homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I thought I'd dig a little and see what newfrontiers is about.

New Frontiers Together Website

They have a slot on their web site called ''restoring the church''. The title seems a bit presumptuous on one level, surely that's Christ's role but I'd expect they'd cite Ephesians 4 which in fact they do.

Certainly there is an element within many charismatic churches of a disciplined harder edge; anyone remember ''heavy shepherding''? But like I've said my view is that charismatic churches have gone a bit fuzzy around the edges, call it the Rob Bell effect, but the emerging church and post modern thought IS having an effect.

Interesting times.

Saul

That seems to make it very clear that they have no time for old denominations, that they are all about extending NFI.

And this : God's ultimate purpose is that the church should become a 'mature man' (Eph. 4:13) would be hilarious if it was not so sad: reminds me of many songs (not exclusive to new churches) in which women are expected to be thankful for being sons of GOD. Ughhhhh.

"Co-heirs" with the Son would be a bit more contemporary. Post number 300. Polite round of applause for the man from Gaul
[Overused]

[edited quoted long URL]

[ 13. January 2012, 08:51: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NFI website quote:
quote:
The so-called 'Charismatic Renewal', which began in the 1960s, transformed many people's experience of God. People from many diverse backgrounds were baptised in the Holy Spirit and found themselves speaking in tongues and prophesying. They longed to express their newfound love for God with fresh enthusiasm and intimacy in worship.
This new wine required a new wineskin. Many existing church structures could not contain this new life and so radical changes were needed, changes that would entail a work of restoration.

This is classic restoration theology, God was doing something, the traditional denominations can't contain it. New wineskin's needed et voila!

I just see this as posturing and quite out of touch with both reality and the heart of the gospel which is surely inclusive of all true believers whether they be Salvation Army, Russian Orthodox or Baptist or whatever Christian tradition you come from surely.

Fundamentally flawed. That's the issue.

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
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My denomination is called "The New Church" so I keep thinking this thread is something it's not. We have nothing to do with restorationsim,

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect another issue is the lack of self-analysis and honest intern debate. Here's a brief exchange between myself and Twangist from another thread.
I referred Twangist to Paul's comment in Romans 15:20, that he hd made it his ambition not to preach the Gospel where a church was already in existence. I made the following point:

"Paul's ambition here, appears to be diametrcally opposed to the practice of New Frontiers apostles who, in terms of normal practice, seek to plant churches in areas where there are already many Christians and large churches."

Twangist's response is:

"Obviously, you'd need to chat to a NF apostle to get an official answer but if you can find anywhere in the UK which has enough Xtians and enough churches I'd love to know!!!"

But really this misses the point. The assumption seems to be that any additional churches must be a good thing. On the one hand, that doesn't seem to be Paul's view, Paul who was, we must remember, writing in a time and place where churches were much fewer and farther between than the UK. Then there is the point, of course, that there are many New Frontiers churches whose membership is almost exclusively made up of people transferring from other churches. This rather begs the question whether they are taking more from the overall Christian community in the locations where they are sited than they are adding.

But the most worrying aspect of Twangist's response is this. Whilst he is happy for me to contact an NF apostle to resolve this question, he seems to see no reason why he would want to resolve it for himself. This almost blind acceptance of practice, even where scripture would raise questions regarding its validity, is one of the most disconcerting characteristics of some apostolic movements.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That was pretty much my experience in NF. One new convert over 2 years the rest of the growth from Christians moving from other churches.

I suspect that the almost 'cult' like aspects of NF don't help things. There were so many meetings that believers didn't have many friends outside the church. Their social life was the church. As outreach consisted of expecting people to come into the building rather than going out to meet people, it wasn't rocket science that not many non believers were going to be attracted.

I disliked the attitude towards non New Frontiers speakers or material. The only things allowed on the bookstall were New Frontiers, and I never heard a single speaker from outside NF. Its all rather insular and cultish. They behave as if they believe the are THE church. They seemed to discourage independent thinkers. If you think you are THE church, you can't really criticize it as you would be seen as criticizing God's ordained structure. This allows some very iffy theology to slip past unchallenged. Sins of the flesh are amplified to a hysterical level (PJ Smyth has some particularly ridiculous legalistic advice on sexuality) while sins of spiritual pride and controlling others are largely ignored. I worry that some of this stuff is very damaging to young Christians. Few would be able to challenge the leaders on some of their weird views.

Keep you mouth shut, never admit any problems, never challenge anyone in leadership, tithe, be young male and 'hip' and you should go a long way. If you don't fit this stereotype you are probably wasting your time in NF if you expect to be promoted or have any influence.

Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Arminian that that is similar to many of the so called 'new' churches or specifically the restorationist outfits.

To be fair the more balanced charismatic churches (in the UK) have dropped any pretensions of being ''the one true way'' and they co-operate with other Christian denominations ( good charismatic independent churches now work with other denominational churches to a greater or smaller extent - that is, IMHO, good).

But those churches that are insular are on very rocky ground indeed as they measure themselves by themselves - very dangerous ground. The kool aid beckons.

Saul

[ 13. January 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The assumption seems to be that any additional churches must be a good thing. On the one hand, that doesn't seem to be Paul's view, Paul who was, we must remember, writing in a time and place where churches were much fewer and farther between than the UK. Then there is the point, of course, that there are many New Frontiers churches whose membership is almost exclusively made up of people transferring from other churches. This rather begs the question whether they are taking more from the overall Christian community in the locations where they are sited than they are adding.

This is an issue we have faced recently here, when a new church (not NFI) started up with no reference to existing churches. They simply could not understand why this should be a problem, and why they should have referred to the wider Church in town.

Also, they started up in a town centre location where there are plenty of churches - there are plenty of less sexy estate locations which are miserably underchurched. Or they could have joined together with other Christians. But no, that wasn't the way they wanted to do it.

Is this exclusivism, poor ecclesiology, or a desire to want to make their personal mark? Probably a combination of all three!

