|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Polly's description is fairly similar to my experience. As I mentioned on a previous discussion I've heard leaders talk about the 'three green lights' principle when appointing a new elder. The lights are the OK from the other elders (who make the recommendation) the church, and a final OK from the 'apostle.' Church members are invited to give their views on the proposed appointment by whatever means they choose, including in writing.
In practice, I don't know of a church that objected to a proposed appointment of an elder. Curiously, I do remember hearing about one recommendation that was questioned by an apostle, who backed down when the existing elders basically said "well we and the church want him, and we have to live with him, so thanks for your opinion but he'll be appointed anyway."
I could give you other examples of apostles being 'faced down' by elders. We have to remember just how small NF is (about 25K UK members?) with a small group of leaders, most of whom know each other. A lot of actual practice comes down to personal interactions.
Some 'apostles' command more respect than others. I will be interested to find out how the new leaders of the new apostolic 'spheres' in the post-Terry world will be appointed. That's part of my research Eutychus - will it be part of yours?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Some 'apostles' command more respect than others.
Well in my experience it was not an issue of commanding respect so much as of the way things were, doctrinally, and that view was supported, as you know, from the very top.
Conversations on and off-thread do suggest, though, that this doctrine is or was rather selectively enforced - and it looks as if there's some evidence that it is enforced much more strongly outside the UK. I'm afraid what that says about the influence of colonialism isn't very complimentary. Perhaps the 1910 missionary conference was not so irrelevant to this thread after all.
(This is the precise opposite of Ichthus who decided in the mid-90s that trying to have 'apostolic' links overseas simply wasn't going to work. A much more open-handed attitude <kicks self>).
quote:
That's part of my research Eutychus - will it be part of yours?
I'll certainly add it to my list. The poor guy I'm due to be meeting for a friendly coffee in a while won't know what's hit him. Unless he's reading this thread unbeknown to me, of course... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ken and Eutychus ... David Matthew of Covenant Ministries held similar views to Roger Forster on the Cathars thing. I 'called' him on it once and his reply was similar to what Eutychus reports Forster's take to have been.
It struck me then, and strikes me now, as reading into church history what you WANT to see ...
It's also a residual echo of 'apostolic succession' ie. you have to find something that looks similar to your own outfit (or what you think to be similar to your own outfit) in each and every generation. If the evidence isn't there you argue from silence ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In practice, I don't know of a church that objected to a proposed appointment of an elder.
Sorry, missed this.
I don't think that's the point. The church is, generally, highly unlikely to mutiny a) if the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader and b) since the congregation ise conditioned to follow rather than to contribute to the leadership process (note this attitude is extolled as a virtue over and against the endless politicking and immobilism of the Church Meeting).
In the meantime, I'll reiterate my challenge to find support for these consensuses (?) and "green lights" in the literature, and perhaps dig up some choice passages that point the other way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In practice, I don't know of a church that objected to a proposed appointment of an elder.
Sorry, missed this.
I don't think that's the point. The church is, generally, highly unlikely to mutiny a) if the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader and b) since the congregation ise conditioned to follow rather than to contribute to the leadership process (note this attitude is extolled as a virtue over and against the endless politicking and immobilism of the Church Meeting).
In the meantime, I'll reiterate my challenge to find support for these consensuses (?) and "green lights" in the literature, and perhaps dig up some choice passages that point the other way.
I'm wondering if there's a regional issue here. NF is pretty thin on the ground the further north you get and apostles are far less visible. I was interested that you said "..the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader". Generally it's the elders who 'find' the new leaders (although I know of one leader from outside NF who was invited to lead an NF church, which has been a great success).
The point about the compliance of church members is a different one to what I was commenting on, but is entirely right. It's very hard to take issue with a recommendation from the elders - they know best surely?
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?
The deeper issue is, of course, a culture where questioning is seen as disloyalty. I've been in one NF church where that was definitely the culture. In the two I'm engaged with at the moment, dialogue and questions are positively encouraged. But that's a reflection of the personalities of the people in leadership.
On NF literature - to be honest I wouldn't make too much of it. As Twangist noted upthread, what you need to look at is what people do, rather than what's in the corporate literature. I'm not suggesting there is any 'consensus' here. There appears to be a diversity of practice, perhaps much more so than when you were in NF.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?
Personally, I think it is definitely worse in principle than involving the church members / attendees because it is disempowering; it sends the message that only (or mainly) the apostles can recognise the gift of leadership, even though the church members are the people who will end up being led by this person.
Caveat - I've never been involved in church leadership so I speak without any personal experience.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?
Personally, I think it is definitely worse in principle than involving the church members / attendees because it is disempowering; it sends the message that only (or mainly) the apostles can recognise the gift of leadership, even though the church members are the people who will end up being led by this person.
Caveat - I've never been involved in church leadership so I speak without any personal experience.
As a pure process to select a leader it seems to work OK. The issue is the relationship that then develops between the leaders and the congregation which is most definitely disempowering. I agree it's that relationship, rather than the process per se, which is the real issue.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I posted this at the start of the thread:
I had a fairly good idea of the New Churches in the 80's as I spent some years researching them. My conclusions were focussed on the Empowerment of members, succesful up to the point where a member became a threat to the leadership, at which point enfeeblement set in.
I rarely saw key leaders appointed from within a congregation and elders seemed to appear out of nowhere - but I wasn't on the inside by any stretch of the imagination. (Elders and apostles always seemed to me to be a cut above the rest, to be on a higher level, although that may say more about me than about them.)
--------------------
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 Ramarius:
I was interested that you said "..the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader". Generally it's the elders who 'find' the new leaders
Of course it's likely to be the result of a discussion between the apostle and the elders. What I meant was that following all that, he would have to be pretty inept not to get someone the church was not willing to accept.
But the point is that the apostle does the laying on of hands and that's what cements the eldership role (if it doesn't, I'll start wondering whether you and I were ever in the same movement. Perhaps there are two? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ). The authority of the local elders derives from the apostles.
