't know how to imagine or seek a better way.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Not sure I follow you, sorry. I'm happy to avoid using the term 'New Testament church' if it bothers anyone, and I'm not thinking along the full-on restorationist lines (the lines that claim we have to 'restore' the church in order that Jesus will return). I'm just thinking about what church is supposed to be and how it's supposed to function.
Sure, but if it turns out that 'how things are supposed to work' is never how they turn out to work in practice, then it's an ideal that we should aim at.
'Where are all the churches that are like these statements of Paul's that were actually corrective ones to grossly dysfunctional churches' isn't a particularly sensible question.
[ 31. January 2012, 14:27: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I suppose that as we've pointed out the dangers of a restorationist model, we then could sit on our hands and do nothing, which is, I would suggest, if one is a Christian, not a serious option.
We can also sit at the sidelines and carp and bicker (not suggesting any of us are doing this by the way ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ). But human nature being what it is - ''fallen'' - we need to move on from hierarchical domineering practices and move towards a Pauline (or dare I say it NT model) church. So that will take action.
Several of us on this thread were or are involved in some form of charismatic/ house/ independent type churches. Of course there has been record of church abuse amongst restorationist churches as well as other types of churches too; but I am guessing most of us are still Christians.
I certainly am a Christian and involved at the moment in Alpha and also quite an interesting men's group, for Christian men.
Many men are feeling cut loose from church and our local group only launched last year is taking off quite strongly. But there is no hierarchy in the men's group, it is run by a steering group and we divvy up jobs and work together. We don't sing songs, hold hands or look into each others eyes, and I must admit it is really refreshing.
I think as I've stated a while back classic restorationism has gone and I for one am quite glad. It served a purpose for some, but with it came arrogance, uneccesary hierarchy and some notable cases of leader - member abuse. Let us rejoice that our faith is stronger than the movements men and women set up and let us move forward into areas, like the men's ministry as one example, where we can be 'real' without trying to set up outdated and ineffective structures, of which restorationism was a sad example in many areas.
Hope that doesn't sound too preachy! ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Most house churches either fizzle out, Belle Ringer, or end up in networks or 'streams' which are simple another form of denominationalism.
Listen, I'm not against any form of 'base community' (as long as it isn't 'base' in the other sense of the word) and I would submit that you can find these anywhere - among Liberation Theology influenced RC communities in Central America, in various monasteries, retreat houses, various house-groups and whatever else - right across the spectrum.
All I'm saying is that the back-to-basics approach inevitably ends up less than basic in the long run.
--------------------
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
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Gamaliel said "The 'run away ... run away ...' thing was a quotation from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' and afficionados would have picked up the allusion."
Thanks for clearing that up. I was about to fart in your general direction...
I agree with what you say about spiritual gifts. I think they can be helpful to people, which will normally be evinced by some kind of fruit. If they become an end in themselves we can put the cart before the horse. There are also many ways of the HS being manifest. I'd feel a bit presumptuous saying that other Christians lack the HS, but think it's generally a good idea to remind ourselves he's around.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(at the other Monty Python allusion).
Serious point, and a tangent ... perhaps something for another thread ...
CAN someone be a Christian and lack the Holy Spirit?
I would say that all Christians 'have' the Holy Spirit (if we can put it that way) even if they aren't aware of his presence.
I believe we do God the Holy Spirit a disservice if we limit his activity to the so-called 'ecstatic' gifts.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I believe we do God the Holy Spirit a disservice if we limit his activity to the so-called 'ecstatic' gifts.
Absolutely but I also believe we do God the Holy Spirit a disservice if we ignore these gifts and don't give them space in our churches as well.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Trouble is, Polly, when we give 'space' for these things we also open ourselves up to spiritual deception, what the Russians call 'prelest' and all sorts of card-board cut-out 'spiritual gifts' rather than the genuine article.
I'm not convinced that God the Holy Spirit is at all honoured by the 'shecameonahonda, giveimabacardi' form of 'tongues' nor the 'rainbows and waterfalls' form of so-called 'prophecy'.