[ 13. January 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must be talking about a different NF to Saul and Arminian because I simply don't recognise the extreme fundamentalist attitude they are explaining. Some of your points I would agree are valid (about leadership only being young and male) but IMHO you are greatly exaggerating.

When we think about the real early days of NF it's pretty easy to be judgemental about it and with hindsight claim it was flawed.

Many groups who wanted to explore this new 'charismatic scene' in their own churches were treated badly by their own churches. Mainstream church didn't want to know and accused them of being unbiblical amongst other and nasty things. "If you want to do that sort of thing then go elsewhere" was the attitude.

It was this attitude that led to the accusation of old and new wineskins and not the other way round.

I'm not saying that the Restorationists did everything right and hindsight is a wonderful thing but some care is required not to pass judgement on a time where most of us weren't part of.

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Really big apologies as I hadn't realised Mrs Tubbs was using my machine last and hadn't logged out.

The above thoughts in the post are mine and mine only!

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agreeing with Polly, and referring back to previous comments, there is a lot to be happy about in NF. Drew's specific challenges are around attitude to scripture, challenges to leadership when theory and practice diverge, and a cavalier attitude towards other churches when it comes to church planting.

There's no question that when NF plant in town centres it's partly because we want to poach people from other churches. I've heard this taken as a given. Plant somewhere highly visible so other christians know you're around. Whilst some people would always want to join an NF church if one was around, it does play somewhat on the same consumer mentality that we bemoan when people leave our churches.

Saul's comment about measuring oneself by oneself is well made. I did indeed say "ouch" at that post. We don't like looking at where we mess up or are simply inconsistent, and the more we don't the more the attitude reinforces itself. I've seen some signs of this changing, so let's see how it develops. I'll know we've cracked it when someone says "I read this book by Terry. It's great, even if I don't agree with all of it." [Biased] .

I have to agree with Drew on our rather monochrome attitude to scripture. I can think of a few areas where we really haven't thought some issues through, recognition of our own 'traditions' being one of them. But every church thinks its own traditions are Biblically consistent. It's all them others that are the problem...

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Agreeing with Polly, and referring back to previous comments, there is a lot to be happy about in NF. Drew's specific challenges are around attitude to scripture, challenges to leadership when theory and practice diverge, and a cavalier attitude towards other churches when it comes to church planting.

There's no question that when NF plant in town centres it's partly because we want to poach people from other churches. I've heard this taken as a given. Plant somewhere highly visible so other christians know you're around. Whilst some people would always want to join an NF church if one was around, it does play somewhat on the same consumer mentality that we bemoan when people leave our churches.

Saul's comment about measuring oneself by oneself is well made. I did indeed say "ouch" at that post. We don't like looking at where we mess up or are simply inconsistent, and the more we don't the more the attitude reinforces itself. I've seen some signs of this changing, so let's see how it develops. I'll know we've cracked it when someone says "I read this book by Terry. It's great, even if I don't agree with all of it." [Biased] .

I have to agree with Drew on our rather monochrome attitude to scripture. I can think of a few areas where we really haven't thought some issues through, recognition of our own 'traditions' being one of them. But every church thinks its own traditions are Biblically consistent. It's all them others that are the problem...

Ramarius,

thanks for taking that with good grace. I wasn't being wholly negative about charismatic churches per se, either. I go to one myself (an independent charismatic not a million miles from Terry Virgo's place in Brighton). I have questions, concerns, difficulties with my own gaff, but to be fair, where I attend they are a very outward looking church. There is a new leadership team in place and I feel that they are trying to reach out with other denominations and be salt and light etc etc etc.

My understanding of NFI international is limited to the info on their own website and I've attended their church in Brighton once years ago and do they have one in Eastbourne too? If so I've attended a church once on a large industrial site on the edge of town. It seemed very 'NFI'.

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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With all due respect to Tubbs, and please correct me if I'm wrong ... but were you actually around on the scene when the restorationists got underway?

I have no idea how old you are, but it predates me. I wasn't knocking around Christian circles (other than some nominal and exploratory Anglican phases in my teens) until 1981 but by that time the restorationist juggernaut had gathered pace.

The first genuinely restorationist churches had emerged by about 1976 - although there were antecedents in the form of the South Chard/Wally North ambit and several other independent groups.

The idea that these poor, harassed, wilting lettuce restorationists had to leave the denominations - poor dabs (as we'd say in South Wales) - just doesn't fit with what I heard and can remember. Sure, I've known of instances such as the one where a girl in a Baptist church raised her hands in worship only to be poked with an umbrella by the old lady in the row behind ... but by and large the restorationists withdrew from the established denominations not because of persecution but because they couldn't get them to dance to their particular tune.

And why should they have done?

If you weren't given to hearing people gabbling and gobbledegooking in church services or bopping and boogie-ing - although the dances were generally the running on the spot or bobbing from one foot to another variety - then a bunch of zealots weren't going to change your mind.

There was all this rhetoric about the older and 'deader' churches closing down. But a lot of them kept going despite it all. I well remember driving to church one Sunday towards the end of my restorationist period and seeing an old bloke tottering along to his local Methodist church that I remembered from a short spell there as a student nearly two decades before. He was still there. His Methodist chapel was still there ...

Sorry. I don't buy it. Sure, some of the early restorationists had a hard time. But in most instances they went where they ended up because:

- It seemed to be hipper and more happening.
- There was a lot of talent around (think young people and lots of testosterone).
- It was loud and lively and gave the impression that there was a lot more happening than was actually the case.

To be fair, the restorationist outfit I was involved with DID see quite a number of converts as well as the usual transfer growth. And my impression of NFI has generally been that they get new converts too, as well as transfers.

Perhaps, in gardening terms, it's always going to be case that new growth happens around the periphery rather than in the midst of the hardy perennials ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tubbs wrote:

'Mainstream church didn't want to know and accused them of being unbiblical amongst other and nasty things. "If you want to do that sort of thing then go elsewhere" was the attitude.'