It's top-down, not bottom-up - as emphasised by the attitude mentioned earlier, "leaders lead": people are following them, not putting them in front of them, in this thinking.
quote:
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?
Checks and balances, checks and balances...
quote:
On NF literature - to be honest I wouldn't make too much of it. As Twangist noted upthread, what you need to look at is what people do, rather than what's in the corporate literature.
In the context of this thread, I beg to differ. Restorationism might have been built on charismatic exprience and new (or "restored") ways of doing things - but it came very definitely with teaching attached - teaching that was cast as apostolic in the sense of laying an apostolic foundation for churches in the wake of the likes of Paul in the NT. That's relevant to a thread exploring the theology of restorationism.
Perhaps things really did change seismically in the space of a few years after I left, but I assure you that in NF at least this was emphasised at a top leadership level way way more than simply "here's my take on things, it's up to you what you do locally".
--------------------
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:
The point about the compliance of church members is a different one to what I was commenting on, but is entirely right. It's very hard to take issue with a recommendation from the elders - they know best surely?
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?
The problem is that this - along with many other things - ends up reducing what it actually means to be a member of a church as there is no formal way of speaking out.
Essentially membership becomes a license for a pastor to speak therapeutically into your life without being sued for it, and nothing else.
[ 06. January 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
When the system of Apostolic works well and all parties take their responsibility and 'play their part' this is an entirely legitimate way of being church.
This is true of Congregational Government.
The difficulties arise because humans are involved.
Apostolic Oversight is open to abuse from Apostles and Church members.
Congregational Government relies on church members being active, taking their role seriously, praying through the issues and being proactive in making church work. In reality church members rush into meetings late from work without spending time in prayer. Many people are lethargic in their responsibilities and it ends up with the same people driving the meetings. Again this system is open to abuse.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Polly, I was in Baptist churches for 30 years, and still have a toe in one. Although I have seen plenty of church meetings like you describe, I never but never seen one like that when calling a minister.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Sorry, Polly, that sounds a bit harsh; it wasn't meant to be.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
When the system of Apostolic works well and all parties take their responsibility and 'play their part' this is an entirely legitimate way of being church.
This is true of Congregational Government.
The difficulties arise because humans are involved.
Firstly, no one is denying that there are difficulties with congregational government. Secondly, there are several steps between 'Apostolic' leadership and one church member one pastoral veto. Thirdly, only the restorationists claim come with the baggage of their particular view of santification and pneumatology flowing from the re-establishment of the 'a proper four-fold ministry'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Polly, I was in Baptist churches for 30 years, and still have a toe in one. M.
I didn't realise that Baptist churches were into veneration of relics. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
O definitely
The chipped china teacup given by Miss O' Reilly's mother fifty years ago that must not be thrown out! The hideous table cloth that great Aunt Lou made with her arthritic hands etc.
Or at least I assume they are no different from Methodists and URC in such matters.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Eutychus. The world of NF is definitely achanging. As I say, practice isn't uniform. The reality is apostles rubber-stamp leader rather than cement them. Theoretically elders derive their authority from apostles but not in practice. As I said earlier, in areas where NF churches are sparse, most churches rarely get to see their apostle, and their apostle has very little contact with the church in general. When I was appointed an elder I had a 20 minute conversation with my 'apostle' and got the green light from him after the first question he asked me. (If you want to know how I managed that you will have to PM me (!). After that we hardly saw him. As far as the church was concerned my 'leadership' was derived from the favour of the lead elder rather than the apostle.
On the issue of the literature... Yes, there are foundational teachings that are regarded as apostolic - grace, five-fold ministry, sovereignty of God - but elders don't look to the NF website or (now defunct) magazine for teaching. Individual churches are increasingly making their own decisions about what influences they want to consider in addition to these core beliefs. Some are influenced by Bethel whilst others are wary. Some draw inspiration from St Thomas's in Sheffield, these and others send their leaders to Porterbrook (you can google that) for their theological training. At the same time, there are other leaders still living in their NF bubble, reading books by NF approved authors and getting their input almost exclusively from NF speakers.
I expect that, as NF takes on a more regional identity, we will see more diversity. It's certainly far less corporate than you remember it.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I've just spent quite a while during he time you were posting that researching and typing up the quotes, so I'm blowed if I'm going to be put off posting them by that disclaimer, Ramarius
Sorry this is going to be long, but I hope its length doesn't detract from the point I'm trying to make which is that this issue of authority is not secondary in Restorationism.
Here's how Andrew Walker puts things in "Restoring the Kingdom":
quote:
God's kingdom is a theocracy, and the spiritual principles which guide it are hierarchical.
(...)
An outsider who casually dropped into a Restorationist meeting… would not pick up this structure. He would notice the freedom of worship, individualistic expresion, and the exercise of spiritual gifts… The absence of formal titles only masks the reality of the power and authority of the apostles and elders within the movement….Shepherding transforms the formal ecclesiastical authority of the apostles and elders into an informal system of paternal relationships. This informalism does not undermine the formal authority; on the contrary, its very humanness reinforces it.
We can leave discussion of what happens to NewFrontiers now for the other thread, but I'd just like to flag up the fact that as far as I can see, publicly and in print at least, even if large bits of it are defunct, Terry Virgo is still in charge. If you know different, please tell! And he is undisputedly the architect of it and a major figure in Restorationism.
Here's what Virgo has to say on apostles and elders in "Restoration in the church", in the chapter on "apostles today" and the section "eldership appointment": quote:
The Holy Spirit appointed elders, but they received public recognition through the laying on of hands by the apostles or their delegates.
Modern churches have often resorted to electing their leaders… Appointed by the congregation, such leaders are accountable to the congregation. Where there is no anointing, democracy is probably the safest form of church government. But when God begins to give anointed leadership, democracy must make room for Him to have His way.
