|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Frontiers new apostolic spheres
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair enough by me, too.
[ 13. June 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once I agree with Mark Betts. Finally a post of his worth reading.
Mentioning NF in the same breath as groups like the JWs is pretty offensive (to both, actually).
I had better just add that I don't hate Jehovah's witnesses - I just think they are very wrong in their theology.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Whatever the reason NF have for not publishing a list of 'Apostles' within their ranks I do not agree that it is to do with having a false humility or any other 'sinister' reasoning. With having family still in NF churches they are pretty clear who has specific apostle oversight in their different regions. There's no confusion at the local church level.
If I google "list of bishops in the church of england", or change the CofE for any other denomination, I can pretty much find exactly that: a list of names, and their geographical reach.
I'm struggling to find any good reason why NF don't publish a list of those who have responsibility for overseeing their churches. There might be no confusion at the local level, but the phrase 'plausible deniability' springs irresistibly to mind.
When the shit hits the fan (as it inevitably does from time to time), who is to held accountable and responsible? I know who I go to, and importantly, so does everyone else.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Whatever the reason NF have for not publishing a list of 'Apostles' within their ranks I do not agree that it is to do with having a false humility or any other 'sinister' reasoning. With having family still in NF churches they are pretty clear who has specific apostle oversight in their different regions. There's no confusion at the local church level.
If I google "list of bishops in the church of england", or change the CofE for any other denomination, I can pretty much find exactly that: a list of names, and their geographical reach.
I'm struggling to find any good reason why NF don't publish a list of those who have responsibility for overseeing their churches. There might be no confusion at the local level, but the phrase 'plausible deniability' springs irresistibly to mind.
When the shit hits the fan (as it inevitably does from time to time), who is to held accountable and responsible? I know who I go to, and importantly, so does everyone else.
The Trustees as they are legally resposible and are named.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The Trustees as they are legally resposible and are named.
Yup, I think that's what Doc Tor meant by plausible deniability.
The people exercising "apostolic authority" have the power (for instance, to appoint elders who, in an ideal NF world, appoint the trustees) but on paper, absolutely none of the actual liability.
--------------------
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
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Would you by any chance know by what means the new apostles were recognised?
Hi Drew I only know what's in the mags etc - no insider knowledge I'm afraid.
Leaving aside tussles about the terminology etc it feels, from where I'm sitting, a bit like we have three big diocese(s?) in the UK with a number of suffregans on the ground with local churches (on the whole - I don't know about Ramaruius situ pace Gamaliel) carrying on as normal. I'm wondering whether an Archbishop will emerge or we will develop into seperate but relating juristicions.
Delightfully put. If you wanted to find out how the 'sphere leaders' were identified, how might this be done?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'd just like to say that anyone making enquiries in this direction as a current member of NF should be aware that, in my opinion, asking this kind of question comes with a health warning attached.
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The Trustees as they are legally resposible and are named.
Yup, I think that's what Doc Tor meant by plausible deniability.
The people exercising "apostolic authority" have the power (for instance, to appoint elders who, in an ideal NF world, appoint the trustees) but on paper, absolutely none of the actual liability.
There is a shadow director / trustee problem. If there are people who hold trustee-like powers then they are legally liable as are the weak trustees that let them do it. The High Court and Charity Commission could hold them responsible, if they could find them!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The accounts list:
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Martin Eaton CMG
Charles Glass
Robert Gwynn
Peter Jarvis
Michael Kent
Geoff Knott
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Ross Bull CA
David Devenish
David Stroud
Terry Virgo
APOSTOLIC CORE TEAMS
Executive directors together with
Colin Baron
Steven Blaber
David Holden
Andrew Martin
Guy Miller
Nigel Ring
Jeremy Simpkins
Steven Tibbert
Charity Commission NFI
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once I agree with Mark Betts. Finally a post of his worth reading.
Mentioning NF in the same breath as groups like the JWs is pretty offensive (to both, actually).
I had better just add that I don't hate Jehovah's witnesses - I just think they are very wrong in their theology.
Faith communities with radically different theologies overall may nevertheless have similarities over the way they are governed. Of course governance is itself an issue of theology, but it is not the whole thing.