Are you suggesting that they WERE biblical? The restorationists were no more or no less biblical than the churches they left behind ... generally they came from places which already had a 'monochrome' approach to the scriptures - the Brethren, very traditional conservative Baptists.

Sure, there were some Anglicans but the charismatic renewal in the Anglican church continued despite the defections to restorationism - and was given a shot-in-the-arm by the Wimber visits by the middle of the 1980s.

Most restorationist transfers came from Free Church settings of one form or another. A lot of them (particularly in Covenant Ministries) were Pentecostals. It wasn't the charismatic issue that was the motivator for them, more a sense of reinvigorating what they already had and working out a particular ecclesiology which, as Chris Stiles has eloquently pointed out, was familiar to some of them already.

The Apostolic Church, one of the three main Pentecostal denominations active in the UK, had 'apostles and prophets'. Similar models existed elsewhere on the wider pentecostal scene.

What was new about restorationism was that it fused this with some Baptist and Brethren elements.

'It was this attitude that led to the accusation of old and new wineskins and not the other way round.'

Au contraire.

Some of the restorationists had a tough time but I could show you plenty of well-meaning ministers and pastors who tried their darnedest to accommodate the budding restorationists only to have huge chunks of their congregation stolen from under their noses by over-weening restorationist apostles.

Don't get me started ... [Mad]

--------------------
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      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I suspect another issue is the lack of self-analysis and honest intern debate. Here's a brief exchange between myself and Twangist from another thread.
I referred Twangist to Paul's comment in Romans 15:20, that he hd made it his ambition not to preach the Gospel where a church was already in existence. I made the following point:

"Paul's ambition here, appears to be diametrcally opposed to the practice of New Frontiers apostles who, in terms of normal practice, seek to plant churches in areas where there are already many Christians and large churches."

Twangist's response is:

"Obviously, you'd need to chat to a NF apostle to get an official answer but if you can find anywhere in the UK which has enough Xtians and enough churches I'd love to know!!!"

But really this misses the point. The assumption seems to be that any additional churches must be a good thing. On the one hand, that doesn't seem to be Paul's view, Paul who was, we must remember, writing in a time and place where churches were much fewer and farther between than the UK. Then there is the point, of course, that there are many New Frontiers churches whose membership is almost exclusively made up of people transferring from other churches. This rather begs the question whether they are taking more from the overall Christian community in the locations where they are sited than they are adding.

But the most worrying aspect of Twangist's response is this. Whilst he is happy for me to contact an NF apostle to resolve this question, he seems to see no reason why he would want to resolve it for himself. This almost blind acceptance of practice, even where scripture would raise questions regarding its validity, is one of the most disconcerting characteristics of some apostolic movements.

Try reading and quoting the whole post next time!! (Or even addressing the point that you did quote)

If you're answering (quoting/misrepresenting (delete as applicable)) comments made on one thread it's easier to stick to that thread in order to follow the argument.

You could even note use of Rhetoric! I'm sure most Anglicans wouldn't be able to give a full account of decisions that their bishops make any more than I can speak for Terry or whoever!

As far as transfer growth and contribution to the community is concerned have you read what I posted recently in this very thread?

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Gamaliel

Again I can only comment on my experience with NF but it was out of the main stream churches people left to be part of NF: Baptists, Bretheren and Anglican. It was mainly Baptist churches where pastors were trained at Spurgeons who took their whole churches over to NF

I'm not saying the restorationists were more Biblical than the mainstream church but the problem was that people wanted to explore charismata and many main stream churches prevented them from doing so.

Reading inbetween the linesmany people were scared of the new goings on. More could have been done from both sides to spend time in understanding the matters concerned.

Frustration from the groups who wanted to explore this issue was experienced because they were not allowed or were stifled. Perhaps more patience could have been exercised but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Whatever the theological differences I now have with NF and their whole setup the place of spiritual gifts in building up the church isn't one.

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If this Anglican was asked why a bishop wore a cope rather than the chasuble usual at our church, a very tactful and loyal reply on my part would be "You would have to ask him yourself".

It would not imply I held my bishop to be liturgically infallible. Quite the contrary.

--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
There's no question that when NF plant in town centres it's partly because we want to poach people from other churches. I've heard this taken as a given.

Well, "hard-core" restorationism certainly gives a virtually unassailable theological rationale for that...

Meanwhile, I don't know about restorationism morphing into something else, but I'm wondering whether this thread isn't morphing into the forthcoming "Newfrontiers after Terry Virgo Part II" thread, due to appear in fora near you on Feb 29...

Obviously neither Ramarius nor I have a monopoly on the subject, and for some people (notably Arminian on the one hand and Polly on the other [by the way Gamaliel, that was Polly inadvertently dressed up as Tubbs up there]) the specific issues surrounding NF are live enough to give rise to painful feelings - something I can sympathise with only too well.

However, I'd like to repeat my plea that we try and keep this thread as general as possible in terms of looking at the underlying theology and where it might take restorationism and restorationist churches in general.

Even if most of the remaining restorationist churches are in fact NF, if the church at large is to draw any broader lessons from all this I think it needs to be looked at from the theological angle in addition to the "best/worst practices" angle, and I'm anxious (again, on this thread) for the latter not to drown out the former.

--------------------
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      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

Eutychus - in regards to your plea for amore general discussion it would be nice to hear about Pioneer and others.

I am not sure who is around to comment?

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops that should have read "church planting methods and not church panting..." [Eek!]
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF

This is an excellent point and one that Twangist would do well to note. A significant difference between NF and the Anglican church (which he refers to in his last post) is that the leadership of the latter is open to scrutiny and has formal mechanisms in place to allow that scrutiny to take place. This is in stark contrast to an attitude expressed in terms of "I can't speak for my leaders." Well when you don't know what they think, and have no ready way of finding out (since this information is not publicly available) that seems sadly inevitable.

To give a contrasting approach elsewhere in restorationism one could perhaps consider the Groundlevel network. This similarly desribes itself as "apostolic" but, from what I know of it, has a far more collaborative approach to church planting. I have heard its vision expressed in terms of an evangelical church in every town, and at least a small group in every village. But Groundlevel members recognise and offer support to any church, for whatever background denomination or stream, that meets the criteria of "evangelical."

