|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, but the twist restorationism gives it is that their form of church government - not just charimsatic renwal - would ultimately extend to everyone (certainly Harvestime used to think that way. The closest parallel that springs to my mind is actually the Catholic church!
Well if we restrict this to just church government (and ignore the extending bit), even this isn't all that new, though they seem to have come up with the idea all by themselves.
Just to clarify, I meant that they believed everyone from every church would not simply adopt their form of government but actually recognise their apostles. (In particular, I'm recalling a conversation with a very wild-eyed couple we knew at Uni who moved to join a Harvestime church, long before I got involved in restorationism).
I never heard that expressed so explicitly from an NF platform, but nevertheless I think the idea that "restored" forms of church government and traditional forms could never overlap was very prevalent.
--------------------
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 Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That's not restricted to Restorationists as I'm sure you know. The meme of the 'One True Church' is something that has been present in the Pentecostal movement from Azusa Street onwards.
...and you'll find it in Orthodoxy, among some Anglicans (personal experience) the odd baptist. And what about the Brethren? The more I think about it, the more I think it's an issue that runs through Christendom. It just has different drivers and historical roots depending where you dig. [/QB]
To an extent that's true. In pentecostal and charismatic circles it took on an added emphasis *because* they had 'signs and wonders' which were seen as validating their claims.
So yes, it would be true on one level to say that it was simply down to different drives, though those drives are the related to the topic of this thread.
[ 04. January 2012, 22:55: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Going back a bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture
But Regional Ministers, at least in the Baptist Union sense, don't have a power over local churches. They have influence, in the sense that they represent the denomination - and BU churches have signed up to the club - but within that, congregations are independent and call their own ministers.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Was it Frank Bartleman who wrote the initial accounts of Azusa Street? If so, and if my memory serves correctly, he took a pretty eirenic view of things - there are even some positive references in there to aspects of Roman Catholicism ie. the way they cohere rather than splintering into innumerable sects in the way that Protestantism has done.
Alongside the separatist strand in Pentecostalism there was also a (slight?) view that they were there to help renew the rest of Christendom - although plenty of Pentecostals took a very dim view of the charismatic movement when it emerged in the mainstream denominations in the 1960s - David du Plessis was the one who swam against the tide in that respect.
There were some (just some!) shades of grey within traditional Pentecostalism.
@Eutychus - yes, I was in Harvestime/Covenant Ministries and there was the view (which always embarrassed me) that sooner or later the wider church would accept oversight from our particular apostles - or if not them, blokes like them. Like much else, this view simply dropped off the radar over time. But it was there. I'm not sure how much it was encouraged by the 'ministry' blokes themselves though ... but they certainly didn't seem to go out of their way to discourage it.
But then, there were always inconsistencies and the whole thing was in a constant state of flux. As I've said, you had to have a short memory to remain a restorationist.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Just struck by the Anglican parrallel (if memory serves) in that the vicar/priest in charge/lead pastor (for those of a New Wine bent) has the cure of soul on behalf of the Bishop - effectivley delegated authority. Is that correct?
That's the RC version of the story, and its one you often get from Anglo-Catholics these days. But on the whole CofE vicars have been pretty independent of their bishops since the Reformation.
The licencing ceremonies talk about sharing the "cure of souls". And once a parish is handed over to a new incumbent it has traditionally been in a sense their property - the Bishop can't take it away from them. In fact Bishops probably have less actual control over what is done in parishes that have an incumbent than those Baptist supervisors do in the churches they supervise. Its complicated because as an established church the whole thing is bound up with some traditional property rights - legally the incumbent is a perpetual corporation who owns the freehold of the church in some kind of trust for the parish - and where there is no incumbent the property rights don't automatically revert to the diocese or the bishop. Also the churchwardens (who are elected representatives of the people) have some legal rights the bishops can't easily get rid of. As do patrons. Its all very complicated. But not at all like delegation.
