|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 'New church' Restorationism - then and now
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Trouble is, Polly, when we give 'space' for these things we also open ourselves up to spiritual deception, what the Russians call 'prelest' and all sorts of card-board cut-out 'spiritual gifts' rather than the genuine article.
I'm not convinced that God the Holy Spirit is at all honoured by the 'shecameonahonda, giveimabacardi' form of 'tongues' nor the 'rainbows and waterfalls' form of so-called 'prophecy'.
I write as a card-carrying charismatic from back in the day but whilst I'm certainly no cessationist I'm increasingly of the view that 99.9% of these things, as currently conducted, don't really add a great deal to our life together as church - or at least, nowhere near as much as is claimed.
I'm really struggling to appreciate what they bring to the party that either isn't there already or couldn't be implied or derived from the preaching, the hymnody or liturgies and the eucharist/Lord's supper/communion ...
I agree with you Gamaliel.
In fact I was listening to a Pastor recently and he was a charismatic; he was wisely stating that the Toronto Blessing was quite a mixed bag of things and in some cases it was downright untrue. Prophecies were libelous and hurtful with much potential to cause lasting harm.
Another Pastor I know was saying that there do not seem verifiable miracles in the UK as there appear to be in other parts of the world.
Both of these Pastors are out and out charismatics and certainly not cessationist - so I would say that it's not so much God isn't powerful, more that maybe we're looking in the wrong place?
There seems to be an understanding that the old restorationist pentecostal ''showmanship'' just won't cut it these days; it has to be real or not at all.
Now I am not saying that we all give up and go home, rather that we should perhaps see the miracles in areas we've not considered before and look beyond the booming strident sound amplifiers and cheesy platform 'shows' so beloved of traditional charismatic outfits.
It's a plea to move on really. Restorationism is dead - long live the revolution!
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Gamalieil and Saul
I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting and if I have I apologise.
But it seems as if you are saying the church should not permit the exercising of such gifts because they have been abused in the past and even today?
If this is so, then not only is it in my opinion really bad theology it is not logical either.
We do not say that the church should ban preaching because some have abused the God given gifts, either in the past or today. There would be an outcry if anyone on these boards suggested we ban traditional hymns because there are a few dodgy ones out there.
The answer for bad theology is not no theology but better theology.
Scripture is clear that all gifts are to be used for the edification of the body of Christ.
Nowhere does it say we are free to restrict what the Holy Spirit wants to do in the church.
I too have seen people abuse the gifts God has given the Church including the gifts of prophecy and tongues.
But I have also seen and been blessed from people exercising these gifts.
The gifts are not the problem but those who practice them.
Churches need to be better in training people to use them correctly and with proper discernment (recognising again the role of the Holy Spirit in this), the ability to learn when to speak and when to be silent.
I would also suggest that the stat you quote of 99.9% is grossly inaccurate with no foundation other than a personable opinion but then again that's my opinion.
Once again I'm sorry if I have read into what you said incorrectly but this sort of argument is very weak.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamalieil and Saul
I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting and if I have I apologise.
But it seems as if you are saying the church should not permit the exercising of such gifts because they have been abused in the past and even today?
If this is so, then not only is it in my opinion really bad theology it is not logical either.
We do not say that the church should ban preaching because some have abused the God given gifts, either in the past or today. There would be an outcry if anyone on these boards suggested we ban traditional hymns because there are a few dodgy ones out there.
The answer for bad theology is not no theology but better theology.
Scripture is clear that all gifts are to be used for the edification of the body of Christ.
Nowhere does it say we are free to restrict what the Holy Spirit wants to do in the church.
I too have seen people abuse the gifts God has given the Church including the gifts of prophecy and tongues.
But I have also seen and been blessed from people exercising these gifts.
The gifts are not the problem but those who practice them.
Churches need to be better in training people to use them correctly and with proper discernment (recognising again the role of the Holy Spirit in this), the ability to learn when to speak and when to be silent.
I would also suggest that the stat you quote of 99.9% is grossly inaccurate with no foundation other than a personable opinion but then again that's my opinion.
Once again I'm sorry if I have read into what you said incorrectly but this sort of argument is very weak.
I can only recount my own position Polly.