They therefore seek to support existing churches and networks, planting churches to fill gaps, whilst avoiding duplication. The alternative approach to simply moving into a town and planting regardless, would be to discuss with existing church leaders both where the most unreached areas of that town are, and to ask what value a new church could add to the body of Christ as already present.

This represent the crucial difference between, on the one hand involving other churches from the outset, and simply presenting them with a fait accompli.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Saul. Quite happy with straight talking old boy. I'll push back if I'm unconvinced [Biased] .Your posts help me to think, which is the main reason I come on these discussion boards.

Regards,

R

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I'd like to repeat my plea that we try and keep this thread as general as possible in terms of looking at the underlying theology and where it might take restorationism and restorationist churches in general.

Even if most of the remaining restorationist churches are in fact NF, if the church at large is to draw any broader lessons from all this I think it needs to be looked at from the theological angle in addition to the "best/worst practices" angle, and I'm anxious (again, on this thread) for the latter not to drown out the former.

Taking this up along with the church planting angle down which we are going.

To a large extent movements within the church are reflections of trends and fads from the business world and wider society.

Viewed in that way Restorationism is in some ways some form of niche marketing, which attracts by it's very exclusivity, and successfully cannibalises existing franchises.

Now, I'm sure all of that can be dressed up with spiritual language, and the pre-suppositions driving are hardly ever as bald as I've laid out (except in certain church growth circles I'm familiar with), but essentially that's what it comes down to.

It starts with unconscious assumptions people hold which are never challenged within the Christian circles (bigger is always better, competition is always a good thing, etc).

To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature or fails to exegete culture correctly (which is simply another form of misreading).

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.
quote:
or fails to exegete culture correctly (which is simply another form of misreading).
Looking back on my experience, I think that the hard-core restorationist elements were wrapped in a whole raft of other values which I somehow assumed were outworkings of the former.

At the time I was involved, I didn't really know anything about the corporate world, marketing or motivational speaking - but now I do, the similarities are obvious.

(I'm working on a project at the moment that involves transcribing the keynote speeches from Leaders' Convention (sic) of a major multinational. The similarity to a lot of restorationist preaching and argumentation is uncanny).

A lot of what I took to be "New Testament" in terms of style now looks like the most worldly part of restorationism 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
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.
quote:
or fails to exegete culture correctly (which is simply another form of misreading).
Looking back on my experience, I think that the hard-core restorationist elements were wrapped in a whole raft of other values which I somehow assumed were outworkings of the former.

At the time I was involved, I didn't really know anything about the corporate world, marketing or motivational speaking - but now I do, the similarities are obvious.

(I'm working on a project at the moment that involves transcribing the keynote speeches from Leaders' Convention (sic) of a major multinational. The similarity to a lot of restorationist preaching and argumentation is uncanny).

A lot of what I took to be "New Testament" in terms of style now looks like the most worldly part of restorationism to me.

The marketing and individualistic capitalism hard sell sat nicely with the restorationist script IMHO. Strong male leaders, ''selling'' their product to a dutiful receptive consumer group. Many many parallels - I think you're on the right track with that work.

I think faulty theology played a big part in their downfall - they saw the historic denominations as basically failing and failing quickly at that. Their new stream would become a mighty river and millions (here in the UK and overseas) would be saved and some sort of ''heaven on earth'' type scenario or a bride fit for her bridegrooms return would be up & running. Hey presto so to speak!

My reading of eschatological scripture is that we'll see a great falling away of faith and yet also a parallel further & powerful reach of the gospel (and yes more people being saved in parallel to this great apostasy) and the lives of 'the saints' will become more trying (the tribulation) as the ''end'' nears; whenever that may be.

As you'll gather I am very loosely a classic pre millenniallist so all the restorationist talk didn't wash with me at all.

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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Many many parallels - I think you're on the right track with that work.

I should have made it clear that this is paid work for my day job as a translator/interpreter, not some voluntary initiative!

The work in question is NDA'd up to the hilt, which is a shame because it would be wonderful to quote some passages. The charismatic (small c) leaders, the informal chitchat masking terrifying power plays behind the scenes. The levers the speakers press to get their senior execs committed, the appeal to the movement (sorry, firm's) history, the use of a simple, symbolic device (like NF's bow being drawn across the UK to reach Europe and beyond) as a 'prophetic vision' to embody the strategy... even the social action. It's all there.

--------------------
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
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Wuntoo   Email Mark Wuntoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
To give a contrasting approach elsewhere in restorationism one could perhaps consider the Groundlevel network. This similarly desribes itself as "apostolic" but, from what I know of it, has a far more collaborative approach to church planting. I have heard its vision expressed in terms of an evangelical church in every town, and at least a small group in every village. But Groundlevel members recognise and offer support to any church, for whatever background denomination or stream, that meets the criteria of "evangelical."

They therefore seek to support existing churches and networks, planting churches to fill gaps, whilst avoiding duplication. ...
This represent the crucial difference between, on the one hand involving other churches from the outset, and simply presenting them with a fait accompli.

You will forgive me, I hope, if I am cynical. Their web-site langauge is straight out of new churches 30 years ago. And this "sense of unity across a variety of streams and networks" doesn't sound to me like cooperation with others unless they are of the same ilk. Anglicans? Roman Catholics? non-evangelicals? I doubt it.

I wonder how the Roman Catholics / Orthodox would react to being called a 'stream' or a 'network'? [Snigger]

But I could be wrong, of course.

I also suspect, from the long list of leaders, that they are white and certainly almost exclusively male: no change there, then.

Out of interest, where did they come from? I don't recognise any of the names from early day restorationism. If the background is restorationism, it is very relevant to this thread, I think.

--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.

Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok - @Polly - sorry, I hadn't realised that the comments were yours rather than Tubbs's.