… The Spirit-led appointment of elders was an important part of the apostles' foundation-laying ministry. Without the Holy Spirit's guidance, we resort to man-made structures with varying degrees of success, even leading to manifest disaster… Where there is no acknowledgement of charismatic gifts of leadership we are bound to hit problems.
…The laying on of hands [by the apostle]… is a time of further impartation of spiritual grace for eldership.
Finally, on the last NF thread Twangist helpfully posted a link to a paper by PJ Smyth, a current leading figure in NF, about apostles and elders. This dates from 2008 so it's not that old. Here's what PJ has to say on the subject:
quote:
Apostles are gifted in confirming the rightness and readiness of a man for eldership in a church, and called by God to set him in place through the laying on of hands.(…) By extension, this implies the on-going role apostles have of input into the elders.
The appointment of elders is clearly an apostolic initiative.
Smyth describes the role of the church in this process as "affirming the appointment" of elders. He goes on to discuss the relationship between apostles and elders: quote:
apostolic men and ministry are a gift to elders and their churches, given to equip and mature the church. Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering.
If you personally or as a church decide that's all old hat and not worth bothering with, I for one am not going to stand in your way!
The point I do want to underscore here, though, is that walking away from that is not a matter of discarding one of the finer points of Restorationism but really turning your back on a foundational element.
Almost thou persuadest me that that is happening, but I'm not sure the old order is going to take it lying down, and I have yet to learn what sort of organisation or structures might be taking its place, and on what rationale.
[ 06. January 2012, 21:47: 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
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
A local NF church proposed a young(ish) man for an elder a few years ago, and invited feedback from church members. It seems the overwhelming response was that the chap was too young or inexperienced, so the appointment was delayed. Not sure what happened since though.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That's rather the opposite, though, to what happens in most churches, who push forward a younger person for Ministerial training only to be told by the powers-that-be the s/he needs to get more life experience first.
In the example you quoted, the initiative (if not the final decision) was still "top-down" rather than "bottom-up" - as a Baptist, steeped in congregationalism, I would want to go in the opposite directions. Other traditions might not.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might upset a few people here and it's not my intention ... but it strikes me that one of the problems inherent within restorationism - and within certain forms of evangelical congregationalism - is a very narrow frame of reference.
Here's a 'for instance' ... my brother once challenged a member of a new church style set-up (I won't name names but it wasn't NFI but it combined restorationism with a more Reformed evangelical approach AND charismaticism ... trust me, Jengie Jon, it did ... ) that their reading and thinking were limited to a narrow margin. Indignant, his friend replied, 'What do you mean? I read Anglican material as well. I'm reading J C Ryle ...'
Had the guy been reading Lancelot Andrewes, Oxford Movement material, Anglo-Catholic material, Sea of Faith material even ... then I would have agreed that there was breadth to it.
As it is, there wasn't.
And forgive me, Polly, the kind of pietistic tone I detect in your posts (shock, horror, people come to the Church Meeting straight from work without having spent time in prayer! The sky will fall in on us!) suggests to me that you've not moved that far from a restorationist perfectionism paradigm either.
I might not have communicated what I mean very effectively - and I'm reluctant to use the 'over ....' phrase that Eutychus is fed up of me using ... but that's the sort of thing I'm getting at.
Practice may very but it seems to me that the CLAIMS made for apostolic oversight and so on go way beyond what actually happens in practice and way beyond anything that we might reasonably expect as an outcome. Sure, the same claims could be made for the attitude of some Baptists towards the 'church meeting' - it was joked that this was the closest thing Baptists had to a sacrament ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I've never met a Baptist who seemed to believe that Christendom would be transformed and that the Parousia would be brought closer through the deliberations of their 'church meeting' - even though they might be fully persuaded that they had 'found the mind of Christ' through it.
As for the Eutychus/Ramarius exchanges ... I'm looking on as something of a horrified/concerned observer. Either Eutychus is going to end up feeling he was even more badly treated than he was because things have genuinely moved on (I doubt that too, incidentally ... although I suspect that some rough edges have been planed smooth) or else Ramarius is going to try to convince himself that things have genuinely changed when they haven't.
I'm still convinced that at the back of all of this - both the restorationist and the renewalist impulses - lies an over-realised eschatology and a greater sense of one's own importance in the overall scheme of things than is actually the case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the same claims could be made for the attitude of some Baptists towards the 'church meeting' - it was joked that this was the closest thing Baptists had to a sacrament ...
Don't be silly - the nearest thing we have to a sacrament is taking up the offering .. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, the Baptist church I used to belong didn't take up offerings ... although members did contribute behind the scenes. Coming from a Covenant Ministries background where the offering was often accompanied by a mini-sermon (sometimes a very LONG mini-sermon) and all sorts of ballyhoo and pressure ... the Baptist model seemed like a breath of fresh air.
Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.
I remember a Baptist minister telling me about an NFI conference he'd attended where some bouncy, energetic husband and wife team (was that unusual in NFI?) were waxing lyrical about the 'commitment' of their church members.
'There's Joe, for instance,' they crowed. 'He works long hours as a high-powered advertising executive. He has a long commute home. But when he gets there he has a meal, changes clothes and he's there, sleeves rolled up to get stuck into the work of the Kingdom!'
'Hang on,' thought my minister friend, 'What about the rest of the day? Isn't he serving the Kingdom in his secular job?'
The impression this chap got of NFI was that it was all 'church, church, church, church, church ...'
Involvement in anything else - politics, sport, the arts, leisure, work ... seemed to come way, way down the list of priorities.
I put it to you, Polly ( ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the Eutychus/Ramarius exchanges ... I'm looking on as something of a horrified/concerned observer. Either Eutychus is going to end up feeling he was even more badly treated than he was because things have genuinely moved on (I doubt that too, incidentally ... although I suspect that some rough edges have been planed smooth) or else Ramarius is going to try to convince himself that things have genuinely changed when they haven't.
Very perceptive of you ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't really want to get into the personal tangent here too much, but one of the reasons for me thinking nothing's really changed is that it would be the more charitable explanation of why there's been no "official" apology with regard to my treatment.