I am a Christian who is an evangelical. What I am saying is this:
Much of the so called charismatic renewal wasn't so much a renewal but a recession to bad thinking and quick fix knee jerk type solutions , this was the sort of tosh that often was put out e.g. :
''God is doing a new thing, God is renewing the churches, healing, liberating and giving words of knowledge.Come and be released, come and hear xxxxxxxxxxx and plunge into the new thing God is doing.Prophetic transformations will happen, prisoners released, high praises will storm the heavenlies''.
You get my drift here?
This sort of stuff was common place in the 80s and 90s and to be frank a lot of it was utter tosh. I believe God actually seems to work in the most unexpected places; he isn't a ''tame'' God and doesn't work to some Pentecostal-Charismatic ritualistic formula.
In fact, IMHO, he works in quieter places than the razzamatazz of the high tech pulpit with all it's state of the art presentations, mixing decks, 'new old' songs of worship, and all the mind numbing accoutrements of modern churchianity.
No Polly, I can't speak for Gamaliel, but as far as I am concerned, God is all powerful and I would love to see more Christians in our land, more Bible reading and prayer, more worship. But don't give me the fake, don't give me the big pulpit extravaganza, the boastful accounts of people healed (when they're not) , the large houses of leaders, the big flash cars of leaders. This is all gloss and flash - spiritual bling of the worst kind. It is dung.
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
I hope that clarifies.
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Saul the Apostle posted:
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
Saul - you make the assumption that I haven't been "round the block" and I haven't "seen a lot of abuse" as well as charismatic churches do not serve up a bias to the poor......
I think a person can have the equal amount of experience you suggest and still hold onto an opposite opinion.
I absolutely agree that charismatic churches did rather poorly in all these areas, certainly from their birth until late 1990's.
However (and I can only speak from my experience and research I did for my dissertation 2 yrs ago) NF has take huge strides in getting some sort of balance.
Personally I think every church should strive to get a balance of the areas you quote and give space for all gifts from God to be exercised.
For me its not a either/or scenario but a and/both.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've been around the scene as much as you have, Polly, so I am speaking from the position of one who was an active participant in this stuff.
I think there's fuel for another thread here, on the role of 'spiritual gifts'. I'll start that.
No, I'm not saying that these things should be banned or restricted, but I think there's an underlying assumption that you're operating under here, and that is that these purported gifts are all the genuine article and it's only the way that they are used and abused that is the problem.
I would suggest that very few of the incidences we find today ARE the genuine article. The whole problem is that we're treating card-board cut-out (not even counterfeit) gifts as though they were the real thing.
I would submit that lively and growing churches owe their numerical success to other factors - the informal and participatory atmosphere, the music, the sense of community, vision and purpose etc - the 'spiritual gifts' element follows as a corollary of all that but isn't really the main issue. I'll elaborate on this in a new thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that very few of the incidences we find today ARE the genuine article.
From my experience around the block and through the denominations, few churches are God-oriented, so it's pick your poison. Whether charismatic or liturgical, it's all about power and dollars and show base on unprovable abstract theology with God as the theme.
Church, the basic model or concept of church, is badly broken or it would be attracting people because God is utterly attractive. Churches are failing to reveal God. But churches sit around self-justifying and blaming those who leave, claiming the church is doing everything right when the facts prove the opposite. Look at the statistics year to year, decade to decade.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Saul the Apostle posted:
Polly - I am not accusing you of this by the way. But Gamaliel and I have been round the block. I have seen a lot of church abuse. That as you rightly point out is not an excuse for non church life - but what we serve up must be authentic, with a bias to the poor, the failures, the weak and the sinful.
Saul - you make the assumption that I haven't been "round the block" and I haven't "seen a lot of abuse" as well as charismatic churches do not serve up a bias to the poor......
I think a person can have the equal amount of experience you suggest and still hold onto an opposite opinion.
I absolutely agree that charismatic churches did rather poorly in all these areas, certainly from their birth until late 1990's.
However (and I can only speak from my experience and research I did for my dissertation 2 yrs ago) NF has take huge strides in getting some sort of balance.
Personally I think every church should strive to get a balance of the areas you quote and give space for all gifts from God to be exercised.
For me its not a either/or scenario but a and/both.
No Polly, you've got it wrong on almost all counts here.
Maybe I should have spelled it out? Certain charismatic churches in the 80s,90s and noughties were abysmal. They were top down dictatorships of self appointed ayatollahs. The leaders were fleecing the flock and rode in large brand new cars and had houses that were $million dollar mansions, here in the UK. Sadly restorationist leaders were replete with such characters. Such churches did have a bias, a bias to the self serving and upwardly mobile.