On balance - and cuddly old Gamaliel always strives for that - I don't think any of this stuff was clear cut.

It would be as invidious to suggest that all the individuals (or whole churches) who/which allied themselves to one or other of the restorationist 'streams' did so as the result of cynical marketing manipulation as it would be to suggest that they were hounded out of their original churches because they spoke in tongues.

It wasn't as simple as that. Nothing is ever as simple as that.

There's a telling point (among many) in Walker's Restoring the Kingdom where he says that the full story of how the restorationist apostles either inveigled themselves into existing set-ups in order to take them over or else issued clarion calls to like-minded folk within the existing denominations, has yet to be told.

He gives some case-studies with the point of view from both sides - that of the restorationists who drew people with them and those who saw them as pied-pipers or sheep-stealers.

I can just about remember the 'come with us and we will do you good' rhetoric. By the time I attended my first Bible Week in Harrogate the whole thing was about, 'come out from among them and be seperate.'

I get the impression that what was always more full-on in Harvestime/Covenant Ministries was around in a more muted or subtle form within New Frontiers - or even Pioneer and other R2 groups.

New Frontiers did have more ready-made churches joining their network - mainly Baptists, as you say. But I've known of some AoG churches who went down the NF route too. For some reason, though, perhaps because of the more Arminian emphasis, Pentecostals drawn towards restorationism tended to move towards Bryn and the boys up in Yorkshire.

After a while, Bryn actively discouraged existing or ready-made groups from seeking 'relationship'. I doubt this was out of altruism and more a pragmatic response - it was a lot harder to mould and control a group that had its own history and its own collective 'mind' than it was to try and shape something from scratch. Not only that, fellas who'd been Baptist or Pentecostal ministers were more likely to stand up to him, be stroppy or refuse to toe the party-line over particular issues.

As for the charismata thing, other than outright cessationists, I don't remember anybody issuing outright blanket bans on charismata at all.

Those vicars and ministers who weren't of a full-on charismatic bent often tried to accommodate these things - sometimes by laying on special 'after meetings' etc. This wasn't good enough for the more full-on restorationists, they wanted to do all this stuff in the meetings themselves. In fact, they wanted to RUN the meetings/services themselves ...

What's often over-looked is the fact that the 'establishment' wasn't opposed to spiritual gifts and charismata per se ... they just weren't convinced about the way the emerging restorationists were handling these things. To be fair, when I first encountered restorationism I found the charismatic dimension there more convincing than most of what I'd seen hitherto among Pentecostals in South Wales and among charismatic Anglicans.

Looking back, other than one or two things, I don't consider the way the restorationists handled these things to be any better or more convincing than the way they were done anywhere else - it's just that they were packaged in a more contemporary and attractive way - no 'prophecies' in King James English as you'd find among the Pentecostals and an apparently freer format than you'd find among the Anglican charismatics who still had to follow the liturgy to a large extent.

That's not to say I'd dismiss the appeal that these groups had. We were young. We wanted to change the world.

--------------------
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      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

Dave Strouds book and this website probably fit the bill.

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NFI continue to plant churches in towns where there is already a significant Christian presence. Instead of existing NFI members in the town bolstering the ministry of existing churches, they set up on their own and end up dividing other churches.

In one case I know well NFI were hovering around for a couple of years, looking to plant. The fact that there were already a number of churches there - and that in the previous 10 years church plants had failed at almost e of one a year - didn't deter them one iota.

The spin may be different now but the delivery on the ground isn't. The leopard doesn't change his spots nor the Ethiopian his skin.

[ 14. January 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Groundlevel?

Mmmm.

I have vaguely heard of one or two of these players, Stuart Bell, for instance, he's been around since Noah were a lad hasn't he?

Here is their spiel:

quote:
Groundlevel Network
The Ground Level Network is an apostolic movement networked together through
regional and relational connections.

This psycho-religio babble speak of the worst kind [Help] In my humble opinion of course [Ultra confused]

Saul the confused Apostle

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Church planting was always a restorationist hot-potato. In the early days no-one had any qualms about it as they felt that the established denominations were dead or dying and that 'God was doing a new thing.'

Before long, things became complicated as they began to plant on one another's patch. So, for instance, Harvestime (pre Covenant Ministries) or Coastlands (pre New Frontiers) would find itself planting a church where there was already an 'R2' congregation - Pioneer or similar.

As was generally the case, the rhetoric would change to suit the reality. 'We need to have something in that town to represent what we represent ...' or, 'I don't care if there are 10,000 teams working into that city there are still plenty of unbelievers there ...'

The attrition rate for new church plants, of whatever stripe, is quite high. I read somewhere that 2 out of 5 (or it may have been 2 out of 3) Baptist church plants fail. Baptist and other Free Church church-plants can be contentious too ... I've known Baptist churches plant within a mile of another Baptist church ... but generally (in my experience) Baptists and other 'older' Free Churches are much more open with the leaders of other churches and tend to write and announce their intentions/consult in advance.

The practice seems to vary with NFI, but they did have a tendency just to land, all guns blazing, at one time ...

The issue isn't confined to Protestants. I've read of cases in the US where an English-medium Orthodox Church has opened close to a Greek-speaking one or other more ethnically defined parish or one from another Orthodox jurisdiction. The situation is complicated across the diaspora - you are meant to have one Bishop per city. As it is, you have Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian or Antiochian all in a single city - with some largely 'convert' parishes and some very ethnically entrenched parishes.

In the CofE the pattern is mixed - with some Fresh Expressions plants opening up with our without the consent or consultation of the existing clergy in the area. There are some interesting experiments in cross-fertilisation, though. By and large, though, I've found CofE parishes to be fairly polarised by churchmanship.

The RCs don't seem to have these problems. Perhaps they have but they just brush them under the carpet. I do know of RCs who commute to other towns because they like/prefer the priest there etc but I'm not aware of church planting initiatives and issues in the way there are elsewhere.

--------------------
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      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I posted this as a reply to question on another thread. But it seems relevant.

