|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
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.
You could well be right there. But I'm sure corporations aren't doing it without a smidgen of self-interest, which has to make you wonder about the people whose examples they're following... ("we need your prison ministry", remember?).
But to qualify, as Gamaliel says, good folks and good hearts were not absent either. I was there for Simon Pettit's "Remember the poor" message at Brighton (in fact I think I was interpreting for the French crew), was affected by it, also had the opportunity to visit Simon and Lindsey in Cape Town, and generally felt he really meant it. But of course he's gone now. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Ah - Eutychus, I cross posted ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
@Mark Wuntoo - on Groundlevel. The network is just that - a network - rather than the more formalised relationships of say Newfrontiers. Its relationship to restorationism is that Stuart Bell is on the round table of new church leaders including people from NF, Pioneer, Ichthus and others. The relationship with denominations is positively supportive - you'll find Stuart is one of the people who endorses Fresh Expressions training .
Make of that what you will ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
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.
You could well be right there. But I'm sure corporations aren't doing it without a smidgen of self-interest, which has to make you wonder about the people whose examples they're following... ("we need your prison ministry", remember?).
I'd missed the quote on prison ministry. The point on self interest is well made, and your quote evidence of it. I also agree that there is some genuine altruism in the mix, and whilst I never met Simon Pettit he was by all accounts the epitome of the honourable man. I think the reality is that there is a mixture to all our motives. Wisdom comes in being aware of this and trying to identify the ingredients.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
CSo 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.
Well, I think the traffic does flow both ways to an extent and has done for ages. Though the influence of business on Evangelicals (good old American Pragmatism) goes back a long ways - read Sinclair Lewis' "Elmer Gantry", the latter part of the book could have been written about a megachurch today.
Both church and business practices are likely to reflect the values of wider culture. Importing a brand new practice into the church is ripe for importing in a bunch of unspoken assumptions though, and the church should at least partly be about challenging the assumptions of culture.
Perhaps there is a Niebuhrian strand worth exploring here.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Both church and business practices are likely to reflect the values of wider culture. Importing a brand new practice into the church is ripe for importing in a bunch of unspoken assumptions though, and the church should at least partly be about challenging the assumptions of culture.
Amen to this! Around a year ago, I read Courageous Leadership by Bill Hybels (senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, a mega-church near Chicago) and his championing of the wholesale import of business practices into church life really didn't sit comfortably with me (there's more at my blog).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris Stiles -
There was rather more to it than simply the attempt to restore a 'mythical past.' I can't speak for New Frontiers, but for a while in Harvestime/Covenant Ministries there was this odd idea that we weren't simply going to 'restore' NT power and practice but go BEYOND it.
When we read our New Testaments we saw problems and struggles, people doing naughty things they shouldn't have been doing with close relatives (1 Corinthians), people falling out with each other etc etc.
Surely, the argument then ran, this could not have been God's intention. The NT generation had somehow blown it. God was waiting for a generation that would bring things back on track, that would not only be able to perform the miracles we read about in Acts but would sort out all issues that caused divisions and arguments and produce churches so full of life, purity and vitality that Christ would have no option but to return to claim his wonderful Bride ...
Given that this was so over-realised (and dare I say over-e .....) it's hardly surprising that when it came to issues like individual sanctification then restorationists were prone to overdo things there too ... hence Terry Virgo's dissatisfaction with the traditional Reformed 'take' on these things.
It just wasn't good enough. It just wasn't grand enough. It just wasn't over-cooked enough.
I think that once we appreciate just how over-realised virtually everything the restorationists were about actually was then there ain't a great deal else to say about it.
Ok, it could be the case that the elastic band had to be stretched too far in one direction in order to spring back and assume a shape that was recognisable, but slightly more elongated, than its original form ... but I'm not so sure.
It's certainly the case that the restorationists did grow for a while and did bring previously unchurched people into the Kingdom, although in nowhere near as large numbers as was actually claimed. Most of the growth was transfer growth but there were genuine converts in and amongst.
As Saul says, there was a divine spark there, and I certainly wouldn't write it all off ... but I would observe that we'd probably find the divine spark everywhere and anywhere - at a Trappist retreat, in the Quaker silence, in an RC High Mass or an Orthodox Liturgy, at a Methodist Covenant service and many other places beside.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It just wasn't good enough. It just wasn't grand enough. It just wasn't over-cooked enough.
...