The ordination liturgies have no notion of the Bishop passing on any personal power or authority to a new priest. He prays that the Holy Spirit may empower them. And once ordained a priest remains a poriest even if not licensed to any parish. That continuing status does not depend on the Bishop, or all the Bishops.
So I'd say that its not really a delegation.
Thanks - I must have picked it up through my Biretta wearing Grandfathers side .....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But don't forget that ken has a particular agenda, Twangist ... to downplay anything too 'carthlick' within the CofE ...
Just as the Anglo-Cafflicks have an agenda to overplay them ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
You'll be telling that J C Ryle was unbiased and ecumenical next
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its all in the BCP!
What do they teach them in these schools?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Going back a bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture
But Regional Ministers, at least in the Baptist Union sense, don't have a power over local churches. They have influence, in the sense that they represent the denomination - and BU churches have signed up to the club - but within that, congregations are independent and call their own ministers.
M.
Yes I know they do. This is considered to be Baptists biggest strength but I also think it is our biggest weakness.
Many within NFI (I'll speak about what I know and not generalise about all Restorationists) would say that the Apostles do not have power over the local churches either.
Apostles do not dictate or have any influence in the day to day running of the local church, there is no universal preaching plan amongst NFI churches and their budgets are administered locally as well.
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter. It is probably fair to say that depending on the church and its Apostle will depend on the amount of weight of influence is asserted by that Apostle. Some situations it will be very influential others less so.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I did know a Baptist Church which - against the counsel of its Association - called an unaccredited minister. I knew him - he appeared to be excellent and I liked him.
But things went pear-shaped when he was find to be involved in behaviour "unbecoming to his calling" (and, no, nothing to do with Dead Horse territory). The Deacons called in the Superintendent (it was before they were called Regional Ministers) and, on his strong advice, said minister was sacked on the spot.
This was on a Thursday. The first time most of the congregation heard about it was when they found the "Super" leading worship on the Sunday and he began by saying, "You no longer have a Minister".
But that was an unusual situation, requiring a quick response. And - although this may be a total red herring - the Superintendent was very sympathetic towards Restorationism and may have been influenced by their emphasis on authoritative apostles and leaders who lead, athough he was a Baptist through-and-through!
[ 05. January 2012, 13:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Apostles do not dictate or have any influence in the day to day running of the local church, there is no universal preaching plan amongst NFI churches and their budgets are administered locally as well.
I would not dream of questioning what you say. However, back in the late 70s and early 80s there were extreme examples of Apostles "covering" or controlling churches, leaders and even individual members to an extraordinary degree. Although some of this may well have attained the status of "urban myth" I certainly knew of one example at first-hand.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Its all in the BCP!
Don't tell the AC's
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter. It is probably fair to say that depending on the church and its Apostle will depend on the amount of weight of influence is asserted by that Apostle. Some situations it will be very influential others less so.
My observation (in NF) also is that power over the local church is held at a variable point between Lead Elder and apostle.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.
When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.
[ 05. January 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
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 Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.
When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.
What is a "lead elder" and where is that in Ephesians 4 please?
A while ago there was a thread like this about NF where Eutychus very wisely said that that movement's towards other groups are usually about promoting their movement. (I hope I am paraphrasing correctly!) At the time, I'll confess, I thought it a little cynical. My experience since suggests that when the rubber hits the road, the "we are a real church and you are not" DNA is still a very strongly present non negotiable.
--------------------
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 chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.
When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.
We've been here before. I'm anxious to get (if not stay) in Polly's good books here, so I'll agree that in some situations there might be a degree of informal interplay between apostle, elders and members when it comes to appointing an elder.
But when conflict arises, apostles can and do "pull rank" - and they have the full force of restorationist teaching behind them. The wagons are circled, dissent from the rank and file is viewed as "rebellious spirits" and so on. Imagery of Moses and the children of Israel is likely to feature strongly. No mechanism is in place in restorationist thinking for this kind of thing to be thrashed out with the congregation.