If things had changed, it seems to me that it would be easy for a movement to apologise for past mistakes. And my own story aside, I would have thought it would make sense more generally for the heirs of a given movement to state rather more clearly that they were shedding "childlike things" as they matured, or some such.
I prefer, if that's the right word, to ascribe the lack of any such apology (to date) to a lack of change in basic Restorationist beliefs (about authority and those who wield it) than to entertain the alternative.
As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Chorister said:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
Polly, I was in Baptist churches for 30 years, and still have a toe in one. M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't realise that Baptist churches were into veneration of relics.
Chorister, this made me snort tea all over my keyboard!
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.
I can see why that might sound ghastly after what you've been through, but I suspect you may have to be willing to put up with that possibility.
Institutions rarely admit past mistakes; it's too easy to see any faults as the personal foibles of a previous set of leaders, and at the same time the attractiveness of being part of a larger whole leads one to resist admitting faults in that larger whole.
The only time it ever happens is when there have been repeated and grevious personal sins on the part of a set of leaders who can easily be brushed aside. It's harder to admit the need for grace on a practical level.
To me; your story and those like it would indicate that the restorationist project has - to a large extent - failed.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
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.
Oh but I meant it and they did! It was a sort of charismatic shuffle/ well errr jiving! These days the platform party is rather more restrained.
I think that a healthy dose of common sense has infected a lot of charismatic fellowships these days. So the more extreme manifestations....here in the UK.....are rather looked down upon.
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the Baptist church I used to belong didn't take up offerings ... although members did contribute behind the scenes. Coming from a Covenant Ministries background where the offering was often accompanied by a mini-sermon (sometimes a very LONG mini-sermon) and all sorts of ballyhoo and pressure ... the Baptist model seemed like a breath of fresh air.
Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.
I remember a Baptist minister telling me about an NFI conference he'd attended where some bouncy, energetic husband and wife team (was that unusual in NFI?) were waxing lyrical about the 'commitment' of their church members.
'There's Joe, for instance,' they crowed. 'He works long hours as a high-powered advertising executive. He has a long commute home. But when he gets there he has a meal, changes clothes and he's there, sleeves rolled up to get stuck into the work of the Kingdom!'
'Hang on,' thought my minister friend, 'What about the rest of the day? Isn't he serving the Kingdom in his secular job?'
The impression this chap got of NFI was that it was all 'church, church, church, church, church ...'
Involvement in anything else - politics, sport, the arts, leisure, work ... seemed to come way, way down the list of priorities.
I put it to you, Polly ( ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...
Sorry Gamaliel you're way out of date. In NF there's a very strong 'beyond church' emphasis. An example is
this. . We also have a senior leader who is the Uk 'social action' champion, who encourages churches to consider how to engage with their communities. He has the same status in the movement as the 'church planting' champion.
Yes we still have leaders who live in an ecclesiastical bubble. Happens in all denominations and streams. But the culture is clearly changing.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This wasn't that very long ago, Ramarius ...
Although I do accept that there IS an emphasis on external engagement and perhaps I should have balanced out my comment with a corollary about the initiative you've described/provided a link to ...
My NFI contacts have informed me about that one ...
I was making a more general point and one which, as you rightly indicate, can be levelled at all denominations and streams ('streams' are the new denominations, get over it ... ) ...
I s'pose what I'm driving at is the level to which this sort of thing happens. I'm sure things have moved on but I also agree with Chris Stiles that the restorationist project has effectively stalled. We're not seeing restoration in any way, shape or form. If anything, groups like NFI and the initiative you've informed us of, are merely playing catch-up with what everyone else has been doing for years ...
As I've said before, the kind of social-action emphasis that Bryn and Keri Jones sometimes brought (alongside less welcome emphases) was only novel insofar as it was taking place within a conservatively charismatic evangelical context - with roots in Brethrenism and Pentecostalism. The sort of things they were saying wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in Methodist or URC circles.
If NFI is getting into social action stuff then great. Let's have more of it. But if they ditch their restorationism then I am puzzled as to what else they believe they're bringing to the party ... they may as well become just another loud and lively charismatic denomination ('stream' if you prefer ... I know you don't like the 'd' word and are probably in denial about applying it to your own set-up).
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that - in and of itself - but there's still something rather over-realised about it to all intents and purposes ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Gamilel. NF playing catch up? As if..... . Seriously though, I agree with much of you write here. We still have some distinctives, but changing the expression of Christianity worldwide? Eutychus hasn't fingered me yet so I feel emboldened to describe certain notions as "over-omlettised."
@Eutychus. You quoted:
"Finally, on the last NF thread Twangist helpfully posted a link to a paper by PJ Smyth, a current leading figure in NF, about apostles and elders. This dates from 2008 so it's not that old. Here's what PJ has to say on the subject:
quote:
Apostles are gifted in confirming the rightness and readiness of a man for eldership in a church, and called by God to set him in place through the laying on of hands.(…) By extension, this implies the on-going role apostles have of input into the elders.....apostolic men and ministry are a gift to elders and their churches, given to equip and mature the church. Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering."
You can read that in the context of your own experience of NF and say it supports your analysis. On the other hand, I can affirm all of PJ's quote and say it's consistent with my experience.
(One point of detail. You said appointment of elders was "clearly and apostolic initiative." Actually PJ doesn't say that. He speaks about apostles having a "confirming" role. That's reacting to the initiative of someone else.)
Here's how it's worked in my experience. The current elders identify potential new elders and take soundings in the church. A consensus thereby develops around who the likely candidates are. The apostle provides some external validation.
Now let's look at this quote."Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering."
An apostle could take that as saying "Your local autonomy as elders is at my discretion." Or you could have a more benign relationship based more on mutual respect. The 'imprint' of the apostle is down to the respect he commands as an individual rather than as a bearer of a title or office.