It's certainly the case that the restorationists did grow for a while and did bring previously unchurched people into the Kingdom, although in nowhere near as large numbers as was actually claimed. Most of the growth was transfer growth but there were genuine converts in and amongst.
Though I wonder to what extent the latter was linked to the former, especially given the preponderance of younger people in most of these groups. It's easy to get fired up temporarily by telling a glory story.
When I've visited mega-churches, the experience has been very similar to going for tech interviews at the height of the dot-com boom.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, and boom and bust tend to go hand in hand or follow quickly on one another ...
An RC priest of my acquaintance once observed that the shelf-life of religious orders - the Dominicans, Franciscans etc - could generally be numbered in hundreds of years, that of denominations (in the Protestant sense) between about 250 and 500 years, say and that of the 'new churches' (or 'garage churches' as he teasingly called them) in about a generation - if not the actual life-span of their main leader.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
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,
May I ask, why The New Church as opposed to a new church??
It does rather suggest that your church is the only new church - and even that it has replaced the old ones.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
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,
May I ask, why The New Church as opposed to a new church??
It does rather suggest that your church is the only new church - and even that it has replaced the old ones.
Naughty, naughty!
You mean like THE Methodist Church, THE Roman Catholic Church, THE Anglican Church?
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
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,
May I ask, why The New Church as opposed to a new church??
It does rather suggest that your church is the only new church - and even that it has replaced the old ones.
Naughty, naughty!
You mean like THE Methodist Church, THE Roman Catholic Church, THE Anglican Church?
Well there is only one Methodist, one Anglican and one RC church - they can therefore say 'The'.
But for one faith group to call itself 'The New Church' rather suggests there is only one new church and that it replaces the 'old' - especially when its belief are different to the old church and are said to be of direct divine origin..
[ 16. January 2012, 08:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hmm. One might similarly argue that there is only one army through which salvation may be procured...
In the case of Freddy's denomination, this is no different from buildings or cities known as "New" that are now hundreds of years old. And as Freddy clarified, his church is not an example of restorationism in practice.
At least I think we have dispelled any confusion between restorationist "new churches" (which are already looking old themselves) and The New Church™.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Hmm. One might similarly argue that there is only one army through which salvation may be procured...
No, we mightn't. we might call ourselves an army but we are part of the church that already exists. we are not a new Church
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
*sigh* I think you are nit-picking with regard to names.
Freddy came on here to commment that to him, "New Church" referred to his own denomination, not what UK house churches rebranded themselves as (I was trying to make a distinction in the thread title from US meanings of the term. My attempt at clarification merely resulted in more confusion for him. Wry grins may ensue).
Your objection is that his denomination's name, "The New Church" is exclusivist, in a way that "The Anglican Church" isn't, because "New Church" could be seen as encompassing the whole of the Church and thus dismissing everybody else.
You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...), except that by now this "New Church" is so old that nobody is going to make that mistake, and the same criticism could be applied to your own organisation, which is called The Salvation Army: by your own reasoning, this could by taken to imply that salvation is available only through this army.
Either way, this thread is not about Swedenborgianism, TSA, or why some denomination names are silly, especially old ones viewed with contemporary eyes... This thread is about UK "new church" restorationism theology and what might become of it. Thank you for your cooperation
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
But it might be relevant in that these 'new' or different titles seem to spring from a common attitude: We have something the rest of you don't.'
As I mentioned a while back, there was a 'restorationist' flavour to The Salvation Army in the nineteenth century (that admittedly didn't last long) but the title of our movement wasn't intended to reflect our belioef that God was using us to bring salvation to the world - that's another story, and the title was actually an accident!.
Anyway, my point is this - there is an attitude in The Restoration movement and in any group that has 'restorationist' tendencies, that suggests that
1. They have received a new message from God/Christ that 'the others' have not been given.
2. They have rediscovered a belief / a fervour / a blessing that the 'old' group used to have but has no longer.
3. And most significantly, they believe that God himself is no longer in those old expressions, having left them and having poured all his grace and power into the new expression.
This was said to me by a Salvation Army officer who, having resigned his commission, said 'The Salvation Army is no longer in God's plan for the church.'
This attitude was further illustrated when a friend, training to be a salvation Army officer and posted temporarily in Wales, returned to his casr to find a flyer placed under the windscreen wiper by a local Restorationist church, entitled: '10 reasons Why The Salvation Army is Not of God.'
Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.
But here, we are talking about a stricter definition of restorationism under consideration as it existed in the UK in the 70s onwards (see, for instance, here).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you've got a point, Mudfrog.
That said, I don't think that even the most ardent restorationists of my acquaintance (and I was on the scene for 18 years) would have argued that there was insufficient grace left over for the Salvation Army or anyone else. Heck, not even the RCs and the Orthodox who claim the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM title would assert that there is insufficient grace left over for any other grouping, church (small 'c') or 'ecclesial body' (to use an RC expression ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ).
Mind you, there might be an unintentional irony in the resigning Captain's assertion that 'the Salvation Army was no longer part of God's plan for his Church' insofar as the Salvation Army was never part of The Church(TM) in the first place in RC or Orthodox terms!
But I know what you mean, and I know what you're getting at. There were a number of former Salvationists in the strand of restorationism that I was involved with. Generally, the Salvation Army was regarded with a great deal of respect - I certainly never came across anyone who'd dream of producing a flyer suggesting that they were defunct and should close down. That said, there was an expectation that the legacy/'anointing' of the Salvation Army would be subsumed into the restorationist ambit. The Sally Army, like the Brethren and various 'enthusiastic' and revivalist groupings and movements from the past, were seen as antecedents and trail-blazers and that we were somehow picking up from where they left off ... although why we weren't as engaged in soup-kitchens, rescue missions and so on as the Army was remained a mystery to me ...
That said, we did do soup-runs and so on, but never on the kind of scale that the Salvation Army did.
It was just another instance of the rhetoric running further than the reality ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.
But here, we are talking about a stricter definition of restorationism under consideration as it existed in the UK in the 70s onwards (see, for instance, here).
Really??
well maybe I'm trying to answer your seemingly broader, original question:
quote:
What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?
Please note, I said UK 70s-90s new church kind. How much clearer can I make it?
As I've already pointed out, I can't dictate where this debate goes, but I'd like if possible to keep it on that track.
Besides, I responded to your earlier post on this thread, here - a reply you haven't responded to. I qualified salvationism as a form of revivalism and distinct from restoratonism precisely in that it didn't make quote:
any claim to superior interpretation of the NT or recovery of 'NT principles'
I don't think you've really grasped that distinction.
My argument all through this thread has been that restorationism, as defined in the post referenced in my previous post and the post you've quoted, is a different animal to renewal and revivalism because of the nature of its claims with regard to governmental authority in the church.
My accompanying claim is that if you take away this distinctive facet (the existence of which I think has been amply demonstrated), "restorationism" becomes indistinguishable from "renewal" and as such ceases to have a raison d'être as a movement at all, because the whole rationale for its authority structure evaporates.
Either way, it's no reason to take pot-shots at Swedenborgianism, which is where you came back in.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
But restorationism isn't merely about the governmental authority in a church, and where it is, it's part of that rediscovering of what the other churches have lost. In the Restoration Movement, it's apostolic authority that has been recovered, alongside the spiritual vitality and Holy Spirit dynamism that, again, is 'missing' from the 'unrestored' churches.
This is indeed entirely different from renewal or revivalism within a denomination. Within every church there has been a time of renewal - even the Salvation Army was basically Methodism on a wave of renewal that suddenly clothed itself in uniforms! The 'old' doctrines were retained and in fact TSA never saw itself as a new church in the first century of its existence (in fact there are some Salvationists who would still reject the word. At the very height of its revivalist fervour, the Army even sought to join with the Church of England - hardly restorationism, but certainly revivalism!
restorationism is that quality that seeks to assume for itself a life, an identity, a set of truths that are new or rediscovered and that are denied to the other groups. Renewed and revived churches don't necessarily do this, but Restorationist groups see themselves as chosen or elite. They see themselves as having the hand of God where others are irretrievably left behind in their former glories. Even revived and renewed churches hold out to the possibility of the unrevived churches getting revived by the grace of God. Restoration churches and groups deny this can happen.
I was very interested in the Restoration Movement as a 20 year old and collected the entire series of articles 'Church Adrift' which told the story of how God raised men and movements up, passing them by and leaving them whenever a further new movement or man was raised up.
This is the thinking behind the comment, 'The Salvation Army is no longer in God's plan for the church.' It was in his plan. It had been used by God but was now discarded as far as the task of restoring the church was concerned. Even the charismatic renewal had been left behind as the Spirit of God blew in new directions in order to restore the church prior to the second coming.
You asked about the possibility of restorationism living in living in 'another part of the ecclesiosphere.'
Well yes, it does. In all those groups that claim separation from the catholic Church globally, and the ecumenical scene locally. Where one group or other claims unique truth or particular blessing or revelation, then THAT is restorationism in another part of the ecclesiosphere - whether it manifests itself in authority structures, or new doctrines or ecstatic experiences.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
In the Restoration Movement, it's apostolic authority that has been recovered, alongside the spiritual vitality and Holy Spirit dynamism that, again, is 'missing' from the 'unrestored' churches.
Is this your opinion or Restorationism's. I'm not clear. I suspect the latter but stand by for trouble if it is the former.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Mudfrog quote:
In the Restoration Movement, it's apostolic authority that has been recovered, alongside the spiritual vitality and Holy Spirit dynamism that, again, is 'missing' from the 'unrestored' churches.
Is this your opinion or Restorationism's. I'm not clear. I suspect the latter but stand by for trouble if it is the former.
Oh indeed, that's what I perceive they believe about themselves! I don't agree with it at all!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Chris Stiles -
There was rather more to it than simply the attempt to restore a 'mythical past.' I can't speak for New Frontiers, but for a while in Harvestime/Covenant Ministries there was this odd idea that we weren't simply going to 'restore' NT power and practice but go BEYOND it.
When we read our New Testaments we saw problems and struggles, people doing naughty things they shouldn't have been doing with close relatives (1 Corinthians), people falling out with each other etc etc.
Surely, the argument then ran, this could not have been God's intention. The NT generation had somehow blown it. God was waiting for a generation that would bring things back on track, that would not only be able to perform the miracles we read about in Acts but would sort out all issues that caused divisions and arguments and produce churches so full of life, purity and vitality that Christ would have no option but to return to claim his wonderful Bride ...
Given that this was so over-realised (and dare I say over-e .....) it's hardly surprising that when it came to issues like individual sanctification then restorationists were prone to overdo things there too ... hence Terry Virgo's dissatisfaction with the traditional Reformed 'take' on these things.
It just wasn't good enough. It just wasn't grand enough. It just wasn't over-cooked enough.
I think that once we appreciate just how over-realised virtually everything the restorationists were about actually was then there ain't a great deal else to say about it.
Ok, it could be the case that the elastic band had to be stretched too far in one direction in order to spring back and assume a shape that was recognisable, but slightly more elongated, than its original form ... but I'm not so sure.
It's certainly the case that the restorationists did grow for a while and did bring previously unchurched people into the Kingdom, although in nowhere near as large numbers as was actually claimed. Most of the growth was transfer growth but there were genuine converts in and amongst.
As Saul says, there was a divine spark there, and I certainly wouldn't write it all off ... but I would observe that we'd probably find the divine spark everywhere and anywhere - at a Trappist retreat, in the Quaker silence, in an RC High Mass or an Orthodox Liturgy, at a Methodist Covenant service and many other places beside.
I remember talking to a Pastor (evangelical) about his experience with a large well know evangelical conference and he sighed and said it was basically like the wider world (power, big names, platforms etc etc). He sighed again and the conversation drifted off. Several years later that very same pastor left his wife , refused to get back with her and stormed away after metaphorically throwing his toys out the pram.
What we do, as Christians is sort of well, like non Christians. The Restorationists were supremely human and.....utterly fallen. They were motivated by venality in some large dollops, but they would never have admitted it!!!! The big houses and the power trips, oh so against the vows of poverty taken by some.
They were larger than life characters. When i was on the edges of it (in Liverpool in the early 1980s) there was a guy in his 50s who spoke so powerfully; he'd married a woman 30 years his junior who he'd met as a missionary. He really did have something to say and there was real power in what he said. God did ''blow my socks off'' as it were, at the time, and I really didn't know what had hit me then as a 19 year old.
But the utter posturing and sheer craziness of restorationism; it's arrogance had to be seen to be believed. I reaffirm the divine spark but most of it was not pointing heavenward and at best it challenged the status quo at that time and served as a a wake up call to a declining British church. Sadly the numerical decline has generally continued.
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...)
Which it does to this communicant member of same, which is why I try to use the phrase "English Anglican" to refer to myself here.
It's not necessarily arrogance to claim your body is the true or most authentic one going.
After all, if you didn't think it was the best one to join, you wouldn't join it, would you?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...)
Which it does to this communicant member of same, which is why I try to use the phrase "English Anglican" to refer to myself here.
It's not necessarily arrogance to claim your body is the true or most authentic one going.
After all, if you didn't think it was the best one to join, you wouldn't join it, would you?
...reminds me of a conversation I had with a Uni lecturer. I was in a free church, he was high Anglican. He asked me if I thought my 'way was the best way.' An an idealistic 20 something I said I thought it was. "Good" he replied "That's the way it should be". In other words let's both think we're the best. How delightfully eirenic ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 16. January 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
An RC priest of my acquaintance once observed that the shelf-life of religious orders - the Dominicans, Franciscans etc - could generally be numbered in hundreds of years
I think he's unthinkingly being slightly biased in his own favour. We're only conscious of the medieval orders that have survived. They have survived for several hundred years. The others haven't, but we've forgotten about them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you've broadly got the thrust of the thing right, Mudfrog, but as someone who was involved with it for 18 years I think that you've put it more starkly than many of us on the inside would have done ...
Confusing, I know, but there it is ...
On an individual level I maintained a very eirenic stance towards the wider Christian scene, and I wasn't alone in that respect. I probably went further than most, though, as I would hob-nob with RCs and Orthodox (towards the end of my time within restorationism) as well as with evangelicals of every conceivable stripe.
Even David Matthew, the author of 'Church Adrift' would now admit to a moderate stance these days - and even at the time he wrote it he was on good terms with some RC priests of his acquaintance and with various evangelicals across the piece.
I'm still in touch with him occasionally online and whilst he still holds to a recognisably restorationist agenda he'd by no means claim that God has 'finished' with anything that didn't fit that template.
I agree with Eutychus that once you take the apostolic thing away (and what about 'prophets' while we're at it? What kind of role did they play?) then restorationism becomes just another form of charismatic revivalism. And I'd also agree that The Salvation Army, despite some rhetoric that approached the restorationist at times, was never really restorationist in the sense we're talking about here. As Mudfrog says, it would never have sought to become an arm of the CofE at one point otherwise!
I would take issue with the good Major's contention that restorationism would consider the truths, identity, values etc that it claimed to have rediscovered were 'denied to the other groups.' They would say, rather, that these either weren't emphasised or recognised enough. Some of the restorationists were more than willing to consider past heroes - such as Wesley, Whitefield, Hudson Taylor, Watchman Nee etc - as 'apostles' and some would even, at a stretch, have been prepared to apply that to other, contemporary figures who wouldn't have claimed the role/position for themselves.
But as Saul says, it was all very messy and despite some very powerful things I can remember (and still wouldn't write off entirely) for the most part, when I look back, I look back with some considerable bemusement. Although I think I can safely say that some of the whackier things we got up to weren't any more or any less whacky than anything you'd find across the renewal movement as a whole. Andrew Walker made that observation and I'd agree with him.
Sure, the whole thing was flawed but we didn't get into wierd and whacky 'deliverance' sessions or odd views on things like 'inner-healing' and so on.
I'd also take issue with you on your assertion that restorationism claimed separation 'from the catholic Church globally'(which you are asserting here in Protestant terms, of course). No restorationist I ever came across would have claimed separation from the 'catholic' Church (as understood as the sum total of believers worldwide) any more than The Salvation Army would. The Salvation Army claims to be part of the Church Universal in the same way that the restorationists did/still do.
Other than that, you're broadly on the money.
--------------------
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
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.
I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).
[ 16. January 2012, 16:58: 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
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think we can all find examples of that kind of tendency, Eutychus, but I would agree that it tends to be more pronounced among restorationists than others - and it's part and parcel of the ecclesiology.
With the odd caveat, I go along with the broad thrust of Mudfrog's argument as it's axiomatic that the more moderate you are or the looser you hold to a restorationist ecclesiology the more likely you are to abandon it.
I've always been struck by how many former restorationists end up in post-church highly perfectionist groups (and there are plenty lurking in cyberspace) which don't really ally themselves to anyone but seem to huddle among themselves denouncing each and every church you can think of for worldliness and compromise.
At one time there were unofficial, ex-restorationist groups all over the place, often meeting for informal prayer meetings in one another's houses and spending their time talking about what might have been and where it all went wrong.
Some found their way back into the various denominations - there are plenty of ex-restorationists among the Baptists, for instance. The late Baptist renewalist Douglas McBain identified the Baptists as an obvious 're-entry point' for disaffected restorationists.
That there are still restorationists around at all suggests to me that they have either:
- Learned to modify/re-evaluate to a certain extent.
- Become entrenched and closed their minds even further.
But that might be a bit stark. There are probably shades between the two positions.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How do you know he wasn't patronising you, Ramarius?
...because he patronised me on a stack of other issues (not least that he taught history and I was srudying theology) and I got to know the difference.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.
I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).
Indeed. I remember TV, at a certain large gathering for prayer, telling us about a conversation he had had with the same Rev G. "I told him he was doing a great job" (some grunts of approval). "He told me he thought we were doing a great job too" (some hoots of derisive laughter. As if a mere Anglican could venture an opinion on New Frontiers. I was not impressed.....).
Quite why TV was pally with Rev G is another story for another thread.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I could suggest a few reasons, Ramarius ...
- He genuinely liked and respected Gumbel.
- He had an eye to the main chance and wanted to nobble/adopt or adapt the Alpha franchise for his own chain of outlets.
A combination of the two ...
Actually, and seriously, I don't see why it should be odd for people with different ecclesiologies to be pals. It happens all the time.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I could suggest a few reasons, Ramarius ...
- He genuinely liked and respected Gumbel.
- He had an eye to the main chance and wanted to nobble/adopt or adapt the Alpha franchise for his own chain of outlets.
A combination of the two ...
All true Gamaliel. And there was something else. But that's for another time.
Actually, and seriously, I don't see why it should be odd for people with different ecclesiologies to be pals. It happens all the time.
[Code]
[ 17. January 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).
and then there's the infamous "We don't believe in unregenerate Bishops baptising unregenerate babies" line - straight out of the New Frontiers magazine.
This was right after they had invited Tim Keller over to speak to their leaders in London. It also demonstrates a certain level of (unintentional) Donatism.
[ 16. January 2012, 21:45: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.
I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).
Most churches that put on an Alpha, especially if run by professional clergy, hope Alpha converts will come to their church - it's human nature I guess.
The restorationist gig is all mainly about the primacy or singularity of their particular gig. This means that there is an inbuilt superiority and this is (IMHO) why the whole rotten edifice has by and large crumbled.
A lot of it appeared to be about strong willed (often working class and uneducated) men who were so far from a servant heart that they shared more with US hard sell guru techniques. Similar to Gamaliel it would be churlish to suggest that there was no divine aspect to these pyramid style churches. But they had an inbuilt self destruct mechanism within and I thank God they've declined and pretty much dissapeared from the scene.
Saul
[ 17. January 2012, 06:06: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@ Ramarius
You wrote: 'All true Gamaliel. And there was something else. But that's for another time.'
I'm intrigued. Don't tell me ... they were having an affair? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
We've all got our preferences and foibles, but I submit that it shows how narrow the whole thing is if it can only pick up on the Gumboid aspects of Anglicanism when there is rather a lot more to the Anglican tradition than that. Sure, one doesn't expect them to invite someone from Mirfield onto the platform nor Don Cupitt to address one of their conventions, but even so ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Eutychus
For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.
Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.
I have reflected upon this time quite a lot and although being amongst it was fun and it encouraged passion for the faith and stirred hearts it was ultimately unhelpful.
Some peoples faith became built on this hope and then when it didn't happen became disillusioned.
Another issue for me was that in Restorationism (a feature in the 70's and 80's particularly) life issues were black and white. I think this one was true in most evangelical circles and not distinctive to Restorationism though.
In hindsight the new church movement wasn't that new, stylistically yes, but its theology and grasp of life was no different from church attitudes of old.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
I’ve been following this thread with interest, and (like venbede) with appreciation of the civil manner of the discussion.
One point that struck me as a distinctive feature of restorationism was the belief, noted by Gamaliel near the top of this page: quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
and produce churches so full of life, purity and vitality that Christ would have no option but to return to claim his wonderful Bride ...
This belief sets off all the warning lights on my ‘Dodgy theology detector’ (TM). If it doesn’t take the thread off on too much of a tangent, where did this belief come from? The idea seems pretty dubious to me that mere humans could influence the sovereign decision of God the Father on the timing of Jesus’s return to earth in manifest glory.
If this belief was a major motivation for the creation of the restorationist movement, then the entire movement seems to me to have been built on sand. If, as has been discussed, the restorationist movement continues in one form or another, does this belief continue also, in spite of evidence that it, er, shall we say, ‘awaits validation’?
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
A.Pilgrim: I can't find that reference but it sounds typical new church rhetoric to me.
Many of us here will remember the outrageous Gerald Coates! (And enjoyed listening to (being entertained by) him on occasions.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.
Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.
Though this was a characteristic - in various forms - of all charismatic movements from the Charismatic Renewal onwards. The idea was always that revival was just around the corner.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@ Ramarius
You wrote: 'All true Gamaliel. And there was something else. But that's for another time.'
I'm intrigued. Don't tell me ... they were having an affair?
..
Youz a na'ty na'ty Welshman Gamaliel!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A.Pilgrim
Well, the proof-text for that one was 1 Peter 3:12
'as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.'
This was taken to mean that our actions hear on earth could hasten the return of Christ.
We tied it in with Ephesians 4:13 which we held to be a future event that we could also hasten, 'until we all reach unity in the faith ... attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.'
We also put a lot of stress on Revelation 21:2 which speaks of the new Jerusalem 'prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.'
So we could get ourselves ready by sufficient sanctity and power to hasten the return of Christ - although we wouldn't have dared put a date on it. Some of the leading guys, at least for a time, used to claim that it would happen in their life-times but they weren't dogmatic about that.
What it all displays, of course, is an over-realised eschatology and an over-realised approach in everything you might care to mention.
@Polly - yes, in terms of the style and delivery it could be new and fresh ... but looking back, not as innovative as we liked to claim. I remember reading Arthur Wallis's 'The Radical Christian' with some disappointment as I wanted it to set forth some kind of radical, Anabaptist style social agenda. I was a bit of a leftie and into things like 'Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger' ... but was disappointed to find less emphasis on this and more on what I even thought of at the time as a somewhat quirky take on what the NT church was supposed to have been like and how we were somehow going to restore its faith and power and go beyond its achievements.
How Wallis imagined the first-century church in Corinth or Ephesus was a kind of Bradford (or Clarendon) church in togas.
There was a social dimension and Bryn and the boys were quite outspoken about apartheid etc on their visits to South Africa when many Pentecostals and charismatics were either quiescent or supportive of the regime. However, as I've said either upthread or elsewhere, the social aspect was only surprising in the context of pietistic Pentecostalism and Brethrenism. The same things were being said and preached work by week in Methodist, Baptist and URC churches without anyone batting an eye-lid.
Context is all.
Restorationism had its own internal logic that sort of made sense on its own terms. But then, so does Calvinism and any other 'ism' we could mention.
@ Polly too ... the revivalism thing kicked in more fully in the 1990s and some of the older school restorationists later felt that this had taken the edge of things, subsumed the movement into wider revivalist charismaticdom and removing the 'prophetic edge.'
In the end, the revivalist imperative proved stronger (I would suggest) than the restorationist one. I would agree that its effects were transitory.
Interestingly, whereas Watchman Nee was seen as an inspirational figure and an antecedent to some extent of a restorationist approach, for some reason everyone over looked his very telling account of a similar revivalist season in the Shanghai of the 1930s (or thereabouts).
I can look up the direct quote if you like, but Nee said something along the lines that much had actually been 'lost' rather than gained during this period of revivalist excitement.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the proof-text for that one was 1 Peter 3:12
'as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.'
The other verse used in this context was Matthew 24:14, the idea being that the renewal would then kickstart a new wave of missionary work, and then the end would come.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.
Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.
Though this was a characteristic - in various forms - of all charismatic movements from the Charismatic Renewal onwards. The idea was always that revival was just around the corner.
I think that once again a distinction needs to be drawn between revivalism and restorationism, although there is some overlap.
Revivalism has space for 'awakening' of the church to take place within previously moribund churches (followed by an influx of lots of new christians). Hard-core restorationism thinks that this 'awakening' can take place only inasmuch as the ecclesiology of the movement is recognised by others. The church at large must be built on the foundations of the (restorationist) apostles and prophets for revival to happen.
What much of revivalism and restorationism do have in common is the 19th century adventist heritage - adventist in the sense of a whole raft of evangelical-ish movements with a sense of the end being nigh.
Someone also asked about the "one true church" syndrome. This draws on biblical ideas such as the "faithful remnant", the two "good" churches out of the seven in Revelation, and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
@Gamaliel and Chris Styles: Thanks for the explanation. Just for the record, the reference in Peter is 2Peter3:12 not 1Peter. Seems a lot of emphasis on one word in one verse.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...
Some of the leading guys, at least for a time, used to claim that it would happen in their life-times but they weren't dogmatic about that.
What it all displays, of course, is an over-realised eschatology and an over-realised approach in everything you might care to mention.
...
Yes, I guess that if the leaders of a movement over-egg their over-realised eggschatology, and it fails to happen, then they’re liable to be left with egg on their faces...
(OK, I’ll get my coat.....)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant 2 Peter ...
I don't think that verse was taken in isolation, in fairness there were attempts to build a cohesive restorationist theology rather than relying on isolated proof-texts but it always struck me as odd that no 'recognised' theologian with a wider remit had picked up on any of this. We had a downer on academic theologians of course - and even when Andrew Walker came around doing his research there were rumblings that because this guy was Russian Orthodox he 'might not even be born again.'
When we heard he had a Pentecostal background this sort of made it ok, although we couldn't understand why he'd ended up where he did.
Some of us did wonder why serious evangelical theologians respected across the spectrum hadn't picked up on the restorationist thing. I'm not really sure what we thought ... that they'd come round to it in time? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Looking back, I think that some of us were hoping for the best and waiting to see how it'd all pan out. The more committedly restorationist you were you either ended up in denial or else ditching the whole thing entirely.
And yes, we all ended up with egg on our faces.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Though this was a characteristic - in various forms - of all charismatic movements from the Charismatic Renewal onwards. The idea was always that revival was just around the corner.
I think that once again a distinction needs to be drawn between revivalism and restorationism, although there is some overlap.
There is definitely a distinction to be drawn; though I think there might be something to learn by considering restorationism as an extension of the Charismatic renewal (which itself tapped into strains of revivalism). When looked at this way, Restorationism was an attempt to bring about revival through institutional sanctification in the same way as there had been earlier attempts with the Charismatic world to bring about revival via personal sanctification (the various Shepherding controversies).
quote:
What much of revivalism and restorationism do have in common is the 19th century adventist heritage - adventist in the sense of a whole raft of evangelical-ish movements with a sense of the end being nigh.
Is that particularly a characteristic of Restorationism? I find end times speculations in Restorationist circles today to be less pronounced than what was going on in the church in the 80s heydey of dispensationalism, and perhaps the end times speculation that does occur is a residual of that 80s current rather than being a characteristic of the movement per se.
[ 18. January 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd say that the adventist impulse was a contributory factor insofar as it triggered a reaction against pre-millenialism and dispensationalism.
To that extent, the restorationists were returning to earlier Puritan emphases - Iain Murray's 'The Puritan Hope' was a favourite text in both Harvestime/Covenant Ministries and in New Frontiers.
Many of the Puritans had a positive eschatology believing in the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom in the present age ... as it were.
The restorationists shared that, but as was their wont, then went and 'over-egged' it (sorry Eutychus). Whilst the adventist/pre-millenialist emphases weren't there the IMPETUS towards such things, if you like, definitely remained.
Hence the emphasis on our 'hastening' the end by our efforts and mission and the sense that you've picked up on, Chris, of corporate as well as individual sanctification.
I think the corporate sense and the connection of that with a particular ecclesiology (at least the restorationists HAD an ecclesiology, most evangelicals don't seem to) does lend a distinctiveness to restorationist groups over and against purely revivalist ones.
The restoration/revival thing was always in tension. The reason often given for why historical revivals had fizzled out was because the churches they'd taken place in and amongst weren't sufficiently 'restored.' Once we'd reached a point where we'd sufficiently restored ourselves, then we could expect to see revival ad infinitum.
That's how the argument went.
This explains why there was some initial reluctance/resistance (very short-lived) towards the Toronto Blessing in some restorationist circles - but by then the rising tide of revivalism was sufficiently high to swamp and overcome strict restorationist principles.
If I were to draw a graph to represent restorationism in the 1990s with one line representing restorationist emphasis and the other representing revivalism, the revivalism line would overtake the restorationist one by the middle of the decade and keep rising until the end. The restorationist one would start relatively high and dip towards the middle of the decade and be barely on the graph towards the end. A graph from the 1980s would show the opposite tendency.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hence the emphasis on our 'hastening' the end by our efforts and mission and the sense that you've picked up on, Chris, of corporate as well as individual sanctification.
Actually I was thinking of a much more simplistic progression.
The charismatic renewal came along, and revival didn't follow, so various groups fingered personal holiness as the cause and movements that focused on this kicked off. Eventually these either morphed into something else, or ended in acrimony. A few years later, another wave starts up, this time focused on institutional sanctification.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