Was this true for all charismatic groups? Of course not, but as we've clearly pointed out, there was a really large percentage of opportunity for charismatic church leaders to be deceitful - a number were and were caught with hands in till and trousers down etc etc etc.
Were there some brilliant examples of servant hearted leaders, who had a bias to the poor? Yes there were; in fact I would say there is now a good maturity in many charismatic groupings in the UK.
I mentioned The Clarendon trust (NFI) not because they were corrupt, but simply that there charity returns could have been more transparent IMHO. I have never had anything to do with Virgo and his outfits so I am speaking as a detached observer. For example to have a salaries bill of over £1 million per annum and NOT to specify who gets what would annoy me if I was a member of that church. If a Senior Pastor is getting £150,000 per year , let's at least thave some transparency about the figures! Again I find it hard to understand why 3 Trustees were pulling in a salary each per year of over £40,000, but be that as it is.
So Polly, I was simplay saying that Gamaliel and I had been round the block (I know this as I have had e mail contact with Gamaliel over a period of months by the way and not about this thread FYI.) It wasn't a plea for no gifts or no charismatic churches, not at all; in fact our society could benefits from Christian churches loving their communities and being salt and light.
Saul
[ 02. February 2012, 16:26: 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
To be fair, Saul, many of the restorationist leaders acquired their wealth by shrewd property deals rather than by fleecing their flocks - although the point holds that they were generally better paid than their counterparts in the more mainstream denominations.
That said, I can cite examples of non-restorationist independent evangelical church leaders in flag-ship churches who were/are paid tidy sums.
As for the sexual indiscretions, Walker and others have noticed that these were no more prevalent among restorationists than anyone else. I can think of a few high profile instances and one or two other lesser profile ones - but I suspect that any comparison between restorationists and other church groupings in terms of the dropping of trousers wouldn't reveal that restorationist leaders were any more prone to this than anyone else.
To be fair, the level of scandal was pretty low.
The bigger issue, to my mind, is the extent to which the whole thing is based on a chimera - the restoration of the NT church and, going beyond that, to a point where the Church is functioning at some kind of 'higher' and 'purer' level than it ever did in NT times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, Saul, many of the restorationist leaders acquired their wealth by shrewd property deals rather than by fleecing their flocks - although the point holds that they were generally better paid than their counterparts in the more mainstream denominations.
That said, I can cite examples of non-restorationist independent evangelical church leaders in flag-ship churches who were/are paid tidy sums.
As for the sexual indiscretions, Walker and others have noticed that these were no more prevalent among restorationists than anyone else. I can think of a few high profile instances and one or two other lesser profile ones - but I suspect that any comparison between restorationists and other church groupings in terms of the dropping of trousers wouldn't reveal that restorationist leaders were any more prone to this than anyone else.
To be fair, the level of scandal was pretty low.
The bigger issue, to my mind, is the extent to which the whole thing is based on a chimera - the restoration of the NT church and, going beyond that, to a point where the Church is functioning at some kind of 'higher' and 'purer' level than it ever did in NT times.
Gamaliel,
point well made, I think you're probably right here.
But wouldn't it be good if a large church, like Christ the King in Brighton, could be more open? I am not accusing them of malpractices by the way, just to state what their Pastors' salaries actually are.
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
I do think British folk ARE gullible and the 9 o clock service was proof in point. But that was an Anglican set up and I expect that the desire by senior clergy was to see real growth and they didn't realise that there were some very not kosher things going on there until it was blasted all over the national media.
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
Being slightly familiar with the megachurch 'scene', the dynamics of it are interesting to me.
Contextually, it's often not the case that people are literally in it for the money - at least not in the sense that a lot of people on this side of the pond would assume. Of course, at some level they are 'in it for the money' - but based on an unconscious assumption of the business values of country.
Basically, a large number of the charismatic outfits in the US are run as family businesses in all but name, with very much the same dynamics.
I don't see the same thing over here - at least not so far.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think the vast excesses and charlatanism are to be seen in the USA where fleecing the flock has been elevated to a sort of ''skill set''.
Being slightly familiar with the megachurch 'scene', the dynamics of it are interesting to me.
Contextually, it's often not the case that people are literally in it for the money - at least not in the sense that a lot of people on this side of the pond would assume. Of course, at some level they are 'in it for the money' - but based on an unconscious assumption of the business values of country.
Basically, a large number of the charismatic outfits in the US are run as family businesses in all but name, with very much the same dynamics.
I don't see the same thing over here - at least not so far.
Chris
I am interested in what you say about US dynastic religious cults and mega churches.
Is this a worthy separate new topic do you think?
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think it is. It's a different phenomenon to the restorationist one, although some former restorationist outfits - Destiny in Glasgow and Abundant Life in Bradford - are going down the US mega-church style route.
--------------------
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 Saul the Apostle:
I am interested in what you say about US dynastic religious cults and mega churches.
Is this a worthy separate new topic do you think?
I don't have much to say, so it probably merits a sidenote only:
Suffice to say that if you are in a culture which stresses heavily the agency of the individual in creating businesses, and then create a situation where pastors think their peers are in the local chamber of commerce, pretty soon what is acceptable in terms of living standards drastically goes up. Most of the people involved won't think they are taking advantage of the situation, they'll merely assume that they deserve it.
But Gamaliel is right; there isn't much crossover - except insofar as certain restorationist outfits have adopted the megachurch ethos (which for the NFI is a few clusters of churches around the south on england).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I am just finding out a little about NewFrontiers (which is a Restorationist group of churches.)
I have a relative who is a full-time pastor at one of these churches. He is the same age as me, but since I discussed my more catholic leanings he won't speak to me at all. I am wondering if he sees me as a "jezebel spirit" or something.
Since my catholic phase began, I have (thankfully) been received into the Orthodox church, maybe he sees my Church as the very thing he needs to bring to ruin, in order to plant proper "new testament" churches to replace the "Mother of Harlots" which is the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Of course, I don't know if this is what he thinks, but I do get the feeling that these churches are all about leadership - everyone else is just pew fodder (even though they are very comfortable pews/seats).
It also seems that, although they are seeing many new faces, these people often don't stick around for long - and they leave, sometimes to other fellowships, sometimes they disappear into oblivion, sometimes they are cast out by the leadership team!
Now Terry Virgo has left the helm, suddenly leaders become "Apostles" (how?) - I'm wondering if my impression of the churches is correct, and whether they are now on the decline, or whether they are expecting a sudden new revival...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Wow, Mark, you've dredged this up from a while back. I notice you're a newbie. Welcome aboard!
I chuckled when I read you'd converted to Orthodoxy. I know a former NFI chap (who used to post here) who has done the same.
I also chuckled when you observed that those styles of church are all 'leadership' focussed. They would accuse the Orthodox of being the same, the focus being on the guy in the beard at the front and so on ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
My own view is that NFI isn't as 'bad' as other manifestations of the restorationist tendency - but the mileage varies from place to place. As for what happens next, have to wait and see.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I also chuckled when you observed that those styles of church are all 'leadership' focussed. They would accuse the Orthodox of being the same, the focus being on the guy in the beard at the front and so on ...
Yes, I'm sure this is true - the difference is that criticisms of Orthodoxy come from people outside the Church, who have never been Orthodox. I think the criticisms of NF are more likely to come from current or former members - ie. from inside the church.
btw. I never meant to imply that NF was all bad, but it seems to have a few problems, notably with it's claims to authority - hence the observations about it's leadership.
Now (changing the subject completely) let me finish your song...
*sings* "For His mercies aye endure. Ever faithful, ever sure." ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Copied from "Released from church" thread (Purgatory):
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This is NFI we're talking about - they don't care about sacraments, they just use blackcurrent juice and biscuits!
I posted this a little while back, but in fact I was wrong! I thought NewFrontiers held to the "just a memorial" view of Holy Communion, but this is not true. In fact, they do believe in the Real Presence, in much the same way as Prayer Book Anglicans (at least those who hold to the 39 articles).
More HERE (click on pictures for a series of four papers by Andy Johnston)
I was particularly interested, because I recorded and later watched Pentecost Praise (BBC1) last Sunday, which was from the Church of Christ the King in Brighton (founding church of NewFrontiers), where they held communion - and I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might be seem to convey.
--------------------
"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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought NewFrontiers held to the "just a memorial" view of Holy Communion, but this is not true. In fact, they do believe in the Real Presence, in much the same way as Prayer Book Anglicans (at least those who hold to the 39 articles).
Have I misunderstood what you mean by 'Real Presence', Mark? I ask because that blog post says:
quote:
Of course, we all know that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ in any physical sense
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might be seem to convey.
Maybe this is what intincting (is that the right word?) means for Orthodox Christians but it doesn't seem to mean the same for these folks, at least based on the Communion theology outlined in the blog post. It seems to me...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have I misunderstood what you mean by 'Real Presence', Mark? I ask because that blog post says:
quote:
Of course, we all know that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ in any physical sense
My understanding of "Real Presence" is baggage from my days as an Anglican. My understanding at the time was that the Lutheran ("under" the bread), Calvinist ("to eat and drink after an heavenly and spiritual manner" - whatever that means), and RC/Orthodox are all different ways of acknowledging the Real Presence of Christ. In defence, we cannot really say that because Christ's presence is spiritual, it is not real can we?
The exception, as the article rightly explains, is Zwinglianism, where it is "just a memorial" and where there is no belief in the presence of Christ in any sense, in association with the Eucharist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...I noticed that the communicants immersed the bread into the wine before consuming, in a not dissimilar way to how we Orthodox do it - it is to symbolise that we are feeding on the living body of Jesus, rather than a crucified and unrisen Saviour which is what separate bread and wine might seem to convey.
Maybe this is what intincting (is that the right word?) means for Orthodox Christians but it doesn't seem to mean the same for these folks, at least based on the Communion theology outlined in the blog post. It seems to me...
Intincting is the right word. For NewFrontiers, there was no mention of it in the article, and I don't remember them doing this 10 years ago. However, as NewFrontiers are Restorationists, I would imagine they are going back to a practice in the early church, and it would represent the living body of Christ as it does for Orthodox.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, as NewFrontiers are Restorationists, I would imagine they are going back to a practice in the early church, and it would represent the living body of Christ as it does for Orthodox.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
While the NT might be a textbook for NF, the early church certainly isn't, and any practice of intinction on their part is likely to be the result of health-related issues. Which is another thread entirely and probably belongs in Eccles.
The last time I heard anyone in NF teaching on communion (admittedly 10 years or so ago now) it was John Hosier, lamenting the fact that the new churches didn't seem to have worked out where to fit it in in their praxis. They certainly don't believe in it representing the living body of Christ in any way that would make sense to an Orthodox way of thinking.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Now Terry Virgo has left the helm, suddenly leaders become "Apostles" (how?) - I'm wondering if my impression of the churches is correct, and whether they are now on the decline, or whether they are expecting a sudden new revival...
Back in the dotcom days, an older colleague observed that every technology starts off as revolutionary and then eventually finds it's niche.
The same is true for church movements. It's rare that 'renewal' movements sustain themselves for more than a generation or so, and in these days movements of all kinds tend to have a limited shelf life.
Give it 10 years, and most of the NFI groupings would have followed the same path followed by older restorationist outfits in the UK (Icthus, Pioneer et al).
I don't think theres necessarily a organisational bias against the catholics/orthodox. It's possible however that the person you know is unable to place you mentally into a category he is comfortable with and so has problems interacting with you.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't think there's necessarily a organisational bias against the catholics/orthodox. It's possible however that the person you know is unable to place you mentally into a category he is comfortable with and so has problems interacting with you.
Well, seeing as I'm Orthodox, with Anglican baggage, empathising with NewFrontiers - it's not really surprising people have problems interacting with me!
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
My understanding of "Real Presence" is baggage from my days as an Anglican. My understanding at the time was that the Lutheran ("under" the bread), Calvinist ("to eat and drink after an heavenly and spiritual manner" - whatever that means), and RC/Orthodox are all different ways of acknowledging the Real Presence of Christ. In defence, we cannot really say that because Christ's presence is spiritual, it is not real can we?
The exception, as the article rightly explains, is Zwinglianism, where it is "just a memorial" and where there is no belief in the presence of Christ in any sense, in association with the Eucharist.
The thing is a lot of the stuff on that website is neither official thinking or doctrine in any real sense. The theology matters website tends to be a grab bag of both valuable and slightly off-beat doctrines that are brought together without any real interpretative grid as such - you can see what I mean in the comments on some of those pieces.
The practice seems to be to give vocal assent to the that material (seemingly out of a need to be deep, if I had a pound for every NFIer who said they were reading the Puritans ..) without necessarily allowing it to influence praxis.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The thing is a lot of the stuff on that website is neither official thinking or doctrine in any real sense. The theology matters website tends to be a grab bag of both valuable and slightly off-beat doctrines that are brought together without any real interpretative grid as such - you can see what I mean in the comments on some of those pieces.