Certainly that's my current experience. To give an example, our 'apostle' visited the church once last year, and explained the relationship in the latter, more relational, terms. In particular he said "I am not [name of elders]'s line manager." No question of a rank to pull here. In addition I know of churches that have 'changed' apostles (they choose who they want to relate to apostolically).
Is this how it works throughout NF? I can't say because I don't know enough leaders. But the kind of relationship I've described certainly seems to be the direction of travel.
And if it appears to be going otherwise, you won't see me for dust.
[ 07. January 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'll have to get back to you later about the other points you raise, Ramarius, but I need to correct this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
(One point of detail. You said appointment of elders was "clearly an apostolic initiative." Actually PJ doesn't say that.)
Actually, yes he does. It's at the bottom of page 34 in the document I linked to, The World Needs More Apostles:
quote:
The appointment of elders is clearly an apostolic initiative
He then goes on to say that the role of the church is one of "affirming" the appointment. Better get your Nikes laced up...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not saying this is true of NFI, but at a Covenant Ministries leadership conference once, Bryn Jones notoriously said that the church is there to 'serve the apostle' and not the other way around ... apparently he used some verse or other from 2 Corinithians to back this up ...
I've heard that there were eyebrows raised and looks exchanged across the room but I'm not sure anyone dared to question it at the time ...
Please don't me wrong, I'm not demonising any of these people. I don't know enough about NFI to comment but I did take a peek at it back in 2000 and my wife and I decided that it was too close to where we'd been (Covenant Ministries) for comfort ... even though the presentation was slightly different we both felt it was the same product with a different label.
At that time, I probably would have been happier than she was to stick it out and give it a go ... but we showed it a clean pair of heels and I've no regrets on that score. I don't wish any of them any ill-will ... but there was a lot of omelette about ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
The problem I have with NF is that they weren't actually restoring the New Testament church at all. Everything St Paul wrote about authority and Eldership was in the context of small groups of Christians in house churches, where all could participate in services. They were not dominated by one paid 'priest' and a laity in a special church building. Paul wrote about a totally different church structure where there was no chief apostle, and St Paul was unpaid by the church.
My experience in NF was that the congregation could not choose who was trained for eldership, and could not prevent appointments. At one 'family' meeting which spent an hour discussing a proposed elder who had been objected to, not a single member was allowed to speak other than the two pastors. Apparently it was a 'theocracy' and if they got it wrong they would answer to God. No need for us to have an opinion.
This is a system that is wide open for abuse and not one I could support. I had no say in the pastor's pay, what he spent his time doing, who was appointed elder, who was trained, what projects were taken on, who was employed in them, how money was spent or how anyone in leadership could be held accountable for anything. Our 'Apostle' was 3,000 miles away, I'd never met him and yet he had a say in who was our elder and we didn't.
The most damaging thing about NF is that they attempt to use scripture to support a hierarchy that is almost unaccountable to their congregations. This is spiritual abuse IMO, because it uses scripture aimed at a house church model to attempt to justify hierarchical authority in an entirely different model of church. If people can be forced to believe that challenging the structure is equivalent to challenging 'God's way of doing it', then they can be shut up or made to feel guilty for doing so.
NF needs reform to allow the congregation to have a formal say in how their churches are run. Without this they are wide open to Narcissistic individual's who are too controlling and effectively unaccountable dominating because they enjoy power over other believers. Church history shows that this sort of model eventually leads to a lot of problems.
Its a real shame because I love the people, the worship and the informality - but I couldn't endorse something so fundamentally messed up.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In NF there's a very strong 'beyond church' emphasis. An example is
this. . We also have a senior leader who is the Uk 'social action' champion, who encourages churches to consider how to engage with their communities. He has the same status in the movement as the 'church planting' champion.
As the resident doubting Thomas, let me say that whilst this is all very well, this is also tinted with a heavy dose of 'church as transformer of culture' (minus the sort of weighty cultural exegesis done by cultural transformers like Tim Keller). To that extent, it's still over-realised - simply in a somewhat different direction.
Additionally, this is by no means unique to the Restorationist groups; Plenty of charismatics have gone down the 'cultural transformation' path via theological streams like Dominionism. Which isn't to say that the latter caused the former, more that all charismatic streams seem to have followed a similar path.
Or to be crass; having tried and failed to create a chosen people, they are now busy trying to create a holy nation.
This simply emphasises (to my mind) their connection with other charo movements throughout the world, which tends to discount their uniqueness.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Smyth describes the role of the church in this process as "affirming the appointment" of elders. He goes on to discuss the relationship between apostles and elders: quote:
apostolic men and ministry are a gift to elders and their churches, given to equip and mature the church. Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering.
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
When I was appointed an elder I had a 20 minute conversation with my 'apostle' and got the green light from him after the first question he asked me. (If you want to know how I managed that you will have to PM me (!).
Never mind a PM repackage that conversation as a book, tweak for every denomonation and, judging by the vocations thread, you'd never need to work again!
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Smyth describes the role of the church in this process as "affirming the appointment" of elders. He goes on to discuss the relationship between apostles and elders: quote:
apostolic men and ministry are a gift to elders and their churches, given to equip and mature the church. Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering.
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.
as per Gamaleil
quote:
The RC parallel has certainly been used by critics of restorationism, Eutychus ... I've read some very frothing-at-the-mouth reformed/conservative evangelical critiques of New Frontiers, for instance, where they see it as yet another thinly disguised attempt by the Evil One to lure us all back to ... (cue creepy horror-film music) DANG-DAN-DARRRRNNN!!! ... ROME!!!
not that ken is frothing-at-the-mouth at all (quite the contrary) but these things do get a little circular at times or maybe there is a Papist plot .....
[ 07. January 2012, 20:40: Message edited by: Twangist ]
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I can affirm all of PJ's quote and say it's consistent with my experience.
I'm sure it is. Fortunately for all concerned, the bottom line does not often get invoked. But my contention is that within a restorationist mindset, the bottom line is the authority of the apostle over the elders and of the elders over the church.
If you read that bit of PJ Smyth's paper you can almost feel him squirming to get away from this. I feel he would like, as I feel you would, to stick with the bonhomie and the idea of an apostle as a sort of benevolent elder brother/consultant. But he can't hold up his entire theory without acknowledging the nod to higher authority. That's how I read this:
quote:
Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering.
If it was as free and easy as you feel, he wouldn't have needed to use the word "covering"; but he did. And I think that if you press a restorationist apostle, they'll talk the same way.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
having tried and failed to create a chosen people, they are now busy trying to create a holy nation.
That neatly, if incisively, summarises my problem with this. I think the very way engaging with society betrays an ongoing restorationist mindset; the kingdom, including society at large, will be restored through the church.
The contary view, which I think Gamaliel is trying to communicate to Polly above, is the idea that christians are engaged in promoting the Kingdom of God in society simply by virtue of being alive and going to work, the shops, school and so on. This everyday behaviour doesn't have to be somehow appropriated, hyped up and made an extension of the church's ministry to be endowed with the fragrance of Christ. It's the difference between trying to set up a christian political party or lobby and being a christian engaged in (secular) politics.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.
Oh, I think it is. I think restorationists really are like Catholics in that respect.
Having emerged from a meeting yesterday to prepare some events in the ecumenical week of prayer coming up [and notwithstanding what Twangist has just posted while I've been writing this], I can report similarly glazed looks when one tries to engage them (at least in France) about christianity outside their particular mindset. They sort of know it's there and are on the whole well-disposed to it, but they just can't engage with it except as a sort of captive project of their own Church.
The similarity, Twangist, is the hierarchical authority structure. Take that away and I still think there is no distinctive feature of restorationism at all.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.
I can see why that might sound ghastly after what you've been through, but I suspect you may have to be willing to put up with that possibility.
Sorry, I forgot to pick up on this.
I'm not sure I'm making myself clear here.
The reason I would find this ghastly is becase it would mean restorationists supposedly shedding their nastier authoritarian side and becoming all cuddly, thus preserving (allegedly) all the openness, honesty, bonhomie, trust, and so on (in much the way Ramarius argues they have done, and for all the right sorts of reasons...) and yet being rather less than honest by not managing to recognise that kind of authoritarianism existed previously? I just don't get this.
Forgetfulness (as Gamaliel keeps reminding us!) of this or that failed prophetic word is one thing, but not acknowledging the very type of failure they are seeking to stamp out strikes me as even more sinister.
[ 07. January 2012, 21:01: 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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.
I put it to you, Polly ( ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...
I think you are possibly reading into my posts something that isn't there.
The comments you are referring to are not ones with an attitude of "pious" criticism, not understanding the real world.
They are an observation of fact. Congregational government relies on the whole church to discern the will,of God together. This relies on spending time listening to the Spirit.
The reality is that (and I'm as guilty as the next) people by and large don't do this. People are busy working hard, jobs are demanding more and more. I get this. It's immensely rare people have time inbetween getting hoe from work and having space to pray before going out in an evenig to a Church meeting.
My point being is that congregational government is idealistic because what it expects and relies on from church members is something many do not have the time to give in their busy lives. This is just those who have the time/will to come to church meetings. Many Baptist Church meetings have less than 50% of its members come reguarly to Church Meetings
Again this isn't a criticism just an observation based on fact.
As a Baptist Minister I'm fully aware of the realities of Congregational Government but lets not pretend its so much superior to the model of Apostolic leadership (again I can only speak on what I know from NF).
Both models have their Biblical Mandate and when they work well then thats great but both have been open to abuse.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chris stiles:
having tried and failed to create a chosen people, they are now busy trying to create a holy nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That neatly, if incisively, summarises my problem with this. I think the very way engaging with society betrays an ongoing restorationist mindset; the kingdom, including society at large, will be restored through the church.
The contary view, which I think Gamaliel is trying to communicate to Polly above, is the idea that christians are engaged in promoting the Kingdom of God in society simply by virtue of being alive and going to work, the shops, school and so on. This everyday behaviour doesn't have to be somehow appropriated, hyped up and made an extension of the church's ministry to be endowed with the fragrance of Christ. It's the difference between trying to set up a christian political party or lobby and being a christian engaged in (secular) politics.
I might be being niave but I've always taken things like the "everything conferance", the HTB "God at work" course or regular preaching that covers this type of thing as being an example of the later.....
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken:
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I think it is. I think restorationists really are like Catholics in that respect.
Having emerged from a meeting yesterday to prepare some events in the ecumenical week of prayer coming up [and notwithstanding what Twangist has just posted while I've been writing this], I can report similarly glazed looks when one tries to engage them (at least in France) about christianity outside their particular mindset. They sort of know it's there and are on the whole well-disposed to it, but they just can't engage with it except as a sort of captive project of their own Church.
The similarity, Twangist, is the hierarchical authority structure. Take that away and I still think there is no distinctive feature of restorationism at all.
I do get the connection.
I was joshing a bit as the conversation did seem to have gone in a circle.
I would submit that it's not just RC's and restorationists who develop "glazed looks when one tries to engage them about christianity outside their particular mindset"....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Both models have their Biblical Mandate and when they work well then thats great but both have been open to abuse.
Hi Polly, considering your personal journey (to coin a ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) phrase) is there some kind of Via Media that you can see would combine the best of both models?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
Gamaliel - I'm sorry but I didn't reply to your 1st point in my post above.
Actually I would agree with your observations that NF is more inward looking than on external social action issues.
I'll explain so Ramaris doen't feel I've gone against him!!
NF have always done social action but it was always considered 2nd place behind evangelism and the local church.
Their theology didn't allow for Social Action to be seen as an important part of the churches ministry although many churches did run some kind of social projects.
If the issue had political implications ( eg Drop the Debt, MPh) generally this was kept at arms length.
Things have been changing especially since Simon Petit a much loved Apostle prophecied that NF "...must not forget the poor..."
Ramarius - not sure if you'll agree with this but I have visited different NF churches in recent years and during services have never heard prayer being led for world events etc.
My friends in NF say consistantly this is one area they want to see improve.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I might be being niave but I've always taken things like the "everything conferance", the HTB "God at work" course or regular preaching that covers this type of thing as being an example of the later.....
If HTB is restorationist then we need to hear about it on this thread!
I think the bottom line here is whether people are being genuinely encouraged to get engaged in things that are completely independent from the (restorationist) church with the church making no attempt to benefit from their inroads or position.
In No Well-Worn Paths, Terry Virgo has a chapter entitled "Turning up the contrast" in which he seeks to dispel the notion that he is, in the words of Renewal magazine, "the acceptable face of Restorationism" by highlighting some of his particularities as a Restorationist. He has this to say about reaching the world:
quote:
the apostolic strategy of the New Testament was obviously one of vigorous church-based mission, rooted in the local church... with all the safeguards and strengths provided by God-ordained eldership... if we... want to reach businesses, let local churches do so from their church base, using their church people.
I think that gives you the flavour of the Restorationist view of 'reaching the world' and it once again ties in the whole thing to "God-ordained" authority figures.
One of my "wake-up" moments was when my, um "apostle" said "we [ie our movement] need your prison ministry". That struck me as a curious turn of phrase but I think it makes sense rereading that bit of No well-worn paths.
quote:
I would submit that it's not just RC's and restorationists who develop "glazed looks when one tries to engage them about christianity outside their particular mindset"....
No, but once again, the stakes are higher if the belief is that restorationism isn't just a better or alternative way of organising church (which is what we are hearing from Polly about baptists' organisation) but the definitive way of organising church with which all will ultimately comply. In much the same way that the RCs (as an institution) still believe the rest of us are "estranged brethren" (frères égloignés).
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
No, but once again, the stakes are higher if the belief is that restorationism isn't just a better or alternative way of organising church (which is what we are hearing from Polly about baptists' organisation) but the definitive way of organising church with which all will ultimately comply. In much the same way that the RCs (as an institution) still believe the rest of us are "estranged brethren" (frères égloignés). [/QB]
No I've never said Restorationist Churches model a better way of beingand doing church.
Between us we have seen (sadly) the bad end of the spectrum of Restorationist Church government and the good. Respectably yorself more the former and me more (but no solely) the latter.
The point I have been making is that the model in theory as well Biblically is a good one. My view of Congregatioal goverment is the same but for different reasons.
I think care has to be given with dismissing a Biblical model because of our own experience and understanding.
The problem isn't with the model but the people who use and abuse it.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
If HTB is restorationist then we need to hear about it on this thread!
Lots of NF churches use the particular course to help their people in that aspect of life ...
quote:
I think the bottom line here is whether people are being genuinely encouraged to get engaged in things that are completely independent from the (restorationist) church with the church making no attempt to benefit from their inroads or position.
how do you accurateley define completely independant (sacred/secular divide - I thought the Bible was a bit more holistic)?
There are lots of areas of social involvement where the church can't make any attempt to benefit.
quote:
In No Well-Worn Paths, Terry Virgo has a chapter entitled "Turning up the contrast" in which he seeks to dispel the notion that he is, in the words of Renewal magazine, "the acceptable face of Restorationism" by highlighting some of his particularities as a Restorationist. He has this to say about reaching the world:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the apostolic strategy of the New Testament was obviously one of vigorous church-based mission, rooted in the local church... with all the safeguards and strengths provided by God-ordained eldership... if we... want to reach businesses, let local churches do so from their church base, using their church people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From memory (will check in due course) he's arguing against parachurch niche evangelism ministries so I'm not sure that in context he's making quite the point you are taking him to.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
No I've never said Restorationist Churches model a better way of being and doing church.
My apologies, that isn't what I meant to imply.
I meant that you are presenting congregationalism as a model whereas Restorationists present their model as the model. You are demonstrating a degree of open-mindedness (admitting the possibility of more than one model of church government) that restorationist thinking doesn't allow for.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
how do you accurateley define completely independant (sacred/secular divide - I thought the Bible was a bit more holistic)?
There are lots of areas of social involvement where the church can't make any attempt to benefit.
What I'm getting at (and failing to get across, it seems) is the sense in which I think restorationism as a movement attempts to appropriate christians' engagement in the world and harness this to its eschatalogical agenda.
During my time in NF I remember somebody being presented to us at a leaders' prayer & fasting gathering because they had just taken the top job at some major christian charity or other. The message was very much 'this is a good thing because now we have one of our people who will be in and out of 10 Downing Street, have the ear of government, etc.' The idea being, I think, that this would expose the top levels of government to people representing Ephesians 4 ministries and the 'apostolic' way of doing things.
(By contrast, I think I've mentioned before here a friend who stood as an MP in the UK. He's not unknown in christian circles, his christian convictions certainly informed his decision to stand, and I'm sure that had he won he would have had an effective testimony in his role as an MP. But he was standing as a representative of his political party, not with some ulterior motive of a kind of "Christian special agent" becoming 'strategically embedded' in some exciting and far-flung sphere of The World™ to further the cause of his church movement. I'm not sure I'm getting this difference across adequately, but I think it's an important one and it's reminding me of the debates on the "cultural transformation" threads).
To me, the quote from "No well-worn paths" points the same way. Yes, the context is parachurch ministries, but the criticism made is that these do not extend "from the apostolic".
Personally I think parachurch ministries are just as wrong-headed when they attempt to "capture" a particular field of action and behave as if they have the only valid approach to it (I have the national director of one in my church, a long-standing friend, so I know what I'm talking about here too!). But at least they are not trying to back up their claim by appealing to a "God-ordained" foundation as Terry does in that quote.
In Restorationist thinking, the vehicle for the "Restoration of all things" - including all matters secular and private - is the church and only the church. Ultimately, this restoration is to come under the aegis of its authority structures. It's why Walker talks about a theocracy.