Here is a link to various different styles of ecclesiastical polity. And there is an interesting link to the JW structure.
I think the JW structure is clearly top-down theocratic, as is NF. In neither case do I believe that the application of the structure really helps foster servant leadership in practice. Servant leadership is IMO orthodox (whether practised within hierarchical networks or at congregational level.) For me the issue is always the way "top down" works. Controlling, or servant.
That's what I was trying to say; the shorthand was way too short and I apologise for causing confusion. If critiquing styles of governance and seeing similarities thereby is offensive, I plead guilty to being offensive. I don't like top-down non-servant leadership. I don't think Jesus did.
YMMV.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If there are people who hold trustee-like powers then they are legally liable as are the weak trustees that let them do it. The High Court and Charity Commission could hold them responsible, if they could find them!
I think it would be hard to prove.
NF would just say that the church is informally linked to them and that they serve the church on a consultancy basis. There would be nothing on paper anywhere to prove the contrary.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's what I was trying to say; the shorthand was way too short and I apologise for causing confusion. If critiquing styles of governance and seeing similarities thereby is offensive, I plead guilty to being offensive. I don't like top-down non-servant leadership. I don't think Jesus did.
YMMV.
Mmm. I suspect that is really just a matter of perception, most churches are top-down in one way or another. Something being 'non-servant' depends on your understanding of the term servant and this whole 'Jesus wouldn't like this so nor do I' mode of discussion is belittling and silly.
And even where structures are not top down human nature wins out. Who was it that talked about replacing the Pope in Rome with one in every congregation?
I don't think there is so much unhealthy in the NF setup. That they're much too precious about it is certainly true, but at the end of the day it works, so stop knocking it.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Why has no-one used the phrase "suck it and see" yet?
Would you by any chance know by what means the new apostles were recognised?
Hi Drew I only know what's in the mags etc - no insider knowledge I'm afraid.
Leaving aside tussles about the terminology etc it feels, from where I'm sitting, a bit like we have three big diocese(s?) in the UK with a number of suffregans on the ground with local churches (on the whole - I don't know about Ramaruius situ pace Gamaliel) carrying on as normal. I'm wondering whether an Archbishop will emerge or we will develop into seperate but relating juristicions.
A fundamental difference between an NF 'sphere' and an Anglican or Catholic diosis is the number of churches in that geographical area. Nationally, the NF footprint is tiny. Outside of concentrations of churches in the South East, we have widely dispersed small churches, and a number of church plants, some of which haven't grown for four or more years. We should seriously think about closing some of these down and encouraging members to invest their energies in building the kingdom through other Christian communities who are reaching people with no faith.
Maybe it's time we applied the mantra "We can do more together than we can do apart" to the body of Christ more generally, rather than NF in particular.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't think there is so much unhealthy in the NF setup. That they're much too precious about it is certainly true, but at the end of the day it works, so stop knocking it.
Some of us have seen far too much damage done by churches/organizations that are run the NF is. There is far too much room for abuse and there have been other threads that have contained detailed layouts to go into those here.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Eutychus will be along shortly, no doubt. There are two things that save top down processes from abuse.
a) leadership humility
b) obeying Jesus 'not so among you' instruction to his disciples re leaders lording it over the led.
That's what servant leadership is about, according to the Jesus of the gospels. I'm sure it's found at local congregational level in many JW and NF congregations. That's not my point.
Both groups have been criticised for 'heavy shepherding'. There are human casualties out there. I've met some of them. It's not silly to point to the example and teaching of the Jesus of the gospels and observe 'your structures could do with some overt checks and balances. Maybe also some moves by existing leaders to modify the prevailing ethos.'
But I guess I've been guilty of shorthand again. None of this is rocket science but the principles are important in any consideration of the way the 'apostolic' dimension works in practice. There is an accountability to the governed to be considered.
[ 14. June 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Eutychus will be along shortly, no doubt. There are two things that save top down processes from abuse.
a) leadership humility
b) obeying Jesus 'not so among you' instruction to his disciples re leaders lording it over the led.
That's what servant leadership is about, according to the Jesus of the gospels. I'm sure it's found at local congregational level in many JW and NF congregations. That's not my point.
Both groups have been criticised for 'heavy shepherding'. There are human casualties out there. I've met some of them. It's not silly to point to the example and teaching of the Jesus of the gospels and observe 'your structures could do with some overt checks and balances. Maybe also some moves by existing leaders to modify the prevailing ethos.'
But I guess I've been guilty of shorthand again. None of this is rocket science but the principles are important in any consideration of the way the 'apostolic' dimension works in practice. There is an accountability to the governed to be considered.
The problems I've encountered have been in churches/organizations where top down leadership was started with the best of intentions, but without checks and balances human nature tends to override best intentions. In those cases the words sound right, but authority is used as bat on those who don't go along with the program. The institutions where I've seen checks and balances instituted top down leadership worked - but no one person was over all with unlimited authority and the people at the bottom were not shut out of decision making processes.
Coding
[ 14. June 2012, 09:04: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@ the long ranger
There are certainly some here who for legit reasons are very against NF simply because they had a horrid time or have known someone close to them that got burnt from NF. I wouldn't want to devalue their opinions and experiences and would recognise many of the problems NF have and the concerns individuals have expressed about these.
But I do think NF have a lot going for them. I would reject any definitive labels of NF being 'cultish' and having a spirit of heavy shepherding. That simply was not my experience nor is it the experience of my friends and family who continue to worship in NF churches.
I would also add that I have a huge amount of respect for many of the leaders within NF. I have been in various circles with a number of them and see them as Godly people. They are human though and I have also seen how they have hurt some through their direct and indirect actions. They'll have to give account to their creator for this just like each of us will have to for our own actions.
Lastly the set of challenges and problems NF have about their leadership structure, those that will arise are no greater or no worse than the challenges any other church family face. Anglicans are always faced with having a split communion over the (what seems) same issues, Baptists face challenges of their own future and so on.
My thoughts on NF are that they are a growing church family and have been for the last 35 years. I can't see them splintering and then fading away. Too much has been invested to let that happen. Besides there are still a lot of good Godly people within that want to see God's church grow.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Polly
What are the checks and balances in NF church polity?
Plus this from the (admittedly disputed) Wiki article.
quote:
Criticism
Some critics believe that Newfrontiers and other British restorationists are claiming too much when they speak of "restoring the church."
In 1986, sociologist and church historian Andrew Walker wrote of Newfrontiers that "churches are far more centralised and controlled than those of (...) mainline charismatic fellowships... The situation seems slightly analogous to Japanese business practices: they… export with great success, but import virtually nothing from anybody else".
In April 2009, the Journal of Beliefs and Values published an article reporting on a 2007 study which "set out to examine the psychological type profile of Lead Elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom and to compare this profile with the established profile of clergymen in the Church of England". One of the conclusions is as follows:
"There is a toughness about this style of leadership that is unlikely to be distracted by opposition. The disadvantage is that this style of leadership can leave some individuals hurt and marginalised for what is seen by the leadership as the overall benefit to the organisation"
These kinds of published criticism are more than just anecdotal observations.
As a matter of fact, I count myself fortunate to have as friends two folks in leadership within NF, both of whom I respect highly. Both congregations are doing well. I also suspect that both of them (and their wives) will prove to be good change agents within NF. I can, and do, talk to them about this stuff, but as a concerned friend, not as an adversarial critic.
It is possible to criticise structural weaknesses, and their potential dangers, without rancour and with some justification.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Barnabas62
I'd agree with your concerns. But the checks and balances are the same (or are assumed at NF ground level) as any other church family.The questions about if someone feels their Elder has wronged them and the regional .... (Apostle, Minister, Bishop etc) does neither see it or agrees with the individual occurs in any church family.
Other than that I couldn't say. We only have examples of when things go wrong and situations go horribly wrong and not when things have been resolved and some sort of reconciliation has been worked out.
The Walker article contains information I have read previously and yes it highlights concerns. In context NF had to learn to be robust because they go a lot of flack and had some nasty things said to them and about them from mainstream church whilst they tried to establish themselves as church. It doesn't excuse their bad behaviour but does give some insight to how internal problems arose.
I would say that NF have mellowed considerably since the 1980's but obviously the concerns expressed on this thread and others have not gone away.
The relationship you have with your NF friends is similar to the one I have with family and friends. It is one I think is more helpful to model rather than rejecting NF altogether. I continue to maintain that for all their faults and weaknesses that NF have a lot to offer and share with the wider church.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I was thinking about PCCs, church meetings, Baptist and other nonconformist constitutions, synods with laity representation.
Of course, all of them have their faults, all of them can be subverted by the powerful. I just think they can all give pause for thought to those tempted to get too big for their boots.
Also, I heard some interesting teaching from Bill Hybels about Willow Creek a couple of years ago. In which he openly admitted that their model of governance had been far too top down, often ineffective as a result, because they had not thought sufficiently about feedback and listening, and the dangers of the star chamber.
As a result, they have introduced consultative processes. Visions are not just cast as words from on high. There is a recognition that the foot-soldiers may well have more to say than has been realised. Feedback may actually improve the outworking - or may even lead to the vision being shelved as requiring more discerning work. Bill observed that things may take longer that way, but that may be no bad thing.
That's leadership humility in practice. It doesn't show weakness and lack of conviction. It shows meekness and a greater conviction about folks hearing from God.
I thought it was pretty good stuff, well worth emulating. Once a leadership starts listening again, and models the value of listening again, there's no telling what suppressed truths they might hear. The mission and the pastoral always overlap.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
They'll have to give account to their creator for this just like each of us will have to for our own actions.
Yes, yes they will.
However, in any secular or religious structure, "I answer only to God" (which is effectively what you've just said) is a tyrant's licence. They can use that licence for good or ill, and most likely both at the same time.
Leaders should be accountable to the people they lead, and able to be censured or removed by them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
They'll have to give account to their creator for this just like each of us will have to for our own actions.
Yes, yes they will.
However, in any secular or religious structure, "I answer only to God" (which is effectively what you've just said) is a tyrant's licence. They can use that licence for good or ill, and most likely both at the same time.
Leaders should be accountable to the people they lead, and able to be censured or removed by them.
Have no disagreement with what you say but you are reading into my statement something that is not there.
I was stating the obvious, acknowledging that we all have to give account. It's a frightening reality not an excuse to be accountable to others.
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is. I trust my experience within NF and I trust many friends and family who are still part of NF. Of course they have concerns but to suggest NF is a fundamentalist sect led by power mad individuals is far from actual reality despite what some may say on this forum.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is. I trust my experience within NF and I trust many friends and family who are still part of NF. Of course they have concerns but to suggest NF is a fundamentalist sect led by power mad individuals is far from actual reality despite what some may say on this forum.
So, given that, what procedures are in place within NF to protect both the organisation and the individual congregations against the (inevitable, because we're human) abuse of power by a leader or leaders?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is. I trust my experience within NF and I trust many friends and family who are still part of NF. Of course they have concerns but to suggest NF is a fundamentalist sect led by power mad individuals is far from actual reality despite what some may say on this forum.
So, given that, what procedures are in place within NF to protect both the organisation and the individual congregations against the (inevitable, because we're human) abuse of power by a leader or leaders?
Other than what I have already stated (which I acknowledge is in very general terms) i would not know. As far as I know there is no secret agreement made between the 'select' few that "I'll cover your back and you cover mine".
One of the few times I have seen NF Apostles take disciplinary action is when my church went through a split. It was nasty and it affected everyone involved. I was working for my church at the time and the people causing the tensions left eventually. The 'Apostle' was David Holden and he acted with grace, humility and so much self control. A lesser being would have decked a few individuals!!
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm not particularly picking on NF. My former church (Anglican) had very similar problems since the vicar declared us "out of communion" with the diocesan. It meant (and still means) there is no one he answers to, except God, and effectively runs the church as I suspect an NF apostle would.
This is not to say that everything that happens there is bad. This isn't so by any stretch: but questioning the decisions (and hence the authority) of the vicar is a no-no. And it's one of the reasons we left.
Relying on ad-hoc unwritten rules for oversight and discipline is fine until it goes horribly wrong. No one would put up with a statement like "we don't allow child abuse in this church, so it's fine to leave your kids with us" - you need proper, written protocols as to what happens in the worst instance, and a Child Protection Officer in charge of the whole thing.
What it looks like NF have done is stick up a sign saying "we don't allow spiritual abuse in this church, so it's fine to be a member here". It's (and this is coming from an Anglican) just too woolly.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is.
How consistent and systematic does it have to get before the structures and the rather easily manipulatable ecclesiology have to be looked at?
There's the case of Eutychus as well as the person he references, as well as a couple of more recent rumblings. What stops the same thing happening again? Nothing.
Institutionally they seem incapable of accepting their fallibility - even as individually it serves as an easy excuse.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I see no consistent abuse within NF or systematic heavy shepherding. This doesn't mean that it has not happened or further cases will arise worrying as it is.
How consistent and systematic does it have to get before the structures and the rather easily manipulatable ecclesiology have to be looked at?
There's the case of Eutychus as well as the person he references, as well as a couple of more recent rumblings. What stops the same thing happening again? Nothing.
Institutionally they seem incapable of accepting their fallibility - even as individually it serves as an easy excuse.
I know an equal amount of people who have left the Baptist Church for similar reasons to being mentioned on this thread. Does that mean the whole Baptist system is crooked?
The same goes for people I know who have left Anglican churches. Are they dodgy too?
There can't be one rule for one church family and another for others.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
That may be Polly, but you have to wonder why every thread about NF always deteriorates into this exact same argument; where as threads about the Baptist or Anglican church and their leadership, etc. don't? How many threads have we had on the newest bishop for any given church that doesn't wind up like this one?
Pretty much every discussion I've seen of NF on various on-line boards ends up this way... except for NF boards of course.
Despite your insistence, I'm convinced that NF is far more dysfunctional than most other denominations.
YMMV
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The difference is that in the denominations you mention there are recognised procedures for dealiing with disputes and at the worst, you can complain that those procedures weren't observed.
I think NF is structured in a fundamentally dishonest way inasmuch as there is a complete disconnect between the way one assumes differences might be handled ("assumed" because you really don't have any idea apart from touchy-feely statements about "family", "not a denomination" and "all friends together") and the way they not infrequently actually turn out.
[ETA: the "appointment" of these "new apostolic spheres" is just another example of the way things are done with no clear procedures, leaving people fill in the blanks with their own assumptions, which may be completely erroneous]
[ 14. June 2012, 19:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Irish_Lord99
I realise that I'll never change minds like yours. That's ok and I don't try. I would say your response is flawed simply because if a ton of folk from from NF church suddenly appeared on this forum and posted on these thread their opinions would outweigh those negative opinions.
I post on these threads simply to say that there are voices that speak of a more positive experience of NF but can also acknowledge the problems within NF. I moved in similar circles and similar times to Euytchus (sorry to use you as example again ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) but had a good time in NF despite my church going through a split.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The difference is that in the denominations you mention there are recognised procedures for dealiing with disputes and at the worst, you can complain that those procedures weren't observed.
I think NF is structured in a fundamentally dishonest way inasmuch as there is a complete disconnect between the way one assumes differences might be handled ("assumed" because you really don't have any idea apart from touchy-feely statements about "family", "not a denomination" and "all friends together") and the way they not infrequently actually turn out.
[ETA: the "appointment" of these "new apostolic spheres" is just another example of the way things are done with no clear procedures, leaving people fill in the blanks with their own assumptions, which may be completely erroneous]
With other denominations I agree they have a better theoretical and clearer procedure when things go wrong. In reality and practice this hugely differs depending on who you are dealing with. The examples I know where people have left due to similar things we have been discussing would testify to this.
i'd disagree with your comment "fundamentally flawed" but then again I think you know that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm sorry, let me put that another way.
In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).
Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.
As Polly will no doubt be quick to point out, it may be that godlier leaders will honour this moral commitment.
But there's no avoiding the fact that if they choose not to, there is absolutely nothing to stand in their way, and no way to object. It's at that point that the "delegated authority" aspect of the teaching (whereby authority flows down from the apostlic top and not at all up from the base) suddenly takes on a more sinister aspect.
Of course you can up and leave, but doing so is much much more of a wrench than an outsider might imagine.
[x-post]
[ 14. June 2012, 19:49: 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
Let me try yet again and see if there are any more cross-posts...
I think the heart of what is wrong with NF is its view and practice of authority (and that the unanswered questions about how this new team got appointed are symptomatic of that).
Let me use a personal example, just scroll past if you're fed up with my war stories.
When, in an ambush, I got accused publicly by my two co-elders* of being Jezabellic (backed by the apostolic delegate), my immediate reaction was to ask the church to vote on my leadership. (NF we might have been, but we had kept our bylaws which I had always seen as a "break glass box" option if things went wrong, and recognising the pastor's mandate by a 2/3 vote was in them).
The two elders had already announced they were leaving if I did not step down, so I didn't feel this was forcing a split. I felt it was as neutral a way as could be imagined (in the circumstances) of allowing the church to have a say in who should be leading it. In other words, I was making myself accountable to the people I was serving.
It wasn't until after I had made this suggestion (which was never implemented, basically due to the other side resorting to spiritual blackmail along the lines of "it's worldly to vote") that I realised that while there was a procedure in place for the congregation to remove me as the pastor (put there by me in our pre-NF days!) there was no procedure in place to remove the other two elders (post-NF appointees). As long as they had the blessing of the "apostle" who was "over them", all they had to do was sit tight.
They clearly didn't feel accountable to the church in the way I did. This was proved beyond doubt when a few months after I had left, they left in turn following further fallings-out. They and their "apostle" basically trashed the church and then left it for dead.
I don't think that view of authority is very common in the other groups Polly mentions.
==
*In the interests of proper disclosure both of these elders have apologised to me, over seven years on, and acknowledged what they did was wrong. One of them is no longer an NF elder. Other more senior figures in NF also apologised, but Terry has yet to do so, despite being fully aware of the events at the time and the subsequent measure of resolution and despite being approached by one of his lieutenants for this purpose.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).
That's no different from being in the Baptist Church where I am now. I think you are suggesting that in NF people are encouraged to do this almost blindly and no matter what but that was never my experience, nor my family who still worship within NF churches or many of my good friends.
NB I'd fully agree that they are being pedantic about insisting they are not a denomination. Of course they are!I use the phrase 'Church family' for any denomination because that's my preference.
quote:
Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.
No they don't. I didn't do any "waiving" nor have my family and friends and none of these have been asked to give unconditional trust.
This doesn't mean that I never considered any of the NF leaders as someone I wouldn't want to cross. I was wary of a few but I found most NF leaders and Apostles what I expected them to be like Biblically speaking.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I didn't do any "waiving" nor have my family and friends and none of these have been asked to give unconditional trust.
I'm not suggesting anybody asked them to do it or that anybody signed anything.
What I am arguing is that by accepting an absence of any due process, coupled with the subtle but real teaching on top-down authority (as played out in extreme fashion in my story), members are in effect granting their trust in this way.
If you doubt that, how do you account for one of the members of the current apostolic team complaining that if he asked Terry for explanations of NF finances, the latter's response was to act all hurt and say that the questioner didn't trust him? If you challenge those in control, you are accused of a lack of trust.
Of course there may be exceptions to this (I like to think I was one ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ), but it's in the culture and as I think I have demonstrated, it goes all the way to the top. Which, until there is any clear evidence to the contrary, is still Terry, "leader of NewFrontiers".
--------------------
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
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry, let me put that another way.
In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).
Members basically waive any entitlement to disagree or due process and instead grant their unconditional trust to their leaders, on the assumption (fostered by lots and lots and lots of talk about relationships) that any differences will be ironed out in a godly and relational manner.
]
Which sums up the issue most succinctly. I have had three very specific conversations with three (quite senior) NF leaders about ungodly behaviour in one of their leaders. This behaviour is characterised by bullying, intimidation, and open unforgiveness. Despite agreeing with my assessment of the behaviour, I was advised that unless the relevant regional leader saw fit to act there was nothing to be done. The church, interestingly enough, took a similar view. Some went further and suggested that if the regional leader took no action, then surely nothing could be wrong. I somehow doubt the same view would be taken about managers in their workplaces.
Now Ramarius may tell us that these behaviours are more common in older leaders, and a more enlightened band, from a new generation, have a more sensible way of conducting themselves. But I wonder if the deeper underlying issue is that, having set itself up (over against other churches) as the true model of NT Christianity, NF finds it difficult to address poor behaviour in its leaders. Would this so undermine their credibility as to render the position of some of them untenable.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Barnabas. Might I ask, when you discuss these matters with your NF friends, how do they respond? Do they give you some assurance that such matters are, however quitely, addressed, or leave you with the impression that nothing much can be done?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sorry, but I don't feel free to say any more without presuming on friendships which matter to me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
In NF one is systematically encouraged to trust leaders on the basis that they are godly men and that dissent and lack of respect for authority are cancers that will eat away at a restored church (this is why NF is supposed to be so much better than denominations).
That's no different from being in the Baptist Church where I am now. I think you are suggesting that in NF people are encouraged to do this almost blindly and no matter what but that was never my experience, nor my family who still worship within NF churches or many of my good friends.
NB I'd fully agree that they are being pedantic about insisting they are not a denomination. Of course they are!I use the phrase 'Church family' for any denomination because that's my preference.
But is there the equivalent of a board of elders that individual members can appeal to in the event there is abuse by local leaders or apostles? I've seen both sides of this and where there was a board of elders that members could appeal to the few bad apples were found out and given the opportunity of repentance or were stripped of their leadership. I saw a national leader stripped of his leadership when systematic abuse was proven after investigation. I've also seen what can happen when either there is no appeal for members outside the local leadership or decisions come down to just one person. The resulting damage to those who were a part of that ministry was phenomenal. The viewpoint that dissent from leadership is rebellion and sin can lead to abuse as human nature is prone that way - even when those people are good Christian folk.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Also, from what I understand of Baptist governance (at least, my brother the Baptist minister was kvetching about it), the congregation hires and fires the staff, including the minister. All important decisions can be put to a vote of the membership. They can, and do, strike down things they don't like.
It means that things tend to take a long time to do, but as a check on the power of the leader, it's quite impressive.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It means that things tend to take a long time to do, but as a check on the power of the leader, it's quite impressive.
Yes, I was going to reply to the post by Polly pointing out that the vast majority of these Apostles probably never had to face a Business Meeting (in the Baptist sense)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
That's right DocTor. It doesn't mean you don't necessarily have power plays and the like but at least the basic principle is there. The difference with NF appears to be that they don't even have any principles of how to deal with issues, beyond the authority of the 'apostles'.
NF are not alone in these sort of issues. My in-laws go to an independent church where there is no accountability of the leadership to the congregation. All matters of spiritual direction, employment, remuneration etc are by the leadership. They don't disclose how much the ministers get paid. The senior pastor hired a new minister without consulting with anyone! This is probably worse than what happens in NF, and it all stinks....but....the church does really good work. I couldn't stand that sort of place, but the people going don't seem to care.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suppose life is so much more convenient when you don't have to bother about divergent views. Just posted something very like this in a thread in DH, and I've said it before, but folks tend to make compassionate allowance for the elderly repeating themselves. So here goes.
The Spirit of God is the author of conviction and correction; human beings tend to do rather less well. On this issue, as on many others, I'm reminded of a bit of wisdom from the late Frank Herbert in the "Dune" series.
"If you seek to put away from you those who wish to tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections". Something like that anyway, can't find the source pro tem.
And that's a sword which cuts both ways. For both "governors" and the "governed".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
quote:
Mmm. I suspect that is really just a matter of perception, most churches are top-down in one way or another. Something being 'non-servant' depends on your understanding of the term servant and this whole 'Jesus wouldn't like this so nor do I' mode of discussion is belittling and silly.
And even where structures are not top down human nature wins out. Who was it that talked about replacing the Pope in Rome with one in every congregation?
I don't think there is so much unhealthy in the NF setup. That they're much too precious about it is certainly true, but at the end of the day it works, so stop knocking it.
Well if following what Jesus said is silly we might as well all pack up and switch off the lights !
A few points
1) Most church structures are 'wrong' in so much that they aren't what St Paul was talking about. He was talking to HOUSE churches of around 20 people. NF are NOT restoring the NT church - they are at best restoring elements of the 4th century church as are most denominations. The difference with NF is that the whole basis of Restorationalism is that they are the only correct God ordained way of doing things and that's why you can't criticize it. They are historically wrong in this belief but attempt to use scripture to justify authoritarianism. When scripture is put in its correct historical context of house churches, its clear that they have no justification for their hierarchy at all. When do we see one apostle put in charge of the church by Jesus - WE DON'T ! I wonder why !
2) They allow no other opinions other than the approved party line which is pretty tight. How about I come and preach a sermon on why tithing is legalistic rubbish. Anyone in NF want to invite me ? Are you free to do so or are you looking over your shoulder.
3)NF are anything but clear about their finances. How much does Terry Virgo earn ? I can look up the heads of other denominations. Why not NF ? I am not accusing him of anything other than nativity. I actually think he is a very nice chap. However history is full of nice sincere Christians who get it wrong and do damage inadvertently to others.
4)Jesus told his followers not to lord it over each other like the gentiles. How exactly isn't NF lording over the flock when they preach tithing, demand almost unquestioning allegiance to leaders, and have no formal system for holding leaders to account. This is lording it over the flock plain and simple. It is SPIRITUAL ABUSE and relies on a warped interpretation of scripture to maintain the hold they have over members.
There are plenty of people hurt by this denomination some of whom are no longer Christians. NF should stop being in total denial of what abuse is going on. They should open themselves up to proper open debate instead of constant double speak and self denial to keep the hierarchy happy.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Opps I'm not accusing Terry Virgo of nativity. I'm sure he is a great guy but he's not that good !
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Two things...
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
When do we see one apostle put in charge of the church by Jesus - WE DON'T ! I wonder why !
What about St Peter?quote:
...It is SPIRITUAL ABUSE and relies on a warped interpretation of scripture to maintain the hold they have over members.
Not being funny, but if it were true, why the smiley?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
On Niteowl's point about boards of elders. Yes, NF churches have them. In the case I mentioned above, some churches members approached the elders to query the leader's behaviour. They were told a) he's the church leader (as if that somehow self-authenticated his decisions) and b) they 'had to trust their leaders.'
This is, I think, precisely the sort of evidence that supports Eutychus's observations.
What we need to remember here is that the behaviours described by Eutychus, Irish Lord, Aminian and myself all took place in different NF churches in different parts of this country and other countries. This suggests to me the issue is more cultural than individual.
Having said that I must say with Polly and Barnabas that there are many fine believers in NF. It is very much to Twangist's credit, for example, that he participates in these discussions.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It all depends on perspective and from wherever your viewpoint or standpoint happens to be. Seen from a vantage point among the evangelical Anglicans or the Baptists, NFI can be seen as something of a mixed blessing - and the sad thing is that SOME Anglicans and Baptists actually WANT something like NFI.
There's an element of NFI-envy around in some charismatic circles in the older churches and denominations just as there is (or used to be) and element of Vineyard-envy).
It looks good from the outside ...
Conversely, from the standpoint of some of the independent charismatic groups and particularly those with a word-faith or more US-influenced ethos, NFI looks like the very model of sanity and decorum. I've come across quite a few people from very, very dysfunctional charismatic backgrounds who found NFI as, quite literally, a godsend as their own outfits went belly-up ...
I'm ambivalent about NFI myself. I've got a lot of time for some of the individuals there but you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to be involved with anything remotely like it these days.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Sorry about the smiley, got put in the wrong place ! Should have check the post better.
St Peter - was he really head of the church ? James made the decisions when the dispute with Paul took place. Paul and Peter had a row. I don't think it can be said that one was in overall charge in the way Terry Virgo is in charge of NF.
So how much does Terry Virgo earn ? Simple enough question for those who are in NF to answer. If its all friends together why the silence ?
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
So how much does Terry Virgo earn ? Simple enough question for those who are in NF to answer. If its all friends together why the silence ?
There is some (rather dated) digging here. This does not tell the whole story since it does not include ministry-related gifts, travel, hospitality and so on.
Like I say there, my main gripe about this is less the amount than the fact that (at least at that time, I haven't bothered to look since) quote:
it would seem that a casual reading of NewFrontiers' accounts does not enable the reader to establish the level of earnings of its leader
.
[ 15. June 2012, 19:48: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