The practice seems to be to give vocal assent to that material (seemingly out of a need to be deep, if I had a pound for every NFIer who said they were reading the Puritans ..) without necessarily allowing it to influence praxis.
You do realise that this author (Andy Johnston) has a Ph.D don't you?
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You do realise that this author (Andy Johnston) has a Ph.D don't you?
Yes, I do. I was talking about the response at large (within the NFI) to material on that website. In NFI circles praxis heavily influences theology, rather than the other way around.
Besides, his Phd is in Church History, which doesn't necessarily make him a systematic theologian.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Anyway, to summarise, I did get the idea that the BBC1 programme from The Church of Christ the King, Brighton was something of a PR exercise.
They seemed to go to great lengths to show that women were involved in NewFrontiers, though not as elders or apostles. I'm not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of this, except to say that it is very un-PC and therefore un-BBC.
One does get the impression that theology (especially regarding Communion) is not for the pew fodder - only apostles and elders need concern themselves about these things.
However, as far as the Protestant world is concerned, I will stand by what I said - that they do believe in the Real Presence, simply because they are Calvinists. As Terry Virgo has said, it is somewhat peculiar for a church to be Calvinist and charismatic, but there you go - that's NewFrontiers!
The other thing - Intincting - I can't find much about this regarding NewFrontiers, except that it seems to be the "in" thing in the Protestant world these days.
....Oh! ...just one more thing! As we all know, NewFrontiers run Alpha and Beta courses. Here's something I found in the Beta course which seems to verify what I said earlier:
quote:
The Beta Course
2. PRESENT – Participation in Christ
Not only do we remember Christ’s death we also experience Him as active and present in our midst. As we receive the bread and wine we receive again his saving forgiveness and are fed by His life.
I don't know if the Beta course is for (male) elders only, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, because I'm feeling nice!
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, as far as the Protestant world is concerned, I will stand by what I said - that they do believe in the Real Presence, simply because they are Calvinists. As Terry Virgo has said, it is somewhat peculiar for a church to be Calvinist and charismatic, but there you go - that's NewFrontiers!
The other thing - Intincting - I can't find much about this regarding NewFrontiers, except that it seems to be the "in" thing in the Protestant world these days.
I'd be wary of assuming that simply because a practice in restorationist circles is similar to a practice elsewhere that their provenance must be the same.
I've not noticed much intinction except on the back of particular speakers making a rather tendentious point of it (it's like a few years back, when pentecostals used to preach against crucifixes because 'he isn't on the cross any longer'). I mean, a lot of NFI churches - in common with minority charo practice - also commune infants, but the reasons given are quite different to those given in other circles.
For an allegedly Reformed denomination, NFI aren't particularly Calvinist even in the purely TULIP sense (there are plenty of Amyraldian and even Arminian pastors in the NFI), and I suspect very few of them would subscribe to Calvin's spiritual elevator reading of the Lord's supper.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'd be wary of assuming that simply because a practice in restorationist circles is similar to a practice elsewhere that their provenance must be the same.
If you mean the Intincting - I cannot for the life of me think that it can mean anything other than the living body of Christ, which we receive unto ourselves. What else could it mean?
quote:
...I mean, a lot of NFI churches - in common with minority charo practice - also commune infants, but the reasons given are quite different to those given in other circles.
I don't have a problem with that - we commune them as soon as they have been baptised - they may only be a few weeks old! But I'm no fool, I know they only baptise adults - so the inconsistency is worrying.
quote:
For an allegedly Reformed denomination, NFI aren't particularly Calvinist even in the purely TULIP sense (there are plenty of Amyraldian and even Arminian pastors in the NFI), and I suspect very few of them would subscribe to Calvin's spiritual elevator reading of the Lord's supper.
Ah TULIP - the five points of Calvinism (I googled it!) Well the ones I know of are staunch Calvinists - but it doesn't matter to me, I may love their services and I can join them if I want, but I'm not in communion with them, nor (sadly) ever can be.
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If you mean the Intincting - I cannot for the life of me think that it can mean anything other than the living body of Christ, which we receive unto ourselves. What else could it mean?
A hygiene measure?
quote:
I don't have a problem with that - we commune them as soon as they have been baptised - they may only be a few weeks old! But I'm no fool, I know they only baptise adults - so the inconsistency is worrying.