I write as a card-carrying charismatic from back in the day but whilst I'm certainly no cessationist I'm increasingly of the view that 99.9% of these things, as currently conducted, don't really add a great deal to our life together as church - or at least, nowhere near as much as is claimed.
I'm really struggling to appreciate what they bring to the party that either isn't there already or couldn't be implied or derived from the preaching, the hymnody or liturgies and the eucharist/Lord's supper/communion ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Trouble is, Polly, when we give 'space' for these things we also open ourselves up to spiritual deception, what the Russians call 'prelest' and all sorts of card-board cut-out 'spiritual gifts' rather than the genuine article.
I'm not convinced that God the Holy Spirit is at all honoured by the 'shecameonahonda, giveimabacardi' form of 'tongues' nor the 'rainbows and waterfalls' form of so-called 'prophecy'.
I write as a card-carrying charismatic from back in the day but whilst I'm certainly no cessationist I'm increasingly of the view that 99.9% of these things, as currently conducted, don't really add a great deal to our life together as church - or at least, nowhere near as much as is claimed.
I'm really struggling to appreciate what they bring to the party that either isn't there already or couldn't be implied or derived from the preaching, the hymnody or liturgies and the eucharist/Lord's supper/communion ...
I agree with you Gamaliel.
In fact I was listening to a Pastor recently and he was a charismatic; he was wisely stating that the Toronto Blessing was quite a mixed bag of things and in some cases it was downright untrue. Prophecies were libelous and hurtful with much potential to cause lasting harm.
Another Pastor I know was saying that there do not seem verifiable miracles in the UK as there appear to be in other parts of the world.
Both of these Pastors are out and out charismatics and certainly not cessationist - so I would say that it's not so much God isn't powerful, more that maybe we're looking in the wrong place?
There seems to be an understanding that the old restorationist pentecostal ''showmanship'' just won't cut it these days; it has to be real or not at all.
Now I am not saying that we all give up and go home, rather that we should perhaps see the miracles in areas we've not considered before and look beyond the booming strident sound amplifiers and cheesy platform 'shows' so beloved of traditional charismatic outfits.
It's a plea to move on really. Restorationism is dead - long live the revolution!
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Gamalieil and Saul
I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting and if I have I apologise.
But it seems as if you are saying the church should not permit the exercising of such gifts because they have been abused in the past and even today?
If this is so, then not only is it in my opinion really bad theology it is not logical either.
We do not say that the church should ban preaching because some have abused the God given gifts, either in the past or today. There would be an outcry if anyone on these boards suggested we ban traditional hymns because there are a few dodgy ones out there.
The answer for bad theology is not no theology but better theology.
Scripture is clear that all gifts are to be used for the edification of the body of Christ.
Nowhere does it say we are free to restrict what the Holy Spirit wants to do in the church.
I too have seen people abuse the gifts God has given the Church including the gifts of prophecy and tongues.
But I have also seen and been blessed from people exercising these gifts.
The gifts are not the problem but those who practice them.
Churches need to be better in training people to use them correctly and with proper discernment (recognising again the role of the Holy Spirit in this), the ability to learn when to speak and when to be silent.
I would also suggest that the stat you quote of 99.9% is grossly inaccurate with no foundation other than a personable opinion but then again that's my opinion.
Once again I'm sorry if I have read into what you said incorrectly but this sort of argument is very weak.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamalieil and Saul
I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting and if I have I apologise.
But it seems as if you are saying the church should not permit the exercising of such gifts because they have been abused in the past and even today?
If this is so, then not only is it in my opinion really bad theology it is not logical either.
We do not say that the church should ban preaching because some have abused the God given gifts, either in the past or today. There would be an outcry if anyone on these boards suggested we ban traditional hymns because there are a few dodgy ones out there.
The answer for bad theology is not no theology but better theology.
Scripture is clear that all gifts are to be used for the edification of the body of Christ.
Nowhere does it say we are free to restrict what the Holy Spirit wants to do in the church.
I too have seen people abuse the gifts God has given the Church including the gifts of prophecy and tongues.
But I have also seen and been blessed from people exercising these gifts.
The gifts are not the problem but those who practice them.