--------------------
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
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
So, Eutychus, is Philippa Stroud, who is or was involved with Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice seen as some kind of fifth columnist for NF/the next Apostle, capturing it? If not, is something distinctive about NF's agenda lost?
I recall that when she stood for Parliament, the boot was put into her over her/NF's view on gays. I remember at least one liberal Christian (Jonathan Bartlay) doing so on the basis that, because of NF's teaching on male headship, it was her husband that would call the shots (although they might have said that Terry Virgo would be).
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
No I've never said Restorationist Churches model a better way of being and doing church.
My apologies, that isn't what I meant to imply.
I meant that you are presenting congregationalism as a model whereas Restorationists present their model as the model. You are demonstrating a degree of open-mindedness (admitting the possibility of more than one model of church government) that restorationist thinking doesn't allow for.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
how do you accurateley define completely independant (sacred/secular divide - I thought the Bible was a bit more holistic)?
There are lots of areas of social involvement where the church can't make any attempt to benefit.
What I'm getting at (and failing to get across, it seems) is the sense in which I think restorationism as a movement attempts to appropriate christians' engagement in the world and harness this to its eschatalogical agenda.
During my time in NF I remember somebody being presented to us at a leaders' prayer & fasting gathering because they had just taken the top job at some major christian charity or other. The message was very much 'this is a good thing because now we have one of our people who will be in and out of 10 Downing Street, have the ear of government, etc.' The idea being, I think, that this would expose the top levels of government to people representing Ephesians 4 ministries and the 'apostolic' way of doing things.
(By contrast, I think I've mentioned before here a friend who stood as an MP in the UK. He's not unknown in christian circles, his christian convictions certainly informed his decision to stand, and I'm sure that had he won he would have had an effective testimony in his role as an MP. But he was standing as a representative of his political party, not with some ulterior motive of a kind of "Christian special agent" becoming 'strategically embedded' in some exciting and far-flung sphere of The World™ to further the cause of his church movement. I'm not sure I'm getting this difference across adequately, but I think it's an important one and it's reminding me of the debates on the "cultural transformation" threads).
To me, the quote from "No well-worn paths" points the same way. Yes, the context is parachurch ministries, but the criticism made is that these do not extend "from the apostolic".
Personally I think parachurch ministries are just as wrong-headed when they attempt to "capture" a particular field of action and behave as if they have the only valid approach to it (I have the national director of one in my church, a long-standing friend, so I know what I'm talking about here too!). But at least they are not trying to back up their claim by appealing to a "God-ordained" foundation as Terry does in that quote.
In Restorationist thinking, the vehicle for the "Restoration of all things" - including all matters secular and private - is the church and only the church. Ultimately, this restoration is to come under the aegis of its authority structures. It's why Walker talks about a theocracy.
Many 'closed' groups have Restorationist characteristics. The Militant Tendency had an 'entryist' policy with the Labour party and other like minded organisations.
Fundamentally the reasons restorationism faded was:
i. it was basically a flawed theology resting on very wobbly theology
ii. it didn't appeal to many British Christians who saw it's exclusivity, privilege and elitism writ large and saw through it's New testament speak waffle.
iii. It wasn't based on ideas of correct eschatology, was elitist and exclusivist as a result. People were wary of cultic tendencies post Guyana (Bob Jones) and latterly Waco Texas, where 'inspired' charismatic type leaders took congregations on a ride to hell.
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'd agree with that, Saul - but it doesn't strike me that British people are signing up in any great numbers for ANY form of church involvement at the moment ... so if the average Briton would be wary of restorationism, it would also be true that the average Briton might equally be wary of the local RC priest, local vicar, local Baptist or Methodist minister ...
On the social action thing ... an Orthodox priest friend (known to some here) once observed to me that he felt that the charismatic movement (including restorationism) would ultimately go the way of the Quakers and become a broader, more socially engaged movement with a smattering of vatic and supernatural beliefs. He pointed out that it only took a few generations for the Society of Friends to morph from a highly charged, pneumatic movement into a rather Quietist one with a refreshingly radical social agenda when it came to things like slavery and prison reform etc.
I wasn't convinced at the time he said that and I'm still not fully convinced, but I do wonder whether there's some truth in it. As soon as groups like this DO start to engage with society/social action (even if they BEGIN with the kind of attitude and agenda that Eutychus has identified) then before long they start to develop (by necessity) a more nuanced and less dogmatic approach.
Pragmatism kicks in. In the same way that some nuns and priests in parts of sub-Saharan Africa have distributed condoms to combat Aids despite the official teachings of the RC Church.
I'd be interested to see how 'restorationist' some of the social action projects will appear in 10 or 15 years time. Not very, would be my suspicion.
Every now and then restorationism would draw in its horns like a snail ... but then would slip them back out so it could squirm along looking for its next meal ...
That kind of retreat/advance approach isn't uncommon and can be seen in other settings and traditions. Indeed, the old Catholic thing of retreats and pilgrimages punctuating every day action is pertinent to much of this.
@Polly - I'm not saying that congregational patterns are necessarily 'better' than what you see as the benefits of the restorationist model - but what I am saying is that they are less prone to the kind of top-down abuse that we have ALL seen within restorationism. I'm sorry, but I still think you're starry-eyed about the whole thing ...
And all that 'listening to the Spirit' business still sounds very omelette-ish to me ... you seem to be over-spiritualising the 'church meeting' in the same way as you may have over-spiritualised the governmental aspects of NFI.
I say 'may' ...
I know what you're getting at and I'm not trying to squeeze the pneumatic out of the equation ... but there's an overly pietistic impression I'm picking up here. I know you appreciate that people have to work, commute etc etc ... but as I've often said, and will say again, "it doesn't matter how 'anointed' or whoopy the conference/convention/service - delete as appropriate - was, you still have to get up and go to work, you still have to wash your socks and when you've been to the lavatory you still have to wipe your arse."
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