I suspect you will find that they commune infants because they have a low view of the sacraments, not because they have a high view.
quote:
Well the ones I know of are staunch Calvinists - but it doesn't matter to me, I may love their services and I can join them if I want, but I'm not in communion with them, nor (sadly) ever can be.
I have yet to find an NFI-ite whose calvinism extends much further than a rough adherence to TULIP.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If you mean the Intincting - I cannot for the life of me think that it can mean anything other than the living body of Christ, which we receive unto ourselves. What else could it mean?
A hygiene measure?
Naaaaaah! Come on, how can you justify such a statement? If they were particular about hygiene they'd use tiny single glasses like the Baptists, no?
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Naaaaaah! Come on, how can you justify such a statement? If they were particular about hygiene they'd use tiny single glasses like the Baptists, no?
Because it's origin in those circles was roughly contemporaneous with the various flu scares a couple of years back.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
chris stiles is right. NF have such a low view of the sacraments they are probably in danger of not having them at all. I'm sure this can be ascertained from a quick survey of how often communion is done in NF churches.
And from an NF perspective I can easily see intinction appearing "cool" rather than "religious" when compared to "wee cuppies" which involve more "religious paraphenalia". I think you'll find the Vineyard adopted intinction for similar "cool"/"health" reasons. If you look through the Ship archives there have been discussions of the issue before.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
"Wee Cuppies!!" I like it! (but not for me, thankyou very much!)
The Communion I witnessed (courtesy of the BBC) was low, but not ultra low. Admittedly, many years ago I partook in one (I was allowed to back then) which was much lower.
The "liturgy" on the BBC1 programme didn't really reflect ultra-calvinism, but didn't deny it either. Joel Virgo was the speaker (I presume he's the son of the great Terry), so I would see Brighton as being the Mother Church to NewFrontiers, but obviously their ecclesiastical polity is congregational "local church" which would explain the wide variations of practice in the Eucharist.
This means that the practice of intinction may be for religious reasons at Brighton, whereas at a different NF church they may do it for different reasons. There's only one way to find out, and that's to ask an elder at the particular church. But would HE (joke!) answer if he knew the asker had no intention of becoming part of NewFrontiers - indeed, is it really any of our business?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Anyway, here's the service - judge for yourselves! Whatever else we might say about NF, the music blew me away - brilliant! ![[Cool]](cool.gif) (but be aware it is only for UK viewers and will only be available for a day or so):
Live Pentecost Praise from Brighton
btw if anyone particularly wants to view it and can't, I have it on my DVD hard drive, so let me know and it can be arranged.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd have thought you would have been familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism from your Ulster Presbyterian background, Mark Betts ...
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick ...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd have thought you would have been familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism from your Ulster Presbyterian background, Mark Betts ...
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick ...
No you haven't got the wrong end of the stick at all - but this TULIP seems to be just about a hyper-calvinistic view of predestination a la Strict Baptist! That's why I didn't stick with the 3Ps for very long - give me NewFrontiers any day! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't get it. You're Orthodox with a huge soft-spot for New Frontiers. Well, I s'pose it is possible to combine a respect for both.
Most Orthodox who are aware of outfits like NFI that I know, and most of them won't be - are prepared to acknowledge that there might be something in it, but on the whole they'd be fairly suspicious of anything of that kind.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't get it. You're Orthodox with a huge soft-spot for New Frontiers. Well, I s'pose it is possible to combine a respect for both.
Most Orthodox who are aware of outfits like NFI that I know, and most of them won't be - are prepared to acknowledge that there might be something in it, but on the whole they'd be fairly suspicious of anything of that kind.
Hmmmm... nothing you've said above doesn't apply to me. But, having moved in protestant circles for most of my life, I can empathise with their witness to some degree.
The plain facts are that I cannot take Holy Communion with them, nor recognise their Holy Orders - and there are good reasons for this. But I am not barred from talking to them, nor from acknowledging the things we have in common.
Let's face it, I'd be happier to call them brothers and sisters than I would be to members of the British Secular Society!
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, here's the service - judge for yourselves! Whatever else we might say about NF, the music blew me away - brilliant!
Sure, if you like your worship in a coldplay style led by a tenor, followed by a stand-up-performer in the round doing the preaching ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, here's the service - judge for yourselves! Whatever else we might say about NF, the music blew me away - brilliant!