Churches need to be better in training people to use them correctly and with proper discernment (recognising again the role of the Holy Spirit in this), the ability to learn when to speak and when to be silent.
I would also suggest that the stat you quote of 99.9% is grossly inaccurate with no foundation other than a personable opinion but then again that's my opinion.
Once again I'm sorry if I have read into what you said incorrectly but this sort of argument is very weak.
I can only recount my own position Polly.
I am a Christian who is an evangelical. What I am saying is this:
Much of the so called charismatic renewal wasn't so much a renewal but a recession to bad thinking and quick fix knee jerk type solutions , this was the sort of tosh that often was put out e.g. :
''God is doing a new thing, God is renewing the churches, healing, liberating and giving words of knowledge.Come and be released, come and hear xxxxxxxxxxx and plunge into the new thing God is doing.Prophetic transformations will happen, prisoners released, high praises will storm the heavenlies''.
You get my drift here?
This sort of stuff was common place in the 80s and 90s and to be frank a lot of it was utter tosh. I believe God actually seems to work in the most unexpected places; he isn't a ''tame'' God and doesn't work to some Pentecostal-Charismatic ritualistic formula.
In fact, IMHO, he works in quieter places than the razzamatazz of the high tech pulpit with all it's state of the art presentations, mixing decks, 'new old' songs of worship, and all the mind numbing accoutrements of modern churchianity.
No Polly, I can't speak for Gamaliel, but as far as I am concerned, God is all powerful and I would love to see more Christians in our land, more Bible reading and prayer, more worship. But don't give me the fake, don't give me the big pulpit extravaganza, the boastful accounts of people healed (when they're not) , the large houses of leaders, the big flash cars of leaders. This is all gloss and flash - spiritual bling of the worst kind. It is dung.
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
I hope that clarifies.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Saul the Apostle posted:
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
Saul - you make the assumption that I haven't been "round the block" and I haven't "seen a lot of abuse" as well as charismatic churches do not serve up a bias to the poor......
I think a person can have the equal amount of experience you suggest and still hold onto an opposite opinion.
I absolutely agree that charismatic churches did rather poorly in all these areas, certainly from their birth until late 1990's.
However (and I can only speak from my experience and research I did for my dissertation 2 yrs ago) NF has take huge strides in getting some sort of balance.
Personally I think every church should strive to get a balance of the areas you quote and give space for all gifts from God to be exercised.
For me its not a either/or scenario but a and/both.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've been around the scene as much as you have, Polly, so I am speaking from the position of one who was an active participant in this stuff.
I think there's fuel for another thread here, on the role of 'spiritual gifts'. I'll start that.
No, I'm not saying that these things should be banned or restricted, but I think there's an underlying assumption that you're operating under here, and that is that these purported gifts are all the genuine article and it's only the way that they are used and abused that is the problem.
I would suggest that very few of the incidences we find today ARE the genuine article. The whole problem is that we're treating card-board cut-out (not even counterfeit) gifts as though they were the real thing.
I would submit that lively and growing churches owe their numerical success to other factors - the informal and participatory atmosphere, the music, the sense of community, vision and purpose etc - the 'spiritual gifts' element follows as a corollary of all that but isn't really the main issue. I'll elaborate on this in a new thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that very few of the incidences we find today ARE the genuine article.
From my experience around the block and through the denominations, few churches are God-oriented, so it's pick your poison. Whether charismatic or liturgical, it's all about power and dollars and show base on unprovable abstract theology with God as the theme.
Church, the basic model or concept of church, is badly broken or it would be attracting people because God is utterly attractive. Churches are failing to reveal God. But churches sit around self-justifying and blaming those who leave, claiming the church is doing everything right when the facts prove the opposite. Look at the statistics year to year, decade to decade.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Saul the Apostle posted:
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
Saul - you make the assumption that I haven't been "round the block" and I haven't "seen a lot of abuse" as well as charismatic churches do not serve up a bias to the poor......
I think a person can have the equal amount of experience you suggest and still hold onto an opposite opinion.
I absolutely agree that charismatic churches did rather poorly in all these areas, certainly from their birth until late 1990's.