Our church was planted in the late 90's to give context

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF and other new church streams have, traditionally, never been that good at involving or informing anyone else when they've gone a-church planting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anecdotal evidence I know but ....
When our church was planted our original leader made a point of getting to know local Xtian leaders - we had a Pente pastor, a Baptist pastor and a couple of Vicars preach for us within the first few years.

Before the church was planted contact was made with the local Evangelical Fellowship/Fraternal and several open meetings were held to explain what we were about.

One of our original trustees is an Anglo-Catholic priest with Ortho-phile tendencies (I had a great chat about the puritans with him once).




--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

Dave Strouds book and this website probably fit the bill.
He's NF?

My point is that although we hear complaints (eg on forums like this) no-one outside of NF has ever documented this or (as far as I could find when researching) write about it in magazines.

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[qb]To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.
This sounds as if you are saying only Restorationist churches suffered this failure in the entire history of the church?


quote:
Gamaliel posted:

It would be as invidious to suggest that all the individuals (or whole churches) who/which allied themselves to one or other of the restorationist 'streams' did so as the result of cynical marketing manipulation as it would be to suggest that they were hounded out of their original churches because they spoke in tongues.

It wasn't as simple as that. Nothing is ever as simple as that.

No I wasn't suggesting that this was the only factor that contributed to folk leaving churches and joining Restorationists.

But it was a factor and depending from where you stood at the time a fairly large one.

The point I am making is that things were never as clear cut at the time (as some have posted on this thread) to the beginnings of Restorationism.

The context is extremely important.

Whatever faults they made at the time (and we can debate to what these exactly were) there has been many benefits to the wider church that Restorationism has brought since then.

Ignoring these is IMHO narrow mindedness.

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, he [Dave Stroud] is NF, and indeed (pending the future thread...) if I was a betting man, I'd say he's likely to play a major role in post-TV NF if such a thing exists.

The reason NF church-planting has not been significantly documented outside NF may simply be that, despite how exciting and hyperactive it may appear from inside the movement, it actually has very little impact. I suspect there is indeed a very high failure rate, and that is not something that is likely to be talked about in this type of movement, even at the higher levels.

What does seem fairly incontrovertible is that hard-core restorationism gives you every reason to plant churches willy-nilly, since its one of its core assumptions is that all other forms of church are not just moribund (in need of renewal) but defunct - compared, in public (think Stoneleigh c.1999...), to the synagogue with respect to the NT church.

I feel a bit qualified to talk about church planting, as I have planted one by design (not a split!) and one pretty much against my will (that was in effect a split), but that's probably another thread.

[ 14. January 2012, 15:04: 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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.
This sounds as if you are saying only Restorationist churches suffered this failure in the entire history of the church?
For me, this line of thinking has emerged re: NewFrontiers in particular from previous discussions of, particularly, Terry Virgo's view of the flesh (some discussion here) combined with the architecture of restorationism.

It was Chris Stiles who first made this connection for me, but I'm not sure I can find where (there is some discussion here but I'm sure there was more somewhere else).

I argued there that while this may not be self-evident, Terry Virgo actually believes that christians can achieve sinless perfection, or more precisely, that the only area in which they retain sin is their "unredeemed" flesh, which he narrowly defines as the body.

(You may remember the trouble into which Gracie got when she asked him, in a pure spirit of theological inquiry, where this left sins of the intellect such as spiritual pride).

In short, the restorationist blueprint for church with a view to it becoming the pure spotless bride might just possibly work - if we were already pure and spotless. As it is, in the presence of impurity and spots, the absence of checks and balances means that the authority structure can become, well, unchecked and unbalanced.

So no, I'm sure restorationists are not the only ones guilty of this, but with hindsight this belief offers one plausible explanation of why they thought it would work.

--------------------
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      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I argued there that while this may not be self-evident, Terry Virgo actually believes that christians can achieve sinless perfection, or more precisely, that the only area in which they retain sin is their "unredeemed" flesh, which he narrowly defines as the body.
Like yourself I've read TV's books and heard his sermons and nowhere does he state that Christians can attain "sinless perfection".

This is far from his teaching.

TV has always preached that Grace sets a person free from sin, Christ has paid the price and the slate is wiped clean.

There is no mention that a person has to attain or work at it. That's is legalism in any language.

I know this is all "Penal Atonement' of which NF are fond of.

I have my questions but the above is very different to what you are suggesting.

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Like yourself I've read TV's books and heard his sermons and nowhere does he state that Christians can attain "sinless perfection".

I know he doesn't put it that way. However, I think that he does teach that christians are essentially (his word) sinless. The only bits of us liable to sin are not the essential bits. This includes "the flesh", which he defines in the second reference quoted below as the body, "the only part of us that has not yet been redeemed".

He believes that a christian's new nature is victorious over sin and that any sins that occur are either attributable to an (overcomeable) failure to live up to this reality or the result of factors outside our essential nature, i.e. "the world, the flesh and the devil".

The emphasis in the quotes below is mine.

quote:
We must line up our thinking correctly and eagerly adopt our new relationship with sin, namely, dead to it. (...) to call myself essentially a sinner actually dishonours the wonder of the gospel. We won the battle! [note the tense] We triumphed! It was a victory!... Sadly, [I sin] in this age of conflict with the world, the flesh and the devil
quote:
"If only I could stop that," you say. God replies "you can. Stop it!" "But I'm only human," you protest. "Well," says God, "if you're "only human" you must be born again. If you're born-again you're not "only human". You have the divine nature and can live victoriously from it."
The sources for that are here and here.

I have never heard Terry own to a sin that wasn't one relating to the "flesh".

--------------------
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      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Eutychus

I couldn't disagree more that TV thinks Christians can attain "sinless perfection". You'll find nowhere in his books, magazines or whatever that he suggests this.

The quotes you gave simply enforce that your thinking is incorrect and not vice versa.

Grace is given so that we can change not stay in our sinful state. That is what TV is saying.

Not we are no longer sinners and this is how we can maintain our perfection.