Sure, if you like your worship in a coldplay style led by a tenor, followed by a stand-up-performer in the round doing the preaching
Not every week... but maybe just now and again?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Yes, well, that's all very well... but if I'm honest I don't think they'd be so pleased about me popping in and out just when I felt like it. I get the feeling that you have to be "in" or "out" with this sort of church, and they would probably conclude that I'm some sort of "Jezebel spirit" once they got to know what I'm all about.
In fairness, I wouldn't treat my own church as a casual affair for when I felt in the mood, so maybe I shouldn't expect them to like it.
The difference between them and us is this:
If a New Frontiers member wanted to pop in to our church for "something different" now and again, they would be welcome. However, the Eucharist is a different matter - you do have to be "in" to partake, so it is "closed" to any casual observers (whatever their denomination) unless they are willing to convert, take cathechumen lessons, make renunciations and be chrismated and recieved into the church, at the Priest's discretion. But the door of the church is never closed to them.
I get the feeling, however, that the door of the NewFrontiers church would be closed to anyone who wanted to come in to enjoy, say, just the music - but had no intention of joining. The deviding line isn't the Eucharist - it's the door of the building itself!
--------------------
"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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
That seems an accurate description of How Things Are, Mark.
Reading some of these posts, that TULIP stuff sounds particularly repulsive. One's brothers and sisters of the Secular Society are probably more charitable and pleasant.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
That seems an accurate description of How Things Are, Mark.
Reading some of these posts, that TULIP stuff sounds particularly repulsive.
Well, I know I couldn't stomach it for very long - but I'm not sure NewFrontiers are like that.
quote:
One's brothers and sisters of the Secular Society are probably more charitable and pleasant.
Oh no, absolutely and definitely not! I know one or two secularists, and they are only "charitable and pleasant" on the condition that you agree with everything they say, even when it is self-demeaning! They may claim to be for religious freedom and tolerance, but the truth is they actually hate religion with as much of a passion as their "Messiah", Richard Dawkins.
A lifetime amongst TULIPs would be preferable to a month with them!
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
That seems an accurate description of How Things Are, Mark.
Reading some of these posts, that TULIP stuff sounds particularly repulsive.
Depends on how it's expressed; at its most basic all it means is that human nature is evenly spread everywhere, and that everyone is addicted to ultimately choosing self over God.
[ 03. June 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
They may claim to be for religious freedom and tolerance, but the truth is they actually hate religion with as much of a passion as their "Messiah", Richard Dawkins.
It's perfectly possible consider religion to be A Very Bad Thing, whilst accepting & supporting other people's right to practice it. Er, that sounds more patronising than I had intended! The secularists I know don't bang on about religious tolerance, they object to what they consider to be a priviledge for religion in society, and wish to keep religion out of public life. Most of them dislike Dawkins too.
That's a bit of a tangent, sorry. Do carry on. [I've no experience of restorationism, but this thread has been fascinating, and very educational.]
[Learn to spell, Jemima. Learn to spell.]
[ 03. June 2012, 11:19: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
And what I'd actually intended to say is that I think you're confusing 2 associations: the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
And what I'd actually intended to say is that I think you're confusing 2 associations: the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society.
I know they are two separate associations, but they both seem to stand for much the same thing, and spend alot of time in bed together + frequent threesomes with Richard Dawkins. I'm sorry if that sounds vulgar, but it's no more than such a hypocritical unholy trinity deserve.
And doesn't this said Professor speak up for religious tolerance? Yet he doesn't have an ounce of respect for any religious beliefs.
As for TULIP - the five points seem to spell out the very worst of hyper-calvinism, but it's not my (very limited) experience of NewFrontiers at all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
It's perfectly possible to consider religion to be A Very Bad Thing, whilst accepting & supporting other people's right to practice it. Er, that sounds more patronising than I had intended!
Yes it does - but it's precisely the message I am getting from them, which is what frightens me - because no-one is really neutral in this.
quote:
The secularists I know don't bang on about religious tolerance, they object to what they consider to be a priviledge for religion in society, and wish to keep religion out of public life. Most of them dislike Dawkins too.
Let me ask you something - despite the rhetoric, have you actually seen them campaigning for anything which might improve the lot for religious people?
quote:
That's a bit of a tangent, sorry. Do carry on. [I've no experience of restorationism, but this thread has been fascinating, and very educational.]
Not at all, it at least makes one think that one day, when we really have to choose sides, we may well find ourselves standing with the restorationists whether we like it or not!
[ 03. June 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