However (and I can only speak from my experience and research I did for my dissertation 2 yrs ago) NF has take huge strides in getting some sort of balance.
Personally I think every church should strive to get a balance of the areas you quote and give space for all gifts from God to be exercised.
For me its not a either/or scenario but a and/both.
No Polly, you've got it wrong on almost all counts here.
Maybe I should have spelled it out? Certain charismatic churches in the 80s,90s and noughties were abysmal. They were top down dictatorships of self appointed ayatollahs. The leaders were fleecing the flock and rode in large brand new cars and had houses that were $million dollar mansions, here in the UK. Sadly restorationist leaders were replete with such characters. Such churches did have a bias, a bias to the self serving and upwardly mobile.
Was this true for all charismatic groups? Of course not, but as we've clearly pointed out, there was a really large percentage of opportunity for charismatic church leaders to be deceitful - a number were and were caught with hands in till and trousers down etc etc etc.
Were there some brilliant examples of servant hearted leaders, who had a bias to the poor? Yes there were; in fact I would say there is now a good maturity in many charismatic groupings in the UK.
I mentioned The Clarendon trust (NFI) not because they were corrupt, but simply that there charity returns could have been more transparent IMHO. I have never had anything to do with Virgo and his outfits so I am speaking as a detached observer. For example to have a salaries bill of over £1 million per annum and NOT to specify who gets what would annoy me if I was a member of that church. If a Senior Pastor is getting £150,000 per year , let's at least thave some transparency about the figures! Again I find it hard to understand why 3 Trustees were pulling in a salary each per year of over £40,000, but be that as it is.
So Polly, I was simplay saying that Gamaliel and I had been round the block (I know this as I have had e mail contact with Gamaliel over a period of months by the way and not about this thread FYI.) It wasn't a plea for no gifts or no charismatic churches, not at all; in fact our society could benefits from Christian churches loving their communities and being salt and light.
Saul
[ 02. February 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, Saul, many of the restorationist leaders acquired their wealth by shrewd property deals rather than by fleecing their flocks - although the point holds that they were generally better paid than their counterparts in the more mainstream denominations.
That said, I can cite examples of non-restorationist independent evangelical church leaders in flag-ship churches who were/are paid tidy sums.
As for the sexual indiscretions, Walker and others have noticed that these were no more prevalent among restorationists than anyone else. I can think of a few high profile instances and one or two other lesser profile ones - but I suspect that any comparison between restorationists and other church groupings in terms of the dropping of trousers wouldn't reveal that restorationist leaders were any more prone to this than anyone else.
To be fair, the level of scandal was pretty low.
The bigger issue, to my mind, is the extent to which the whole thing is based on a chimera - the restoration of the NT church and, going beyond that, to a point where the Church is functioning at some kind of 'higher' and 'purer' level than it ever did in NT times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, Saul, many of the restorationist leaders acquired their wealth by shrewd property deals rather than by fleecing their flocks - although the point holds that they were generally better paid than their counterparts in the more mainstream denominations.
That said, I can cite examples of non-restorationist independent evangelical church leaders in flag-ship churches who were/are paid tidy sums.
As for the sexual indiscretions, Walker and others have noticed that these were no more prevalent among restorationists than anyone else. I can think of a few high profile instances and one or two other lesser profile ones - but I suspect that any comparison between restorationists and other church groupings in terms of the dropping of trousers wouldn't reveal that restorationist leaders were any more prone to this than anyone else.
To be fair, the level of scandal was pretty low.
The bigger issue, to my mind, is the extent to which the whole thing is based on a chimera - the restoration of the NT church and, going beyond that, to a point where the Church is functioning at some kind of 'higher' and 'purer' level than it ever did in NT times.
Gamaliel,
point well made, I think you're probably right here.
But wouldn't it be good if a large church, like Christ the King in Brighton, could be more open? I am not accusing them of malpractices by the way, just to state what their Pastors' salaries actually are.
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
I do think British folk ARE gullible and the 9 o clock service was proof in point. But that was an Anglican set up and I expect that the desire by senior clergy was to see real growth and they didn't realise that there were some very not kosher things going on there until it was blasted all over the national media.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
Being slightly familiar with the megachurch 'scene', the dynamics of it are interesting to me.
Contextually, it's often not the case that people are literally in it for the money - at least not in the sense that a lot of people on this side of the pond would assume. Of course, at some level they are 'in it for the money' - but based on an unconscious assumption of the business values of country.
Basically, a large number of the charismatic outfits in the US are run as family businesses in all but name, with very much the same dynamics.
I don't see the same thing over here - at least not so far.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
Being slightly familiar with the megachurch 'scene', the dynamics of it are interesting to me.
Contextually, it's often not the case that people are literally in it for the money - at least not in the sense that a lot of people on this side of the pond would assume. Of course, at some level they are 'in it for the money' - but based on an unconscious assumption of the business values of country.
Basically, a large number of the charismatic outfits in the US are run as family businesses in all but name, with very much the same dynamics.
I don't see the same thing over here - at least not so far.
Chris
I am interested in what you say about US dynastic religious cults and mega churches.
Is this a worthy separate new topic do you think?
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think it is. It's a different phenomenon to the restorationist one, although some former restorationist outfits - Destiny in Glasgow and Abundant Life in Bradford - are going down the US mega-church style route.
--------------------
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 Saul the Apostle:
I am interested in what you say about US dynastic religious cults and mega churches.
Is this a worthy separate new topic do you think?
I don't have much to say, so it probably merits a sidenote only:
Suffice to say that if you are in a culture which stresses heavily the agency of the individual in creating businesses, and then create a situation where pastors think their peers are in the local chamber of commerce, pretty soon what is acceptable in terms of living standards drastically goes up. Most of the people involved won't think they are taking advantage of the situation, they'll merely assume that they deserve it.
But Gamaliel is right; there isn't much crossover - except insofar as certain restorationist outfits have adopted the megachurch ethos (which for the NFI is a few clusters of churches around the south on england).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I am just finding out a little about NewFrontiers (which is a Restorationist group of churches.)
I have a relative who is a full-time pastor at one of these churches. He is the same age as me, but since I discussed my more catholic leanings he won't speak to me at all. I am wondering if he sees me as a "jezebel spirit" or something.
Since my catholic phase began, I have (thankfully) been received into the Orthodox church, maybe he sees my Church as the very thing he needs to bring to ruin, in order to plant proper "new testament" churches to replace the "Mother of Harlots" which is the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Of course, I don't know if this is what he thinks, but I do get the feeling that these churches are all about leadership - everyone else is just pew fodder (even though they are very comfortable pews/seats).
It also seems that, although they are seeing many new faces, these people often don't stick around for long - and they leave, sometimes to other fellowships, sometimes they disappear into oblivion, sometimes they are cast out by the leadership team!
Now Terry Virgo has left the helm, suddenly leaders become "Apostles" (how?) - I'm wondering if my impression of the churches is correct, and whether they are now on the decline, or whether they are expecting a sudden new revival...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Wow, Mark, you've dredged this up from a while back. I notice you're a newbie. Welcome aboard!
I chuckled when I read you'd converted to Orthodoxy. I know a former NFI chap (who used to post here) who has done the same.
I also chuckled when you observed that those styles of church are all 'leadership' focussed. They would accuse the Orthodox of being the same, the focus being on the guy in the beard at the front and so on ...
My own view is that NFI isn't as 'bad' as other manifestations of the restorationist tendency - but the mileage varies from place to place. As for what happens next, have to wait and see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I also chuckled when you observed that those styles of church are all 'leadership' focussed. They would accuse the Orthodox of being the same, the focus being on the guy in the beard at the front and so on ...
Yes, I'm sure this is true - the difference is that criticisms of Orthodoxy come from people outside the Church, who have never been Orthodox. I think the criticisms of NF are more likely to come from current or former members - ie. from inside the church.
btw. I never meant to imply that NF was all bad, but it seems to have a few problems, notably with it's claims to authority - hence the observations about it's leadership.
Now (changing the subject completely) let me finish your song...