I repeat my contention that elders can't be appointed without apostolic blessing in NF - and from that moment on, the attendant apostolic authority is implicit and irrevocable, even if it's never expressed as such.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
When I was thinking about this thread a couple of points came to mind.
1. A number of us who post have been or still are involved in Restorationist or Post - Restorationist churches i.e. of a charismatic flavour. So we are recounting our nitty gritty experiences (nothing wrong with that by the way).
2. Apostolic abuse - is this a general symptom of power corrupting generally anyway? The church is replete with power going to vain heads throughout church history. It struck me that power abuse is a general thing with a caveat, restorationist outfits were prone to it particularly due to the nature of it's ecclesiology?
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
So we are recounting our nitty gritty experiences (nothing wrong with that by the way).
Inevitably, yes, to some extent.
But as I said in the OP, my hope is to keep the general thrust of the debate as broad and theoretical as possible in order to look at how (and if) restorationism can morph in addition to contributions fropm old-school practitioners.
This is partly in the hope of drawing posters who can lay claim to a morphed experience. I've mentioned New Wine, I'm not sure whether anyone here self-identifies with that neck of the woods.
It's also with a hope of drawing theological comment from people from other backgrounds, which I think has been achieved to some extent, so that's good ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
It struck me that power abuse is a general thing with a caveat, restorationist outfits were prone to it particularly due to the nature of it's ecclesiology
Well, I think my views on that are now well known... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've mentioned New Wine, I'm not sure whether anyone here self-identifies with that neck of the woods.
I do to some extent, in that I've been to several of their summer conferences / festivals and done some training run by them. As I understand it, New Wine is very much cross-church and cross-denominational - certainly at the summer events there are folks from many sorts of churches. Maybe someone involved in the leadership of a church that is signed up with New Wine can shed more light on how restorationist New Wine is.
--------------------
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
I don't know a great deal about New Wine but my impression is that it is still quite Anglican - just ...
From what I can gather the conferences mainly attract Anglicans, Baptists and a smattering of Vineyard and 'new church' people - some from former R1/R2 outfits ...
I'm not sure it's at all restorationist in any formal sense - ie. the bullet-point list that Eutychus produced earlier - but I do detect some echoes of restorationism (as opposed to renewalism) in some of the things I've seen in their magazine ... but that might be a certain amount of hyper-sensitivity on my part having come from 18 years (1982 - 2000) in a Covenant Ministries setting.
Most of my encounters with the charismatic scene post 2000 have been in Baptist and Anglican settings and neither of those appear particularly restorationist although I would argue that there are echoes there in certain attitudes one encounters from time to time.
As for the Vineyard - South Coast Kevin might be interested to hear that I've never heard of any accusations of heavy-shepherding, authoritarian attitudes etc etc from that particular quarter - although I have come across things I've thought were pretty daft or deficient on the discernment front. I'd also say that they were insufficiently sacramental ... but hey ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.
--------------------
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
Quite possibly, Eutychus ...
Now, let's not get all McCarthy-ite ...
Apostles under the beds ... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
'Are you or have you ever been ...?'
--------------------
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 Eutychus:
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.
Mind you apostle like power hungry church leader monster are NOT confined to restorationist churches BUT like we've said restorationism is a very fertile ground. It's a no brainer really isn't it? If the church has to be ''restored'' and take it's ''rightful'' place with a host of jiving Apostles, well it's a recipe for autocracy and dictator like practices. In fact I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this authoritarianism within restoration type churches.
I suspect, as Andrew Walker points out, once charismatic bits went mainstream, the restoration horse was well and truly hobbled.
I don't know much about new Wine apart from the fact a nearby evangelical Anglican church goes there each year. I've not heard any 'horror' stories. My view is that wannabe restoration types are rather playing it softly softly in the UK right now. But you only need a Lakeland ''revival'' hype to get off the ground and you'll get a resurgence. My antennae tell me there is a suppressed need in charismatic fellowship for 'signs and wonders' and a british Todd bentley (without the tattoos and the violence) would be sort of welcomed to be honest - by some - charismatic churches.