He uses the word 'flesh' (or is trying to) in the same manner Paul uses it in his letters.

Basically TV is saying the 'Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak'.

Whether you and I agree or not on these matters is another debate but TV has only ever preached what I consider 'penal atonement' which is in effect what most charismatic evangelicals follow.

Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I couldn't disagree more that TV thinks Christians can attain "sinless perfection".

You are misquoting me and I think misunderstanding me. This has nothing to do with Wesleyan type perfectionism. I contend that what he says amounts to teaching perfection, or "functional perfectionism" if you prefer, and that he believes christians are, in his sense of the word, essentially sinless.

quote:
Grace is given so that we can change not stay in our sinful state. That is what TV is saying.
That's all I used to think he was saying, too, and I still subscribe to that much, but if you read what he wrote carefully you'll see that he thinks that our sinful nature has been replaced by a new sinless one which can defeat sin, which remains extraneous to us.

He thinks that the only place sin can reside is in the flesh.

quote:
He uses the word 'flesh' (or is trying to) in the same manner Paul uses it in his letters.
Of course he claims he is using it as Paul does, but he very specifically makes it refer solely to our physical bodies, which in his way of thinking are now essentially foreign to our new identity. (The consensus on the Kerygmania thread, if you follow the link, was that this amounted to gnosticism).


Here's some more from the same place that last quote came from, commenting Romans 6:12, "do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies", emphasis mine again:

quote:
The body is the only part of us that has not yet been redeemed. This aspect of our salvation is still in the future... When you were a sinner in Adam, your old nature and your body were in agreement to sin. Sin expressed itself through your body. (...)
Now your old sinful nature has been replaced by a new righteous nature. But you still retain your body. Sin is looking for somewhere to reign in that body. Can you stop it? Yes. (...)
Whereas you were once totally at the mercy of your sinful desires, your new nature now gives you the power to deny your body permission to sin.(...)
The Christian who continues sinning is being foreign to his true nature. The one who questions whether God is able to subdue his own flesh is doubting the great God who can open seas, smash down walls and feed multitudes.

Virgo unequivocally separates our new "righteous" nature from "the flesh", which he identifies wholly and exclusively with "the body", says this is the only place in which sin can still reside, and separates this completely from our new, "essential" nature as Christians.

It's because of this line of thinking that Gracie asked him the question she did about sins of the intellect - one he was incapable of answering.

Basically TV is saying the 'Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak'.

Whether you and I agree or not on these matters is another debate but TV has only ever preached what I consider 'penal atonement' which is in effect what most charismatic evangelicals follow. [/QB][/QUOTE]

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry, the last two paragraphs above are Polly's not mine - I couldn't hit the edit button in time to delete them. For my part, I don't think this has anything to do directly with the doctrine of the atonement.

My text stops at "answering".

[ 14. January 2012, 17:14: 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
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I posted this as a reply to question on another thread. But it seems relevant.

Our church was planted in the late 90's to give context

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF and other new church streams have, traditionally, never been that good at involving or informing anyone else when they've gone a-church planting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anecdotal evidence I know but ....
When our church was planted our original leader made a point of getting to know local Xtian leaders - we had a Pente pastor, a Baptist pastor and a couple of Vicars preach for us within the first few years.

Before the church was planted contact was made with the local Evangelical Fellowship/Fraternal and several open meetings were held to explain what we were about.

One of our original trustees is an Anglo-Catholic priest with Ortho-phile tendencies (I had a great chat about the puritans with him once).



There is, however, a world of difference between moving into an area and asking local believers how we can support and enhance the witness already present, and saying we're coming because we have a mandate for this - thought you'd like to know we're on the way. It's this "You need us, but we don't need you" attitude which rankles people the most.

As Gamaliel point out this isn't necessarily an attitude exclusive to NF. But it is in our DNA. For good or ill, we don't plant churches in partnership.

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Polly, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there haven't been good aspects to the whole restorationist thing and that it hasn't had an impact on the wider Christian scene - or at least, the wider evangelical and evangelical charismatic scene specifically.

The picture is mixed though, just like with everything else. I have to keep reminding people that this is meant to be the 'magazine for Christian unrest'. I like to follow the theme. If this site was all about hagiography it'd soon lose its salt and its savour.

There are plenty of other boards that people can go onto if they want to engage in, 'yeah, right, God is like, just so amazing, like, dude ...'

Mercifully, this isn't one of them.

Venbede has commented that the debate on this thread (or was it a similar one?) has been fairly balanced and good natured. I think that's a testimony (as it were) to the kind of people who were often involved in restorationism - they were/are generally very good folk - the sort of people that most of us would be happy to have in our own churches.

It's certainly not a case of restorationism, BAD, everything else, GOOD.

To suggest that would be as dualistic and binary as the restorationist scene could often be itself.

It all depends on where you stand.

If you're an earnest young evangelical then the desire to have charismata and apparent 'apostolic authority' and so on is a strong pull. Once you're older (wiser?) and have been around the block a few times these things lose their allure. I really don't get the emphasis on charismata these days, I really don't see what it adds to the party for the most part. I'm not sure I'm any less 'effective' as a Christian, any less fulfilled or any less committed to my faith now than I was as an ardent young charismatic waving my arms around and speaking in tongues and all the rest of it. If anything, I've got a lot less cognitive dissonance to deal with.

There's something self-fulfilling about the whole charismatic ambit and restorationism shares that ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Wuntoo   Email Mark Wuntoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not sure if this has been specifically mentioned already. It was my experience that groups of people were responsible for planting new churches - they would literally move into an area after being 'released' (whatever that means!!) by the elders of a church. of course, they would hjave had prayer walks in the area beforehand!
Don't know if it still goes on.

--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.

Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Whether you and I agree or not on these matters is another debate but TV has only ever preached what I consider 'penal atonement' which is in effect what most charismatic evangelicals follow.

The question is not about his view of justification, but his view on santification.

That he takes a different view from the standard Reformed one is evident from the fact that he doesn't like the phrase 'simul justus et pecator' which Calvin, Luther and the Anglican Reformers were quite happy using.