*sings* "For His mercies aye endure. Ever faithful, ever sure."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Copied from "Released from church" thread (Purgatory):
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This is NFI we're talking about - they don't care about sacraments, they just use blackcurrent juice and biscuits!
I posted this a little while back, but in fact I was wrong! I thought NewFrontiers held to the "just a memorial" view of Holy Communion, but this is not true. In fact, they do believe in the Real Presence, in much the same way as Prayer Book Anglicans (at least those who hold to the 39 articles).
More HERE (click on pictures for a series of four papers by Andy Johnston)
I was particularly interested, because I recorded and later watched Pentecost Praise (BBC1) last Sunday, which was from the Church of Christ the King in Brighton (founding church of NewFrontiers), where they held communion - and I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might be seem to convey.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought NewFrontiers held to the "just a memorial" view of Holy Communion, but this is not true. In fact, they do believe in the Real Presence, in much the same way as Prayer Book Anglicans (at least those who hold to the 39 articles).
Have I misunderstood what you mean by 'Real Presence', Mark? I ask because that blog post says:
quote:
Of course, we all know that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ in any physical sense
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might be seem to convey.
Maybe this is what intincting (is that the right word?) means for Orthodox Christians but it doesn't seem to mean the same for these folks, at least based on the Communion theology outlined in the blog post. It seems to me...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have I misunderstood what you mean by 'Real Presence', Mark? I ask because that blog post says:
quote:
Of course, we all know that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ in any physical sense
My understanding of "Real Presence" is baggage from my days as an Anglican. My understanding at the time was that the Lutheran ("under" the bread), Calvinist ("to eat and drink after an heavenly and spiritual manner" - whatever that means), and RC/Orthodox are all different ways of acknowledging the Real Presence of Christ. In defence, we cannot really say that because Christ's presence is spiritual, it is not real can we?
The exception, as the article rightly explains, is Zwinglianism, where it is "just a memorial" and where there is no belief in the presence of Christ in any sense, in association with the Eucharist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might seem to convey.
Maybe this is what intincting (is that the right word?) means for Orthodox Christians but it doesn't seem to mean the same for these folks, at least based on the Communion theology outlined in the blog post. It seems to me...
Intincting is the right word. For NewFrontiers, there was no mention of it in the article, and I don't remember them doing this 10 years ago. However, as NewFrontiers are Restorationists, I would imagine they are going back to a practice in the early church, and it would represent the living body of Christ as it does for Orthodox.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, as NewFrontiers are Restorationists, I would imagine they are going back to a practice in the early church, and it would represent the living body of Christ as it does for Orthodox.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
While the NT might be a textbook for NF, the early church certainly isn't, and any practice of intinction on their part is likely to be the result of health-related issues. Which is another thread entirely and probably belongs in Eccles.
The last time I heard anyone in NF teaching on communion (admittedly 10 years or so ago now) it was John Hosier, lamenting the fact that the new churches didn't seem to have worked out where to fit it in in their praxis. They certainly don't believe in it representing the living body of Christ in any way that would make sense to an Orthodox way of thinking.
--------------------
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 Mark Betts:
Now Terry Virgo has left the helm, suddenly leaders become "Apostles" (how?) - I'm wondering if my impression of the churches is correct, and whether they are now on the decline, or whether they are expecting a sudden new revival...
Back in the dotcom days, an older colleague observed that every technology starts off as revolutionary and then eventually finds it's niche.
The same is true for church movements. It's rare that 'renewal' movements sustain themselves for more than a generation or so, and in these days movements of all kinds tend to have a limited shelf life.
Give it 10 years, and most of the NFI groupings would have followed the same path followed by older restorationist outfits in the UK (Icthus, Pioneer et al).
I don't think theres necessarily a organisational bias against the catholics/orthodox. It's possible however that the person you know is unable to place you mentally into a category he is comfortable with and so has problems interacting with you.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't think there's necessarily a organisational bias against the catholics/orthodox. It's possible however that the person you know is unable to place you mentally into a category he is comfortable with and so has problems interacting with you.
Well, seeing as I'm Orthodox, with Anglican baggage, empathising with NewFrontiers - it's not really surprising people have problems interacting with me!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