I couldn't possibly comment about specific churches of course, but this is my general feeling as I survey charismatic fellowships in the UK.
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the Vineyard - South Coast Kevin might be interested to hear that I've never heard of any accusations of heavy-shepherding, authoritarian attitudes etc etc from that particular quarter...
Glad to hear it!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...although I have come across things I've thought were pretty daft or deficient on the discernment front.
Yes, that wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps it is simply an inevitable part of believing in the supernatural / miraculous.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Apostles under the beds ...
Heh, you may well be right! Mind you, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of there being apostles these days; just that they will be known for their humble service, not a superiority complex (ref. Mark 10:42-44).
--------------------
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
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
with a host of jiving Apostles
I don't know if this was a typo or not but it's certainly given me a memorable image to brighten up my day.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The New Wine apostles are more likely to do ceroc.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Are not all new church groups somewhat 'restorationist' with a small 'r'?
It seems that whenever there's a new idea or a new surge in spiritual life, the assumption is that God has done it and that somehow he is doing a 'new thing' so the old had better change and become 'new' or fade away and die quietly, discarded and discredited.
It pains me to say it but from my reading of Salvation Army history from the 1880s (well before Pentecostalism) - we were THE restoration movement of the Nineteenth Century. We were passionately post-millennial and the songs written in the period certainly point to the view that when Christ returned it was The Salvation Army that would have 'won the world for Jesus!
See these:
quote:
We're the soldiers of the Army of Salvation,
That God is raising up to save the world;
And we won't lay down our arms till every nation
Shall have seen the flag of blood and fire unfurled.
quote:
Ever true to the Army and God,
we will fight in the name of the King;
We shall win with the fire and the blood,
and the world to his feet we shall bring.
quote:
So we'll make a thoroughfare for Jesus and his train;
All the world shall hear us as fresh converts still we gain;
Sin shall fly before us for resistance is in vain,
As we go marching to Glory.
quote:
Though some would try to crush us,
We're rising every day,
And soon o'er every land and sea
Our flag shall have the sway;
Salvation free to all men
Shall be our battle cry,
For the day of victory's coming by and by
and finally, if you can stand any more:
quote:
They say I can a Christian be,
And serve God quite as well,
And reach Heaven just as surely by
The music of church bell;
But O, the drum and clarion call
Of band make my pulse fly!
I cannot leave the dear old flag,
'Twere better far to die
The growth of The Salvation Army in the 1880s, had it continued in the decades that followed, may well have resulted in a huge denomination. The growth slowed in the 1890s and in the UK at least decline set in after 1929. But the experience of that first full decade of the Army's existence led them to believe that God had raised up a vehicle for evangelism that outshone and outstripped all the other churches - in fact, at one time Booth denied we were a church, preferring to say that we were a movement, a mission.
One last example of how certain we were that the Army was God's preferred group is this song that called people to join up:
quote:
1. God's trumpet is sounding: To arms! is the call;
More warriors are wanted to help on the war;
My King's in the battle, he's calling for me,
A salvation soldier for Jesus I'll be.
Stand like the brave! Stand like the brave!
Stand like the brave, with your face to the foe!
2. On land and on water my colors I'll show,
Through ten thousand battles with Jesus I'll go,
In danger I'm certain he'll take care of me,
His blood and fire soldier forever I'll be.
3. I'll fight to the last with the Lord's sword and shield,
And count it an honor to die in the field;
In death and the grave there is victory for me,
A salvation soldier in Glory I'll be.
4. The war will go on till the world is possessed,
The Salvation Army Jehovah has blessed;
More heroes of faith on the roll we shall see;
The Salvation Army's the Army for me.
To be fair, you have to add certain elements together:
19th century evangelical revivalism
British colonial expansion
the Army's use of secular melodies - US civil war tunes were very popular and we just swapped 'marching to Georgia' for 'marching to Glory' and absorbed the militaristic jingoism.
Music hall parodies were also popular and the style of singing led easily to the 'come and get it' attitude of our songs.
But there was still the attitude that God really was bringing in the Millennial kingdom and that the returning Christ would almost be accompanied by a Salvation Army brass band with flags flying, while the other churches looked on powerlessly or even with hostility!
Finally, maybe our experience where the other churches literally hated us during the early days, led us to be slightly more defensive than we needed to be; and that the attacks on us by the 'dead' church was proof positive that we were spirit-blessed while they had been left behind and had 'Ichabod' written above their arched doorways.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS NOW I hasten to add
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've often felt that convert Orthodoxy (as opposed to cradle Orthodoxy) is a form of parallel universe restorationism in reverse ...
You know, having read this four or five times, there was one time I thought I almost understood what it meant. But then I read it again, and now I can't even remember what it was I was thinking.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are not all new church groups somewhat 'restorationist' with a small 'r'?
Small 'r' is right. I think with the SA you are describing revivalism. I don't think the movement made any claim to superior interpretation of the NT or recovery of 'NT principles'. It just felt it was doing, in a gung-ho fashion, what others professed but did not implement.
The particularity of Restorationism (with a capital R) that I see is its claim to a form of church government that makes a case for authoritarianism on the basis of an unsophisticated (they might say "straightforward") reading of the NT, with a dash of the OT ("Moses and Jethro", Joshua, etc.) thrown in - and the assumption that church history since the days of the NT has been one of decline and loss rather than gain.
Restoring the Kingdom reproduces a chart from Restoration magazine showing a "bucket" with the church declining steeply to AD 600 and then flatlining (the bottom of the 'bucket' until 1500. Surprisingly ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) return to "normal level of church life in NT" coincides with "Restoration - Charismatic - Pentecostal" in the 20th century, just prior to "fullness" and the "restoration of all things", although Mudfrog will be pleased to hear that the SA gets a look in, along with the Brethren, in the 19th.
[ 06. January 2012, 08:22: 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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Am I the only person who has real problems with this approach? It seems to me to be tantamount to claiming that God disengaged from both his church and individual Christians somewhere around AD 150 and didn't re-engage with either until he raised up XX somewhere around 1970. And why should XX be the only person to whom God has imparted the true message in all these centuries?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I the only person who has real problems with this approach? It seems to me to be tantamount to claiming that God disengaged from both his church and individual Christians somewhere around AD 150 and didn't re-engage with either until he raised up XX somewhere around 1970. And why should XX be the only person to whom God has imparted the true message in all these centuries?
No, I don't think you're the only one...!
The best defence I have heard of something like this approach is from Roger Forster. Founder of the London-based Ichthus group of churches in the 70s, he gets a mention in Walker's books as "one of the finest evangelical minds I have ever encountered", but I would not define him (and I don't think Walker does) as a hard-line restorationist. (Evidence includes his oft-repeated exhortation "let's have as many denominations as possible!". In my view he's an evangelist at heart).
Roger does not reject the heritage of church history - although he has a characteristically idiosyncratic approach to it. (His tape series Radical Church History is somewhere around here. It's a veritable tour de force in explaining how radical christianity has been around in an unbroken line, via the Cathars, Albigensians, Waldensians, Methodists and so on through to the present day. Recommended listening for non-conformists everywhere!).
However, as I recall another of his (also characteristically idiosyncratic) views is that each generation of the church gets a fresh crack at getting the gospel preached to the ends of the earth within that generation "and then the end shall come". So rather than being seen as a succession, each generation after the NT is sort of a parallel offshoot of it and can plug straight back into it for inspiration.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think that Enoch has precisely hit the nail on the head. The Apostles of Restorationism did not simply claim to be leaders within their new denomination, at least not originally, but Apostles for the new and restored world Church that God was bringing into being.
Miller says much the same in his account of the Catholic Apostolic leaders (he died in 1901 so we shouldn't have any copyright problems by quoting):
"The Apostles chosen were men of ordinary gifts. Many of them were profoundly distrustful of themselves, and only hoped for a future descent of Divine aid. They had a vast work before them — no less than that of healing the sicknesses of the Universal Church, of closing up mighty chasms, of welding together different nations varying in religious practice and in their interpretation of the common Creeds, and thus of preparing during the short span of their common life-time for the soon-expected Coming of the Lord. This formidable work lay before twelve English-speaking gentlemen, of whom only one was generally known in the world, and he was not a man who ever attained to any high eminence. Two of them had been clergymen, one a Presbyterian minister, two had been members of parliament, two were solicitors, one an advocate of the Scotch bar, and the remaining four private gentlemen, either unemployed or with some professional or other employment".
He hardly sounds hopeful for a positive outcome (and explains why in succeeding paragraphs).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, as I recall another of his (also characteristically idiosyncratic) views is that each generation of the church gets a fresh crack at getting the gospel preached to the ends of the earth within that generation "and then the end shall come".
Does he mean that 'the end will come' in terms of that generation passing on and passing on the torch, or does he mean that each generation has a crack at things until one of them gets it right?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I believe he sees cause and effect: once the Church has succeeded in its task of preaching the Gospel in all countries/to all people (slight difference in aspiration there!), then Christ will be able to return. This is an interpretation of his prophecy in Matthew 25 (I think).
Certainly I have heard rhetoric - not just in Restorationist circles - which says that we evangelise the world in order "to bring back the King". It is rather different to the 1910 Edinburgh Mission Conference of "the evangelisation of the world in this generation".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I believe he sees cause and effect: once the Church has succeeded in its task of preaching the Gospel in all countries/to all people (slight difference in aspiration there!), then Christ will be able to return. This is an interpretation of his prophecy in Matthew 25 (I think).
Yes, I know, I was just wondering what Roger Forster's twist on it was - i.e how the the different generations of the church fitted into this.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
Enoch - I think your point as absolutely correct and yes that attitude was very strong within my time at NF. Although it hasn't gone completely away I understand there is a softer tone these days.
quote:
Chris Stiles posted:
When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.
Others would disagree with me on this but I'd suggest NF has a more open way rather than fixed way of appointing Lead Elders in the local church. I think this is what I am keen to underline.
For example the last NF church I was part (late 1990's) the lead elder before being appointed was invited by the local 'Apostle' to go and preach 10 times and then the church mtg called him to the role.
The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.
This church was a Baptist Church previously.
quote:
Eutychus posted:
But when conflict arises, apostles can and do "pull rank" - and they have the full force of restorationist teaching behind them. The wagons are circled, dissent from the rank and file is viewed as "rebellious spirits" and so on. Imagery of Moses and the children of Israel is likely to feature strongly. No mechanism is in place in restorationist thinking for this kind of thing to be thrashed out with the congregation.
I repeat my contention that elders can't be appointed without apostolic blessing in NF - and from that moment on, the attendant apostolic authority is implicit and irrevocable, even if it's never expressed as such
'Is it "Pulling rank" or giving clear leadership in time of difficulties? I think the perception depends on who you are where you stand at the time. I'm not entirely convinced that in NF the 'Apostles' ever said consciously lets pull rank during difficult times. They have made mistakes, some very bad ones but in general my opinion is that they have provided a good example of what the role of Apostolic oversight is. This is probably where I and others differ.
But your illustration gave me this image of TV dressed as John Wayne and that's funny!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For example the last NF church I was part (late 1990's) the lead elder before being appointed was invited by the local 'Apostle' to go and preach 10 times and then the church mtg called him to the role.
The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.
This church was a Baptist Church previously.
Yes, as I said 'Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist'. The default polity in NFI circles seems to be that the elders make decisions in consultation with the 'apostle', in your case your church had an existing polity that it still operated under.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I did know a Baptist Church which - against the counsel of its Association - called an unaccredited minister. I knew him - he appeared to be excellent and I liked him.
The Ministers of some BUGB churches with older trust deeds do not have to be accredited. I've known a few non accredited people - many of them very good but some very bad. One who was the worst case of a serial adultery in the pastorate I've ever coem across, stretching across 3 denominations (and yes he was still inducted in a BUGB church).
Some areas of BUGB now have local ordination within the area of quasi lay pastors type roles.
Regional Ministers have no authority in Baptist Polity. They can advise but that's all. The real responsibility in finance etc lies with the managing trustees, the real spiritual authority before God in the church meeting.
There's a bizarre situation where a minister can be deaccredited for falling foul of the Ministry Dept rules but remain as Minister. A Minister can only be removed by the church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Mudfrog: quote:
WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS NOW I hasten to add
I find your post a helpful comparison. But I wonder how widespread this comment is?
In East London, the area I know best, the Army disappeared as ‘corps’ (worshipping congregations) about 40 years ago – East Ham, I believe, was the first corps you met when travelling east from the founding place of Aldgate. Today, the Army is very weak in this area. It once was the case that the Army only appeared at inter-church events under their own terms, e.g. to provide the band at open-air services. But no longer; they are not seen at all. Certainly the Last Post has been played by a (Methodist)teenage girl for the last two years on Armistice Day in our local park. I haven’t seen an Army uniform for yonks (except an elderly man selling the War Cry in Romford).
This is leading me to note that, ISTM, the Army is not developing from a sect / protest movement towards becoming an institution / church as fast as might have been expected. (I am a firm believer in this development.) From what I have read here (what an interesting thread, Eutychus) the New Churches are moving much more quickly towards becoming a denomination / institutional church. For example, they have bought many buildings, they appear to be cooperating with other churches and they are blunting their distinctive cutting edge – and it’s still well under than 50 years since they first appeared as sect-like congregations.
It’s rather like rebellious teenagers who, sadly IMO, grow up into knuckling-down adults, thus making the revolution we all crave for take longer.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Does he mean that 'the end will come' in terms of that generation passing on and passing on the torch, or does he mean that each generation has a crack at things until one of them gets it right?
He means the latter, though he would accept that if a given generation doesn't succeed, the next can learn from the previous generation. But it gets a whole new start, as it were.
[ETA as I say he's not a restorationist. Much more of an evangelist at heart]
[ 06. January 2012, 11:17: 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The Ministers of some BUGB churches with older trust deeds do not have to be accredited ... There's a bizarre situation where a minister can be deaccredited for falling foul of the Ministry Dept rules but remain as Minister. A Minister can only be removed by the church.
Technically, the situation is that a Trust Deed (not just the old ones) allows a church to call anyone they like as their Minister ... but the newer Trusts would have a clause saying that, if they are unaccredited and the Trustees haven't given a "waiver", then they wouldn't be allowed to carry out their ministry within the building - because the Trust Deeds refer to buildings not congregations (because they are a means of allowing Unincorporated Bodies to hold property).
So a Minister could indeed be disaccredited" - but, if the Church Meeting wis"hes him/her to continue, and the Trust Corporation who holds the building allows it, he/she may. On the other hand, if the Trustees say "no" are if they haven't been consulted, then the church is in Breach of Trust and breaking the law.
Back to the thread ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For example the last NF church I was part (late 1990's) the lead elder before being appointed was invited by the local 'Apostle' to go and preach 10 times and then the church mtg called him to the role.
The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.
This church was a Baptist Church previously.
Yes, as I said 'Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist'. The default polity in NFI circles seems to be that the elders make decisions in consultation with the 'apostle', in your case your church had an existing polity that it still operated under.
Sorry I had not properly explained myself.
The church had been a NF church for at least 10-15 years and at the time had joint membership of the BU and NF although the BU mbrshp was more nominal than anything.
A well known NF Apostle and teacher was leading the church for this time until calling the Lead Elder concerned.
It was clearly operating at a NF church.
My point is that there is no single default policy and there is more openness in their methods than is being suggested in some posts on this thread.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.
Mileage does indeed vary. This is absolutely nowhere near NF SOP.
If churches adopted into NF came from a democratic background they had a meeting to "vote not to vote anymore" and that was it. The teaching that leadership was from the front and in no way collective was proclaimed from all sides.
At one point I wanted to join the local equivalent of the Baptist Union at the same time as NF, and got a very clear message, from the top, that the two were incompatible. Having to make this choice has had a profound effect on my life right up until today, and I guess it informs my sense that despite appearences to the contrary in some quarters of the UK, restorationism and baptists don't really mix.
quote:
'Is it "Pulling rank" or giving clear leadership in time of difficulties? I think the perception depends on who you are where you stand at the time.
This expression is not part of my own active vocabulary. I got the phrase (towards the end of my time in NF) from someone very close to the top of NF in a consultancy role who was trying to make me see the error of my ways.
He related how once, an elder at the Brighton church had bumped his session from a training conference in favour of his own. He asked the elder (his exact words) "are you pulling rank on me" and the elder answered "yes I am".
The whole point of him telling me this story was to reinforce the fact that should my "apostle" choose to "pull rank" on me as a lead elder with no questions asked, he was fully within his rights to do so.
Again, this militaristic hierarchy may not be evident on a day-to-day basis, but it's part and parcel of the foundational Restoratinist assumption of "delegated authority" combined with the notion of being accountable "upwards" to "more anointed" people and not "downwards" to a congregation.
--------------------
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
I cross-posted with Polly.
Polly, can you show me one place in literature originating within restorationism in general or NF in particular that recommends appointing elders the way you relate it here, specifically, making it subject to the decision of a church meting? Because I'm sure I could provide pages and pages of references to the contrary.
I'm not saying your experience didn't happen, but I'm very much disputing that it was a viable or widespread alternative deemed acceptable by senior leadership.
--------------------
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
Clarification: the post of Polly's I cross-posted with was between my two previous posts and has at least for now disappeared, but mine is still there, so there I stand, can do no other, etc. etc.
[ 06. January 2012, 11:43: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The jury will please disregard that last post. I'm talking rubbish in it. No posts have disappeared. Let me go and lie down for a while.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
Eutychus
The answer to your questions is 'no'.
However the example I gave from the 1990's was done with the blessing of both Dave Holden and Ray Lowe.
My parents NFI church has recently appointed as their Lead Elder guy who has very little NF experience.
He had previously been working as their evangelist but had before that been part of an Independent Evangelical church and worked for Spring Harvest.
I have no doubts that in Restorationist churches (inc NF) too many situations arose where Apostles wielded power and abused their position.
Recognising that our experiences are very different all I want to say is that within this debate NF as a Restorationist church has not always operated a Standard Operating Position and on a number of occasions has been open in exploring other avenues of appointing Lead Elders.
NB
I should also say that in the example I gave earlier the church meeting agreed the appointment by consensus rather than by voting. Both Douglas McBain from the BU and NF found this acceptable.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
My parents NFI church has recently appointed as their Lead Elder guy who has very little NF experience.
I'm curious. How did this "appointment" take place? (to me that's much more important than where he came from, especially in the context of this thread).
quote:
all I want to say is that within this debate NF as a Restorationist church has not always operated a Standard Operating Position and on a number of occasions has been open in exploring other avenues of appointing Lead Elders.
And all I want to say in public on that is that to me, this demonstrates they used hard-line restorationist rhetoric when they thought they could get away with it (on mugs like me) and opportunistically didn't when they couldn't. Not very principled .
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
His tape series Radical Church History is somewhere around here. It's a veritable tour de force in explaining how radical christianity has been around in an unbroken line, via the Cathars, Albigensians, Waldensians, Methodists and so on through to the present day.
If Forster really thinks that the Cathars/Albigensians are a model for "radical Christianity" he needs to think again. The Waldensians, yes. But not the Cathars.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
His theory/get out clause is that when they burned the heretics, they burned all their books with them, so all we know about some of these groups is what their enemies wanted history to think of them.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