That on it's own is just an observation. My own comment would be that while he is certainly clear in stating that we aren't santified by our own efforts, the effect is much the same as his view is somewhat over-realised (after all, we are already santified, live in the light of that!)

Essentially all restorationist movements throughout history have to tend in that direction - otherwise they'd be attempting to reform the church, rather than restore some mythical past.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Not sure if this has been specifically mentioned already. It was my experience that groups of people were responsible for planting new churches - they would literally move into an area after being 'released' (whatever that means!!) by the elders of a church. of course, they would hjave had prayer walks in the area beforehand!
Don't know if it still goes on.

I think the charismatic ''thing'' has moved a little forward now. So much less church planting. A lot of it was well meaning gobbledy gook say 20 or 30 years ago (with some genuine bits in there too IMHO).

The ''prayer walk'' was very much part of the modus operandi or credo as these church planters had been ''released'' they would physically walk the streets and pray.

In hindsight this could be very mechanistic. But there was also an incredible naivete about the whole thing.

So may of these ''released saints'' would find themselves too far out and my guess is many many of these plants perished pretty darned quickly here in the UK. There was an initial enthusiasm along with that sort of 'naughty' rush of adrenalin thing (many had just left a traditional denomination) so it was all very exciting and a bit adolescent at times too.

Of course, when people got ill and sick and some died or when evangelism fell on hard ground often these well meaning innocents would throw in the towel.....and yet.....I am not saying there wasn't the spark of the divine there because there was at times, but so often drowned out by a rigid authoritarianism which hated ''religion'' and ''tradition'' and sought comfort in the endless singing of worship songs.

It was setting itself up for a fall and the fall was that in the UK at least, this charismatic renewal of which restorationism was a part has had a very mixed history and legacy.

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
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208

 - Posted      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
on my ill fated attempt to start a thread about hermeneutics Gamaliel posted as follows -
quote:
I'd be interested in hearing what the smallest town is to have a New Frontiers church ... I'd guess they tend to concentrate on towns of about 15,000 - 20,000 upwards.

To be honest I've not got a clue (you could ask a NF ... oh hold on a second;)) - I'm not a stat-head. So any ideas?

Eutychus posted this earlier
quote:
At the time I was involved, I didn't really know anything about the corporate world, marketing or motivational speaking - but now I do, the similarities are obvious.

(I'm working on a project at the moment that involves transcribing the keynote speeches from Leaders' Convention (sic) of a major multinational. The similarity to a lot of restorationist preaching and argumentation is uncanny).

A lot of what I took to be "New Testament" in terms of style now looks like the most worldly part of restorationism to me.

I think that this particular issue runs more widely than restorationism. I also think it is a hard one to unravel in that the church should be "professional" in terms of being well run, having well sorted out child protection, good programs of teaching and discipleship, coherent evangelism, services that don't offend the ears or eyes etc etc

The franchise model is hard to get away from in any "stream" of church life whether it's Sea of Faith, Banner of Truth or whatever else. (Jesus did say that "it's by your bookshelves that all men shall know that you are my disciples" didn't he?).

Where is the line between competent and corporate? What are the tell tale signs of worldliness in this sense?

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Couldn't find a NF worldwide index by city but this is what they said on their US site:
quote:
Newfrontiers USA is planting churches in the 100 largest cities in the nation, and is now working in fifteen states in four main regions: the Midwest, the Northwest, the Northeast and the Southeast.
(Sigh. SoCal is so lost!)

Australia: churches in Brisbane, Sydney, and Perth. In Germany: churches mostly in the suburbs of big cities like Dresden, Cologne, and Hamberg. To be fair, the church has two village churches in Armenia. And it has one church of 100 to 200 people in Manila. They can handle small, it looks like. As long as the whole caboodle is BIG.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I think that this particular issue runs more widely than restorationism. I also think it is a hard one to unravel in that the church should be "professional" in terms of being well run, having well sorted out child protection, good programs of teaching and discipleship, coherent evangelism, services that don't offend the ears or eyes etc etc

(...)

Where is the line between competent and corporate? What are the tell tale signs of worldliness in this sense?

Well, I once heard "let's get to every nation before McDonald's does"!

A personal epiphany was when I heard the findings of the inquiry into the Iraq war and discovered that New Labour functioned exactly like New Frontiers (studied informality, first names, no minutes...).

Again, no, restorationism is by no means the only guilty party here, but I think it's particularly duplicitous when a movement's whole value system is based around being authentically New Testament. And I don't think the corporatism I encountered was an accident, either.

The issue of how to avoid a church looking like a corporation is a real, important and different challenge. I think that it's possible to be 'professional' in the sense of doing things properly without becoming corporate. I also think that staying small is an asset. New thread on this, anyone?

--------------------
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      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Couple of quick thoughts. @Twangist. On the competence/worldliness issue, Eutychus illustrated it as follows: "The charismatic (small c) leaders, the informal chitchat masking terrifying power plays behind the scenes. The levers the speakers press to get their senior execs committed, the appeal to the movement (sorry, firm's) history, the use of a simple, symbolic device (like NF's bow being drawn across the UK to reach Europe and beyond) as a 'prophetic vision' to embody the strategy... even the social action. It's all there."

This isn't about policies and procedures but cultural behavioural traits. This is learned behaviour from the secular workplace. Other examples include not admitting you've made mistakes unless they're trivial, and all too many instances of bullying that don't get addressed. I wonder how we would get on if we had an anti- bullying policy subject to external mediation?

So I'm with Eutychus on some of the specifics (I've seen it too). Having said that, Twangist, I endorse your general point that the church is bound to adopt some of the practices of the culture in which it lives. Scripture knows no sacred/secular divide. The divide is between what's holy and unholy. So I don't, for example, have a problem with simple symbolic devices per se. The emphasis on social action is, I think, more of a response to challenges from other churches than adopting a business worldview. I think this is the other way around - business being influenced by faith groups.

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools