quote:

---

I actually think what Terry Virgo has done is a very brave decision. To not just appoint an "heir" but to say to people who already have churches relating to them to keep building and see what happens.

As he said at the conference last year: Newfrontiers as a name and as a group may have to die in order for people to go and do the stuff more effectively. The vision is too big for one guy at the top to hold it.

---

quote:

---

New Wine style charismatic Anglicanism isn't a million miles from the Vineyard, NFI nor charismatic Baptists. In fact, in some places if you were led blind-folded into a service and had the blind-fold removed, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference

---

However, if you scratch beneath the surface a little NF had, at the end of the day, an authoritarian structure in which the buck stopped with Terry.

As just one of many examples of this, within the last year leaders have been expelled from the movement for "not representing Terry" in their sphere of ministry.

This was part and parcel of the thinking that NewFrontiers existed as an expression and extension of Terry's personal apostolic gifting.

I realise that at a congregational level this does not necessarily appear self-evident, but I know from experience* that it was the case, and I believe this was true up until this development.

What rationale does NF have for its existence in the absence of an apostolic leader? And if an apostolic leader is not an imperative, what does that say about what was taught and practised in the movement beforehand?

(*note/disclaimer: those following my own journey with respect to NF can check where things stand today here)

[ 02. December 2011, 09:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I will be especially interested to see how this impacts some of the smaller churches that have actually been planted by NF (as opposed to those that were converted into NF). The local NF church relies quite heavily on the authority of their local bishop... er, 'apostle' to maintain the authority of the pastors. The authority of the 'apostle' obviously comes from the authority of Terry Virgo.

My guess is that it will be a non-issue, lately the apostolic delegate is more frequently referenced than Virgo is, and I'm guessing that they could get away with not even mentioning that Virgo had stepped down if they wanted. Most of these local believers don't understand the whole chain of command really, and Terry is just a faceless name to them as he's never visited them.

I remember the first time visiting that particular church, one of the local believers asked if I had read a certain book by Virgo, in my ignorance I asked who he was. The response was, "Are you even a Christian?"

I'm pretty sure they could maintain authority within the church without any trouble, but it will be interesting to see if a shake up in the circle of apostolic delegates makes them change the name on the building. This particular branch is very dogmatic about doctrine and such, I could easily see a change in allegiance on the part of their apostolic delegate leading them away from NF proper as well.

We'll see how it goes...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I wonder what will happen to the unwritten rule that NF churches contribute 10% of their giving to central funding?
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
A good question... also who will control that central pot of money?

Probably the churches who do contribute will be painted as blessed in some way ("they aren't growing, they aren't healthy or wealthy, they have lots of strife and division, but because they have given us money God has given them lots of prophetic words...")

Forgive my cynicism.

I think the more important question will be what will the reaction of the more well-meaning church leaders who now have to look at the theology of apostolic authority in light of Terry's absence?

I can certainly see that teaching being swept under the rug by much of the inner-circle types (NF has a propensity for pretending certain things never happened), but some of the more honest leaders will probably have a slight crisis of conscience concerning their own authority in their own church.

The way the local NF church tends to interpret scripture is completely out in left field, the only way they have of claiming any validity of docrine is because their apostle agrees with them and Terry with him. In the past, as Eutychus said, the buck stopped with Terry: now there's room for dispute amongst the leadership. How will individual churches be able to dogmatically cling to wacky doctrine if it's not completely agreed upon by the upper ranks?

I wonder if the generals are already planning ways to carve up the empire, or will they eventually have to appoint a new Caesar?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As already stated earlier in the Revival thread, my personal view is that Terry's position is après moi, le déluge. A collapse of NF would highlight the uniqueness of his apostolic ministry. In this perspective, nobody can fill his shoes.

I think the abrupt move from such a tightly-controlled structure to an (apparently) completely loose-knit one represents a failure of leadership. A few years ago Mark Driscoll (not beloved at all by me) highlighted the lack of a clear succession policy as a weakness of NF.

For years the talk was of training the next, "Joshua" generation and over the years I think a succession of individuals in NF appeared to all intents and purposes to be an heir apparent to Terry. The current situation looks more like the book of Judges and I won't be at all surprised to see some rather nasty jostling for top positions and "market share" of the empire.

[ 16. July 2011, 13:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
The current goings on in the SGM movement - while not being a parallel with the NFI situation - provides some indication of how things should go. Similarly what happened to the Icthus movement a while back.

That said, I don't see why things should necessarily be that acrimonious - or at least why the acrimony would be widespread. I can see regional networks of churches - some of which go in separate directions.

As I said in the other thread, when you get down to it for most people in the pew things aren't *that* different between Vineyard/NFI/New Wine Anglicans etc, and I don't see why this would necessarily change.

I can see a few smaller groupings being fairly strict and close knit but that's not unusual and a lot of the Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations end up spinning off this sort of group/church. These usually decline in number after a decade or so, unless revitalised by numbers from ethnic minorities, in which case they are rarely the same church/group.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The current goings on in the SGM movement - while not being a parallel with the NFI situation - provides some indication of how things should go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
While there are similarities, there are big differences too. A major one is that I don't think SGM or CJ Mahaney ever made any claims to apostolic anointing in the way Terry Virgo and NewFrontiers did, so there's much less inconsistency in partial groups going their separate ways.

---

Sure, but the question is how many people on the ground actually believe it sufficiently to get dreadfully impolite with each other
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

As just one of many examples of this, within the last year leaders have been expelled from the movement for "not representing Terry" in their sphere of ministry.

This was part and parcel of the thinking that NewFrontiers existed as an expression and extension of Terry's personal apostolic gifting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
restorationist influence waned (with the exception of NFI)

---

Looks like NFI is waning too. Terry Virgo is stepping down at this week's Together On A Mission conference and there is a clear declaration that there is no appointed heir, rather a loosely-knit group. Not quite sure where this leaves apostolic anointing and all that talk of training up one's Joshua, but still...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Am I the only one that this bothers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If a head-teacher retires, it doesn't invalidate everything they did while they were in post.

---

Just thought of another, true illustration.

In my city there is a high school with a famous name. I recently learned that the name formerly belonged to a previous high school, but when the headmaster moved from this high school to the new one, he said "the name comes with me".

Whatever the cognitive dissonance may say, I think that is precisely Terry's perspective. He sees NewFrontiers as an expression of his personal ministry. I once heard him say that if he'd been in the US, he would have called NewFrontiers "Terry Virgo Ministries". In his mind, he wasn't just fulfilling a position in some autonomous organisation.

[ 16. July 2011, 14:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
Structured authority isn't an intrinsically bad thing. I'd actually suggest that unstructured unaccountability (whether official or unofficial) is a more dangerous way to order a church, or family of churches than a clear order of hierarchy.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It depends how it's applied, Daron. My experience of the restorationist streams is that it's all too often applied very tightly indeed.

Ok - Eutychus. I think I get it. You're saying that with Terry now standing down the whole basis for a particular leader and the churches under his influence leaving because they did not 'represent' Terry sufficiently is shown to have been something of a nonsense if, 12 months later, Terry stands down himself.

Well, to some extent I'd hazard a guess that the whole thing wasn't particularly well thought through in the first place. Things just sort of 'evolve' in those settings and before you know it you've got a whole set of systems and criteria that you've only to get to jettison further down the line.

You have to have a short memory to be a restorationist. One minute it's one thing that's the be-all-and-end-all and within a few months the emphasis has changed and it's something else ... with no attempt to review, assess or learn from what went before. The whole premise is one of reinventing the wheel over-and-over again. To some extent it's Protestantism gone mad, semper reformanda every two seconds. One 'next big thing' after another.

Consequently, it'll be easy for Terry Virgo and the rest of the NFI guys to rationalise what's happened. That was then, this is now. That particular group split off, fairly amicably, a 12 month since because they weren't 'representing' Terry Virgo sufficiently. Now, Terry himself retires so the whole basis of them leaving in the first place becomes bankrupt. So what? Things have moved on. That's the way of it ...

I'm not saying it's right, just saying what it's like. God must have changed his mind so many times while I was in my restorationist phase that I'm surprised he didn't become dizzy ...

I'm trying to say that reverently ... but you know what I mean.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
He sees NewFrontiers as an expression of his personal ministry. I once heard him say that if he'd been in the US, he would have called NewFrontiers "Terry Virgo Ministries". In his mind, he wasn't just fulfilling a position in some autonomous organisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You have to have a short memory to be a restorationist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daron:
Structured authority isn't an intrinsically bad thing. I'd actually suggest that unstructured unaccountability (whether official or unofficial) is a more dangerous way to order a church, or family of churches than a clear order of hierarchy.

---

quote:

---

You have to have a short memory to be a restorationist. One minute it's one thing that's the be-all-and-end-all and within a few months the emphasis has changed and it's something else ... with no attempt to review, assess or learn from what went before. The whole premise is one of reinventing the wheel over-and-over again. To some extent it's Protestantism gone mad, semper reformanda every two seconds. One 'next big thing' after another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
South Coast Kevin, I know, I know, I know, and looking back I wonder how I dealt with that passage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The whole thing is very problematic. Because what you end up with is a load of mini-Popes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daron:
The difference between SGM and Newfrontiers though is the very strong focus on the doctrine of grace as opposed to SGMs preoccupation with sin. Newfrontiers do a fantastic job of looking after each other. There is a strong sense of fraternity and collegiality based on grace based (post-millenialist?) optimism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The fraternity you mention is based largely on a sense of a shared mission, with a number of people I know feeling rather shocked to find that their friendships had a strong element of the utilitarian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daron:
This is what's going on at SGM in the States: big 'apostolic' fish fighting over dominance in a relatively small pond.

---

quote:

---

The difference between SGM and Newfrontiers though is the very strong focus on the doctrine of grace as opposed to SGMs preoccupation with sin. Newfrontiers do a fantastic job of looking after each other. There is a strong sense of fraternity and collegiality based on grace based (post-millenialist?) optimism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Eutychus

I'm not up to date on any of this. I know quite a number of local leaders in NF in Norfolk, remember hearing about the Driscoll kerfuffle. Isn't there some kind of legacy being left by some equivalent of "articles of association" i.e. you can continue to use the NF banner and be associated with it if you agree to live within the boundaries outlined by such articles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


If someone steps out of line now, or a conflict arises, if Terry really has relinquished control, I don't know how it gets resolved. It's the book of Judges, I tell you. And if it is, it's a complete indictment of Restorationist theology.

---

This is what I find confusing I'll be honest. A lot of NF churches think that the gift of apostle continues today and a church is not a proper church without one - which is has not been a mainstream Protestant position. Pastorally I have come up against this, as theologically we are a pretty similar church to NF but the local leadership of NF churches have warned people from coming to us - no apostle, so not a proper church.

Is that just being ditched in favour of "loose related associations with an apostle-type figure"? Makes all the insistence on apostolic ministry as a mark of the True Church seem rather empty to me.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If someone steps out of line now, or a conflict arises, if Terry really has relinquished control, I don't know how it gets resolved. It's the book of Judges, I tell you. And if it is, it's a complete indictment of Restorationist theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The kind of consultations I'm talking about can give rise to the production and use of "due process"; it's a way of resolving internal differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Matthias:
I think the 17 values stuff is being transferred over to Terry Virgo's new site

17 Values

---

I'm really confused now. Terry Virgo has stepped down but NewFrontiers' 'seventeen values' are now on terryvirgo.org ?

[x-post with David's latest]

[ 17. July 2011, 11:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :
 

quote:

---

The reason for this parting of the ways was, essentially, that by promoting another 'stream', this leader was no longer representing Terry Virgo (not NewFrontiers, Terry Virgo).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm really confused now. Terry Virgo has stepped down but NewFrontiers' 'seventeen values' are now on terryvirgo.org ?
[x-post with David's latest] [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

From where I'm sitting the way these kind of outfits operate doesn't look that dissimilar to what happens in Deaneries etc within the historic Churches ... and the 'apostles' are simply 'bishops' with a fancy title but without the funny hats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Matthias:
I think the 17 values stuff is being transferred over to Terry Virgo's new site

17 Values

---

I'm really confused now. Terry Virgo has stepped down but NewFrontiers' 'seventeen values' are now on terryvirgo.org ?

[x-post with David's latest]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Matthias:

quote:

---

The reason for this parting of the ways was, essentially, that by promoting another 'stream', this leader was no longer representing Terry Virgo (not NewFrontiers, Terry Virgo).

---

I think that risks being a touch of creative translation.

---

quote:

---

The apostles will often meet together, for a season Terry will still join with them. Gathering of equal interdependent apostles which Dave Devinish [sic] will facilitate. Some apostolic figures will travel between the teams.

---

quote:

---

David Stroud will be leading in a very different way. This isn’t his team. It is just that he will be gathering the spheres. They will be mutually responsible to each other.

---

 

---

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, I did wonder why every 'sphere of influence' happens to be more or less geographic, when in fact it's all 'relationally based'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The situation with the NFI 'jurisdictions' is just as complicated as that of the Orthodox where you have overlapping Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Antiochian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
What I can't understand, if you don't mind me asking, is why so many people allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled in the way that some posters describe?

---

quote:

---

some quite naive, new members, who didn't really understand what was going on, (...) were told that they had received God's anointing to become great leaders. Is this the sort of thing that new leaders are being trained to think in NewFrontiers, as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And, let's hope, some sensible and responsible theology too, Eutychus. Of all the new-church groups, NFI always struck me as the one that prided itself on meatier doctrine ... and interestingly, I've come across more reformed evangelicals who respected NFI more than some of the other outfits because it appeared to be more reformed and Calvinistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd broadly concur with that, Ken.

It wasn't all bad and it ain't all bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure whether these quotes from Adrian Warnock's blog clarify things or muddy the waters still further.

In his account of Terry Virgo's "fireside chat" at Together On A Mission, he writes:

quote:

---

The apostles will often meet together, for a season Terry will still join with them. Gathering of equal interdependent apostles which Dave Devinish [sic] will facilitate. Some apostolic figures will travel between the teams.

---

On the other hand, the same blog reports David Stroud at the same conference saying

quote:

---

David Stroud will be leading in a very different way. This isn’t his team. It is just that he will be gathering the spheres. They will be mutually responsible to each other.

---

---

quote:

---

Some will work across the spheres, a bit like Barnabas in the NT.

---

And have "no small dissension" with the "bit like Paul"s over the pastoral dimension of the vision, no doubt.

Mischievously, I wondered how they would get on as hosts in Purgatory ... Maybe they might consider modifying the 17 principles with some blends from our 10 C's? Or at least C1. "Don't be a jerk" particularly over one of the "isms"?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Or a bit like Flying Bishops in the CofE?



It's all a 'bit like ... bit like ...'

And a lot like bullshit.

But then, that applies right across the board ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's all a 'bit like ... bit like ...'

---

No, no.

It's "progressively transitioning into an exciting new season on the cusp of the apostolic as it multiplies into new missional spheres, with a number of local men on the front foot to be raised up to tuck in behind translocal ministries - but very much at a 'suck-it-and-see' stage".
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Roger Forster is a great (if idiosyncratic) theologian, but there wasn't much theology among the conference-goers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I know (and I think I'm pretty well-placed to comment), Ichthus never claimed apostolic authority in the same way NewFrontiers did and they explicitly didn't seek to adopt churches outside the UK in the same way NF did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Covenant Ministries had lost most of its South Walian base to SGM/PDI or whatever it was called ... but retained a base in Cardiff.

---

quote:

---

My impression is that some are trotting out the same-old same-old but with lower numbers and others have effectively thrown off the restorationist emphasis to plough a more US-flavoured health/wealth furrow. That was never far below the surface within Covenant Ministries so I'm not surprised ...

---

I think any time the Bible gets reduced to the functional narrative of 'everything will be okay real soon now' or 'victory is just around the corner' the health/wealth furrow is always a danger. Which is why it keeps popping up like weeds in pentecostal and charismatic circles.

NF are not going to be immune to this either, see their embrace of Bethel etc. in the South.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, Chris ... but there were ex-CMI people who ended up in SGM/PDI. The size might not be important, but what's left of what used to be Covenant Ministries isn't particularly large either. I doubt if Alan Scotland and Keri Jones have that many people to rub together, truth be told.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Few thoughts from inside the "evil Empire"
If there's even a sniff of Prosperity I'm slinging my hook! (Can't see it happening myself)
In the UK the regional infrastructures seem pretty secure so I don't see much significant change immediately.
Terry is speaking at our regional as well so it's not like he's vanishing off the scene.
On the ground its worth remembering that there are some differences between local churches (Irish Lord seems to have lucked out!!). A number of friends have loved our church and not got on at other NF churches. A chap I know relocated recently and tried two or three NF places before settling in one.
Also in any given NF church there will be a range of people some of whom are NF from birth, some are NF by choice later in life, some don't like NF but like the local church etc etc It's not a homogeneous situation.
As a church we've recently hosted some folk from an African NF church which has been a very positive experience all round (the Twanglets enjoyed it too). The NF connection does help preserve us from parochialism.
The Salt and Light transition seems like it was successful.
Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I doubt if Alan Scotland and Keri Jones have that many people to rub together, truth be told.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Few thoughts from inside the "evil Empire"
If there's even a sniff of Prosperity I'm slinging my hook! (Can't see it happening myself)
In the UK the regional infrastructures seem pretty secure so I don't see much significant change immediately.
Terry is speaking at our regional as well so it's not like he's vanishing off the scene.
On the ground its worth remembering that there are some differences between local churches (Irish Lord seems to have lucked out!!). A number of friends have loved our church and not got on at other NF churches. A chap I know relocated recently and tried two or three NF places before settling in one.
Also in any given NF church there will be a range of people some of whom are NF from birth, some are NF by choice later in life, some don't like NF but like the local church etc etc It's not a homogeneous situation.
As a church we've recently hosted some folk from an African NF church which has been a very positive experience all round (the Twanglets enjoyed it too). The NF connection does help preserve us from parochialism.
The Salt and Light transition seems like it was successful.
Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)

---

quote:

---

That is a fair post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I doubt if Alan Scotland and Keri Jones have that many people to rub together, truth be told.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think there's a really important tangent to his discussion regarding the danger of one person becoming so important that his / her departure (or potential departure) from the scene is a major trauma. Sure, some people are immensely gifted in leadership etc. but isn't it better if those gifts are used to equip others for greater works?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
To play the devils advocate for a moment, if Terry Virgo agreed with you there and came to think that he himself had been too much the authoritarian leader, and too interfering and micro-managing, what would he do? Presumably he'd step down, and not appoint someone else to make the same mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not that they do all the work, it's that they can, at their discretion, exercise control without any of the usual checks and balances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Although, I guess there should also be a public repudiation of the top-down, micro-managing approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
On the ground its worth remembering that there are some differences between local churches (Irish Lord seems to have lucked out!!). A number of friends have loved our church and not got on at other NF churches. A chap I know relocated recently and tried two or three NF places before settling in one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)

---

I'd be happy to discuss this - not quite knowing what you are implying.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Quote: Terry is speaking at our regional as well so it's not like he's vanishing off the scene

This point has been made by a number - for me it sums up the problem. If he is going, he should go.

It is common practice in CofE churches, I understand (and also in others) that when a vicar retires he/she moves away. Of course, the CofE is not at all like NFI but the point is a good one to follow, IMO.

On a personal level, when I was called to my first church I followed a man who had been pastor for over 30 years - and he stayed during the time I was there. In my second pastorate, I followed a man who also had been in post for over 30 years but he had died two years previously (not a lot of difference between the two ).

The main charge I would lay at the door of NFI is that the churches are good at empowering their memebers - up to the point that they become a threat to the leaders, then they get enfeebled (thesis at Lancaster University for anyone who wants to PM me). If Terry hangs around, this will be perpetuated ISTM.

All this is fascinating to watxch but I guess it will end in tears one way or another.
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Quote: Terry is speaking at our regional as well so it's not like he's vanishing off the scene

This point has been made by a number - for me it sums up the problem. If he is going, he should go.

It is common practice in CofE churches, I understand (and also in others) that when a vicar retires he/she moves away. Of course, the CofE is not at all like NFI but the point is a good one to follow, IMO.

On a personal level, when I was called to my first church I followed a man who had been pastor for over 30 years - and he stayed during the time I was there. In my second pastorate, I followed a man who also had been in post for over 30 years but he had died two years previously (not a lot of difference between the two ).

The main charge I would lay at the door of NFI is that the churches are good at empowering their memebers - up to the point that they become a threat to the leaders, then they get enfeebled (thesis at Lancaster University for anyone who wants to PM me). If Terry hangs around, this will be perpetuated ISTM.

All this is fascinating to watxch but I guess it will end in tears one way or another.

---

It’s a rule of thumb but it very much depends on the person.

Some previous ministers who still attend their old church are a nightmare because they will not accept that it’s not their monkey anymore. (Or, as in at least one independent evangelical church that we know, they “retire” and hand over all weekday and Sunday tasks, but refuse to let go of the decision making or financial control. They were the only person who was remotely surprised when both the congregation and the successor voted with their feet due to concerns over accountability and their retirement was cut short. No names to protect both the innocent and the not so much).

Another church we know has a previous minister in the congregation who is utterly delightful. Happy to offer advice, help and an opinion when asked, but fully aware of the need to keep himself out of day to day church politics and let the new minister do the job.

Let’s hope Terry models himself on the latter rather than the former. Only time will tell. As always, I hope for the best.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :
 
Almost all of the responses I am reading about "he should go", "why is he still there" and the like seem to be coming from a perspective of institution, structure, role etc. Billy has been doing this job description for these people. Now Geoff will do this job description for the same people.

What is happening within newfrontiers is a whole lot more organic than that. There are strengths and very obvious weaknesses (hence questions in this thread re: appeals and governance etc) with this approach. They still don't really know how it will all pan out.

Much of what has recently been made public has been happening in practice for a while now, it is that now they have been intentional in trying to explain what it all means. For example the newfrontiers UK office is in Fulham. The office to support overseas mission is in Bedford. The new people already named as having clear apostolic responsibility moving forwards are based in Manchester, Bournemouth and Lowestoft. The days of everything being in and from Brighton are long gone.

Although you are certainly right there is nothing worse than someone "stepping back" but still holding the reins. I know Icthus found the future with / without Roger Forster a painful process.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Although you are certainly right there is nothing worse than someone "stepping back" but still holding the reins. ......the future with / without ...... a painful process.

But(without)it is likely to be healthy and potentially a growth point, a new opportunity.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Matthias:
Almost all of the responses I am reading about "he should go", "why is he still there" and the like seem to be coming from a perspective of institution, structure, role etc.

---

I suspect that most of the problems we see emerging over the next few years in NF circles will prove to stem from this decision to carry on pretending not to be an institution.

I'm willing to be proved wrong.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, it pretends not to be a denomination too, so pretending not to be an institution is simply the next step ...

In my experience, groups like NFI can be more 'denominational' than the denominations they criticise. That was certainly true within Covenant Ministries.

I always thought that NFI was a cut-above Covenant Ministries in the way it behaved and the way it treated people, but, sadly, it doesn't seem that much different. The mileage varies, of course ... but it struck me as a case of same piss, different bottle ...

That's a tad unfair ... but not that wide of the mark.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:


I have no doubt that there are many wonderful and well functioning NF churches, but the problem I've had so far is that in the dysfunctional churches (which are well testified to) have no higher court of appeals or denominational authority to appeal to when one feels that the local leader is abusing his power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
To be honest, while I'm sure that there are dysfunctional churches in NF (and SGM) this due process complaint I do think is unfair. Why should they have due process? Why should people be able to complain or feedback and expect to be heard? That is not the model of church government these churches use. They believe God sets people aside to take decisions for the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:


I have no doubt that there are many wonderful and well functioning NF churches, but the problem I've had so far is that in the dysfunctional churches (which are well testified to) have no higher court of appeals or denominational authority to appeal to when one feels that the local leader is abusing his power.

---

To be honest, while I'm sure that there are dysfunctional churches in NF (and SGM) this due process complaint I do think is unfair. Why should they have due process? Why should people be able to complain or feedback and expect to be heard? That is not the model of church government these churches use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
They believe God sets people aside to take decisions for the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If you want to be in a church with due process where the members can publically make decisions about how the church is run...join a congregational church!
A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Again, I'm sure there are lots of wonderful NF and SGM churches out there; but I do think that NF needs to start taking actual responsibility for all the fellowships that bear it's name. Maybe a "court of appeals" is too much, I'll grant you, but surely some sort of quality control is in order?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I would never have believed the degree to which this appearance was shattered when I somehow got on the wrong side of more senior leadership. It was as if the horizontal, 'your friend' environment got turned through 90° into a ruthless, vertical one. I got accused, condemned, and ostracised - and that was that.

---

I have read your blog Euty and it makes me very very sad.

Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?

ETA: Sorry to double post - just saw Euty's post at the bottom of the page.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!

---

Hi Leprechaun

You mustn't be reading the same SGM complaints as I am. Far from "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said" the majority of complaints are more of the sort: somebody in my family was molested/raped/abused by a church member and I was told to shut up about it and thrown out when I went to the police, or false accusations were made against me by the leaders. I have come across the former type of complaint in NF thankfully, but I've come across plenty of the latter.

I don't think accepting an "apostolic" type leadership means that you expect to have accusations made against you with no way of appealing them. I think that's what people are talking about when they refer to the lack of due process.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
Oops that should have been I have not come across the former type of complaint in NF thankfully...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, many people who do join these churches specifically do so because of the lead apostle's reputation.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how I've "lucked out" unless that term means something different where you're from (where I'm from it means to be very lucky).

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:

Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy to discuss this - not quite knowing what you are implying.

---

quote:

---

I have read your blog Euty and it makes me very very sad.

---

Me too, several times.
We all know that NF isn't perfect, I've tried to use the phrase "in theory" on other threads pertaining to these matters to make that clear.
I hope I'm not coming across as insensitive
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
My business partner's been to the Brighton Conference this weekend; I'll ask him tomorrow what he thinks the future holds for NFI.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
My business partner's been to the Brighton Conference this weekend; I'll ask him tomorrow what he thinks the future holds for NFI.

---

Pumped him for info. TBH, he doesn't seem that bothered about it but FWIW he thinks the outfit will continue with the regional apostles/ 'diocesan bishops' model being the way forward.

---

I can see that these regional leaders might work but will there be a central supremo? Maybe it will be the 'Spirit of Terry', rather as The Ship has the Spirit of Erin
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Quite frankly I am appalled at what they accept (theologically and at a pastoral level).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Quite frankly I am appalled at what they accept (theologically and at a pastoral level).

---

What do you think is appalling about them theologically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
"Who are you accountable to and who could get rid of you if necessary" is not a question that would readily spring to mind for someone who was church hunting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I can see that these regional leaders might work but will there be a central supremo? Maybe it will be the 'Spirit of Terry', rather as The Ship has the Spirit of Erin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:

Not having a "successor" helps keep things organic and avoids (sorry Mudfrog)any comparisons with post William Booth Salvationism (you can tell I'm not thinking of lady preachers!!!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy to discuss this - not quite knowing what you are implying.

---

Chapter 21 of Hattersleys "Blood and Fire" (which you cited on another thread) covers the, sad (IMHO) ground.
NF has been acussed of being somewhat Nepotistic in the past.

---

quote:

---

I think their first big mistake, way at the beginning, was calling themselves "apostles". What a set-up for hubris!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

I think their first big mistake, way at the beginning, was calling themselves "apostles". What a set-up for hubris!

---

Of course, this isn't a new thing. The Catholic Apostolic Church did the same thing back in 1835. In their case the Apostles were the only ones who could ordain ministers, so when they died, the Church was doomed to expire as well. Of course, this was all done within the belief that Christ's return was imminent, of which the restoration of the Gifts of the Spirit were a sign ...

---

quote:

---

I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:


I have no doubt that there are many wonderful and well functioning NF churches, but the problem I've had so far is that in the dysfunctional churches (which are well testified to) have no higher court of appeals or denominational authority to appeal to when one feels that the local leader is abusing his power.

---

To be honest, while I'm sure that there are dysfunctional churches in NF (and SGM) this due process complaint I do think is unfair. Why should they have due process? Why should people be able to complain or feedback and expect to be heard? That is not the model of church government these churches use. They believe God sets people aside to take decisions for the church.
If you want to be in a church with due process where the members can publically make decisions about how the church is run...join a congregational church!
A lot of the SGM complaints seem to me to be "we said things and the leaders didn't do what we said". I agree that leaders should do that - but if that matters to you, don't go to a church with an "apostolic" leadership model!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[I look at the huge mega churches in the US and I look at the new churches in the UK - all still led by the founding 'Father' and i wonder what will happen to them when there is a retirement or a death. The struggle will be great! What happens when the rank and file oppose the new leadership?

---

Well, these things can go either way. On the one hand Crystal Cathedral, on the other hand Lakewood and the Osteens (where the transition seems to have been handled smoothly). Mega Churches are (usually) run as family businesses, especially when the founder is the pastor. So transition only ever seems to go one of two ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Yet, would you now say that if you buy into this "apostolic spheres" model of church government, especially with the lead person actually claiming apostolic authority (!) that you shouldn't expect there to be a "court of appeal"?

---

Yeah but "People get the (church) government that they deserve" is a bit weak IMHO.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Barnabas62

Of course we have politicking and lobbying within, and some of it can get quite nasty. Seen that. A judgmental group with the bit between its teeth can be just as dangerous as a powerful individual leader. Not sure we should pat ourselves too much on the back. But we do have some checks and balances.

---

Oh yeah! It's not perfect. This emoticon ( ) always reminds me of members meetings by reflex. (Although, I must add, my current church is currently very healthy in this regard) I'm pretty convinced no method of church government is perfect pre-glory. All I'm saying is that you pays your money and takes your choice. If "being heard" and "accountability of leaders" and "due process" are important to you then an "apostolically led" type of church will stop being your cup of tea just as soon as the leaders do something you disagree with.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All I'm saying is that you pays your money and takes your choice. If "being heard" and "accountability of leaders" and "due process" are important to you then an "apostolically led" type of church will stop being your cup of tea just as soon as the leaders do something you disagree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think I was more saying that (in the UK and US at least) people get the government they choose. Certainly where I am, all the talk from the house church movements is about the personalities ("gifts") of the leaders. That's fine - but I think you then buy in to being beholden to that leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think I was more saying that (in the UK and US at least) people get the government they choose. Certainly where I am, all the talk from the house church movements is about the personalities ("gifts") of the leaders. That's fine - but I think you then buy in to being beholden to that leader.

---

I still think that most people do not run through all the possible ways in their mind that things could go wrong, until they do. See judgement of charity.

---

Well quite. But the fact remains - if the lead of a powerful individual attracts you to a movement, you can only expect that disagreeing with that person will eventually lead it to go pear shaped - the other people are there for the same reason.

But Eutychus' post has made clear that it's not usually as straightforward as that, and I can see that. It was definitely not my purpose to make anyone feel stupid, and I apologise for that.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think there's any need for you to apologise at all, Leprechaun. I only wish you'd been around to advise me when I was an earnest young restorationist ...

But then, I probably wouldn't have listened to you at the time. 'Saul's armour ...'

Seriously, though, Eutychus is right, some of these outfits did given the impression of being more 'open' than they were. Not so Covenant Ministries, if anything they were pretty upfront about how authoritarian they were and some of us still didn't take the hint ...

I do think that NFI made play of not being like Covenant Ministries, though, but when push came to shove some of the same tendencies were evident below the surface. I suspect that's what hurt Eutychus the most. If he'd been expecting it he wouldn't have been so surprised.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thank you for that, Leprechaun.

In the meantime I'd thought of something else which goes back to this point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, many people who do join these churches specifically do so because of the lead apostle's reputation.

---

quote:

---

these “Reformed” types seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to policing any of their own. It’s like, if a group espouses a certain checklist of stuff, and if they like to quote Spurgeon, it becomes some sort of Jedi mind trick, where the group then gets a free pass for everything else....

CJ [ed: SGM leader] himself can’t be a big part of the problem…because CJ likes to quote Spurgeon! And CJ has been vetted as holding to the right checklist of beliefs!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

*(This is a part which still does my head in. I've come to discard a lot of the theology, but I really have a hard time understanding how somebody so steeped in the Bible, prayer, study, and so on squares with the things I experienced. It's been very very difficult for me to do anything very theological since. It doesn't seem to do much good!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

*(This is a part which still does my head in. I've come to discard a lot of the theology, but I really have a hard time understanding how somebody so steeped in the Bible, prayer, study, and so on squares with the things I experienced. It's been very very difficult for me to do anything very theological since. It doesn't seem to do much good!).

---

It's a useful reminder that a form of Donatism can sometimes be in the back of our mind. Vis. Pastor A must be beyond reproach, because look at his ministry.

---

And the converse - your church isn't the size of Mark Driscoll's so you musn't be preaching the Gospel/moving in the Spirit appropriately/well enough.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
I'm reading this thread with interest, but struggling to understand the context.

Without wanting to derail the thread, can someone explain to me (I have no experience of these "apostolic" churches), how the model of apostolic leadership is supposed to work, and how it is justified theologically? How does one become an "apostle" in the first place?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Wow, I'll try.

The theory is that as Christ prepares his bride the Church for his return, the functions of apostle, prophet, teacher etc. mentioned in Eph. 4 are being 'restored' to the church.

'Apostles' represent a continuation of the NT function of apostle; while care is generally taken to not place them at the same level as the original 12, scriptural evidence for other, further apostles, most notably Paul, is brought to bear.

Qualifications vary, but essentially (again argued on the basis of Paul) one needs the specific calling of Christ. The fruits of this are then recognised by others.

Apostles are seen as having special insight, ability and authority to build the Church. This is worked out through the appointment of delegates (eg Titus) and elders. This is seen as being relationally-based rather than a rigid structure - 'fathering in the Gospel'.

I guess discussions of the qualifications and validity of present-day apostles belongs on another thread. I'd say that a good case can be made for them with a reading of Scripture which sees the NT (particularly the Acts and Epistles) as prescriptive (a blueprint for contemporary churches) rather then descriptive (an account of how the early church attempted to organise itself). These days, I go with the latter.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Thank you.

(Oh dear, yes, the massive scope for abuse in this pattern is very evident).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Eutychus, I hesitate to say this and I know I'll attract some funny looks from Twangist, David Matthias and others for even suggesting it, but could it not be that the apparent emphasis on theology and theological discourse in the shower queue at Stoneleigh was illusory?

I mean, compared to some of the other independent charismatic evangelical groups NFI certainly does give the appearance of theological weightiness. But when you compare that with the level of theological debate found in other, more traditional or 'conventional' settings (for want of a better term) then it becomes apparent that it ain't as deep as it looks.

Sure, there aren't any churches around where the ordinary joes in the pews are able to trot out Patristic material, detailed discussions of the Reformers or the finer points of whatever theological position one might mention - but once I broadened out from a restorationist position and started dealing/hob-nobbing with people from a broader spectrum I realised just how one-note we'd actually been.

I would apply this to NFI just as much as to the other restorationist and charismatic groupings. Sure, you'll find individuals who're well versed in matters theological, but on the whole ...

I ain't saying that your average Methodist, Baptist, RC, Anglican, Orthodox, Whatever Else church is going to contain more theological heavy-weights than the average NFI church. But through university chaplaincies, online discussions, visits to other churches, I quickly found that there was a whole raft more theology out there than I'd ever realised within my restorationist (or even evangelical per se) bubble.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Eutychus, I hesitate to say this and I know I'll attract some funny looks from Twangist, David Matthias and others for even suggesting it, but could it not be that the apparent emphasis on theology and theological discourse in the shower queue at Stoneleigh was illusory?

I mean, compared to some of the other independent charismatic evangelical groups NFI certainly does give the appearance of theological weightiness. But when you compare that with the level of theological debate found in other, more traditional or 'conventional' settings (for want of a better term) then it becomes apparent that it ain't as deep as it looks.

---

I'd tend to agree. A lot of the talk of theology in NFI circles seems to be of the all sizzle, no steak variety.

In fact, a lot of it seems to function as a different variety of Christianese ('Grace' etc). I think the overall theological acumen of a Christian movement is usually reflected in the group narrative that it tells itself (and that everything else has to fit into). I don't see much difference between the underlying narrative in NFI churches and that in a.n.other generic restorationist/charismatic church.

I know people within the movement like to point to the theology forum - along with the various individiuals within it who have been to seminary. But there are seminary attendees and seminary attendees, and the way they function within the life of the local church can vary quite a bit.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps I was in the Stoneleigh equivalent of the shopping checkout with the longest queue...

Agreed it was "one-note" but that one note did seem to go a lot deeper than what I'd experienced elsewhere. Seemed 'sounder' than some 'woolly Anglicans' I'd met at uni....

That said, even before things went wrong for me, I was disappointed to find that there wasn't much room for theological debate in NFI. There was something I went to a couple of times whose name escapes me which passed for that. They had Paul Reid speaking on women's ministry, which seemed promising in terms of debate.

But it actually seemed to come down to taking apart his arguments rather than interacting with them; certainly no thought of drawing something from them. (Actually, now I come to think of if, that went for the other guys in the shower queue, too). Sometimes I wonder whether my open-mindedness didn't contribute to my downfall.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Agreed it was "one-note" but that one note did seem to go a lot deeper than what I'd experienced elsewhere. Seemed 'sounder' than some 'woolly Anglicans' I'd met at uni....

That said, even before things went wrong for me, I was disappointed to find that there wasn't much room for theological debate in NFI.

---

I think there a lot of people who mistake theological nous for being able to regurgitate Grudem/Erickson. So 'theological debate' ends up being 'just restate my opinion over and over again and at varying volume'.

TBF that's not unique to the NFI, but in other circles I've found a greater percentage of people (and pastors) who are able to go beyond that.

And there are some examples of people claiming Calvin/Puritans etc. supported the same view, when it's evident that they have never read either.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree with Chris. Undoubtedly you get the same tendency in Orthodox circles where some people bang on about the Fathers rather than actually reading them or in Wesleyan circles where people bang on about Wesley without having read anything beyond his Journal.

Certainly in Anglican circles you'll find plenty of woolly or 'unsound' people and plenty, both clergy and laity who've never read Hooker, nor Lancelot Andrewes, the Tractarians ... nor acquainted themselves with the poetry of Donne or Herbert, the mysticism of Evelyn Underhill nor much else that could be gathered under the umbrella of the Anglican tradition.

It sounds elitist, but I suspect in any tradition you have to seek out the guardians and protectors of the 'Precious Things' that lie at the back of the shop ... let the League of Gentlemen viewers understand ...

Seriously, as Jengie will tell us, there is more to the Reformed tradition than the Big Name Bloggers cited on the SGM thread. Just as there is more to Pentecostalism than the big name pulpiteering revivalists. Or more to Roman Catholicism than a social club, Bingo on a Saturday night and Mass on a Sunday morning.

New Wine, NFI, SGM ... they're all pretty shallow when push comes to shove and it doesn't take long to swim to the other side of any of them.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Now I know what it must feel like to be a blond and have to prove you're not "ditzy" all the time ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
QED?
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
The last couple of posts suggest that you can't really be interested in theology and part of NF.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
The last couple of posts suggest that you can't really be interested in theology and part of NF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
New Wine, NFI, SGM ... they're all pretty shallow when push comes to shove and it doesn't take long to swim to the other side of any of them.

---

Well, at New Wine, we've been many years and we do find it very different from the others - more relaxing, no compulsiveness, no telling us females to wear our heads covered, lots of fun playing, lots of performances, lots of charities, lots of all kinds of good food, no prejudice against us, etc etc
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Not sure this is relevant to the discussion about theology ..... but it shows the lack of thirst for Bible knowledge amongst people who supposedly had come from a Bible tradition.

During my research, covert spread over several years, I was very careful to note numbers / changes of faces etc. I attended, in one New Church 'denomination' (not at that time NF) weekly Bible Studies put on for the membership across several congregations (i.e. potentially several hundred people). At the end of the two year period of studies (which, for me, were good and quite 'deep') an elder commented that I deserved commendation for my attendance. I was, I know, the most regular of the 50 or so attendees.

Goodness knows what would have happened if they had annouinced theology studies. Which of course they did in their 'commitment classes' where my rather limited experience, for obvious reasons, suggested a simple rehearsing of church doctrine with no discussion allowed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No they don't. Of course it's possible to be part of NFI and be interested in theology.

All I was suggesting that the level of theology practised within NFI and similar groups isn't as deep or as clever as it likes to think it is.

You take SGM as an example. When former Covenant Ministries people I know shifted over to a PDI/SGM position there were trumpeting their new found 'Reformed' credentials as if they'd found something a lot cleverer and theologically deeper than what they'd been involved with previously. To some extent they were probably right ... but what they hadn't appreciated was that they'd simply exchanged one form of fundamentalism for another and that the SGM brand of Reformed evangelicalism was just one flavour ... that the Reformed tradition per se was a lot broader and deeper than that.

Can you see what I'm trying to say?

I'm finding it hard to articulate without causing offence. But there's no other way round it. There might well be some good theology going on in NFI ... particularly when compared with some of the other independent charismatic evangelical outfits.

But it sure as eggs ain't anywhere near as insightful or scholarly as you'd get within one of the older denominations or the traditional historic Churches (when taken in their entirety).

If you feel otherwise, then that's fine. But I can only speak as I find and what I have found is that there's a greater theological literacy in some of the so-called 'dead' or traditional churches that groups like NFI complain about than anything they can muster.

Sadly, much of this light is hidden under a bushel or squirreled away and needs sifting out. But it is there.

I ain't saying that NFI people are theologically-illiterate or challenged ... all I am saying is that there's a sheen of theological nous and complexity on top of NFI and other groups that will soon rub off. And when you look below the surface there ain't a great deal there.

I knew I'd get this kind of reaction but hey ... I can only speak as I find. And I mean no disrespect to Eutychus as a former NF member nor to people like yourself who're happily involved with it.

I'm sort of post-evangelical these days and so am ambivalent about much that goes on in the evangelical sphere per se ... but at the risk of making an ad hominem judgement I would hazard a guess that Johnny S the Baptist, Leprechaun the independent evangelical minister and Ken the evangelical Anglican on these Boards could give most restorationist/or house-church ministers and leaders a run for their money when it came to theological debate.

And the same applies to many of the Methodist, URC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, RC and Orthodox posters we have on these boards.

I'm not saying that NFI doesn't pass muster theologically compared to all the others. Just that the theology ain't as clever as it looks at first sight.

Here I stand, I can do no other.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Daisy May ... I'm sure that New Wine is a lot lighter and less controlling than the house-church thing was.

I've not been, nor do I feel in anyway attracted or inclined to go to be quite frank.

All I can say is that if their magazine is an indication of the depth of their theology then it ain't a great deal deeper than anything I've seen in the restorationist settings.

Many of the articles are complete bollocks.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This might be a tangent or belong on one of Gamaliel's other threads, but what I've taken from my experience with NF is the strong impression that theology and practice can be mutually exclusive.

There's a well-worn path ( ) from "shallow" evangelicalism into "deep" Orthodoxy, but for my part I'm not convinced.

I've learned that what I thought was well worked-out theology can be undone either by being confronted with a previously-unheard perspective (thank you the Ship!) or by contrary practice (thank you NFI). These days I tend to focus a lot more on how - and whether - things are actually worked out in my or others' lives on a day-to-day basis, rather than on all the thinking that gets people there. Call it incarnational, call it Orthodox if you will...

[ 22. July 2011, 10:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
thanks for the fairer tone

quote:

---

theology and practice can be mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I've learned that what I thought was well worked-out theology can be undone either by being confronted with a previously-unheard perspective (thank you the Ship!) or by contrary practice (thank you NFI).

---

quote:

---

These days I tend to focus a lot more on how - and whether - things are actually worked out in my or others' lives on a day-to-day basis, rather than on all the thinking that gets people there. Call it incarnational, call it Orthodox if you will...

---

Yes, that's definitely a factor, but then niceness isn't a gift of the Spirit And I suspect that those sorts of movements don't survive on their own for very long unless something more solid underpins them.

[ 22. July 2011, 11:48: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
niceness isn't a gift of the Spirit

---

quote:

---

those sorts of movements don't survive on their own for very long unless something more solid underpins them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
niceness isn't a gift of the Spirit

---

Perhaps not, but hypocrisy is spoken out against pretty clearly...

---

quote:

---

I'm not against 'movements' or denominations per se, but if we must have them, these days I like to see them firmly aware of their frailty as human institutions, with all the safeguards that implies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I've never picked up any impression that New Frontiers or Covenant Ministries or any of the other restorationist outfits and 'apostolic networks' saw themselves as 'The Church™.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Possible tangent (sorry)

Eutychus: What safeguards do you now think should be in place in churches and how do you see them functioning?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I've never picked up any impression that New Frontiers or Covenant Ministries or any of the other restorationist outfits and 'apostolic networks' saw themselves as 'The Church™.'

---

Are you sure we're on the same planet??

The whole premise of Restorationism is that God is restoring the Church, and the best expression of this is whichever restorationist church happens to be speaking.

Back in the early 80s some friends of ours who went off to join Harvestime as it was then quite seriously asserted to us that its apostles were Apostles™ and that it was only a matter of time before the rest of the church recognised them or went under.

NF was perhaps never that explicit or extreme, but at one of the later Stoneleighs Terry annoyed all the visiting Anglicans by a rehash of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' infamous "leave your denominations" message.

Not to mention the innumerable messages I have heard (and yes, preached ) on the poor trans-Jordan tribes who were part of God's people but turned their backs on their God-given heritage. And so on and so on.

A defining moment for me was at the last Brighton conference I attended (well, I actually spent a lot of time on the beach staring out into the void) when we sang Lex Loizides' It is the Church (hosts please note this is a "fair-use" exceprt!);

quote:

---

I HAVE SEEN A MYSTERY,
The hopes of prayer and prophecy,
And rising from all peoples see, she comes.
Rescued, ransomed, lifted up,
Crowned with mercy, clothed in hope,
The object of all heaven's love, she comes.

It is the church,
The hope of all the world,
And here I fix my heart and hand,
I cannot turn away! (...)

---

...and it occurred to me that we were all there, passionately singing about this restored church, of which we were the leaders...in short, we were singing the praises of ourselves. It's not a song to God at all.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No Eutychus, we were/are on the same planet.

What I meant was that the restorationist groups may certainly have seen themselves as THE way of doing things and there may have been - at an early stage of development - a sense that the rest of Christendom would eventually see sense and join in ...

But that didn't mean that they didn't regard other churches AS churches. Although sometimes the rhetoric suggested that they didn't.

In a lot of ways I feel that the restorationists were in a parallel universe to the Orthodox. Sort of mirror-images.

So, for instance, if you were Covenant Ministries (as I was) you would have regarded all churches with some kind of apostolic 'covering' or network as kosher.

So all the R1 lot - including New Frontiers and outfits like Salt and Light and various similar streams and networks abroad - such as PDI/SGM etc - were all kosher ... if less than ideal in certain respects.

If you were ever to move to a different town or city then the ideal would have been to find a Covenant Ministries church. But if one wasn't available then NFI was fine, Pioneer was ok, Ichthus was ok ... the Grapevine end of the AoG were ok ...

If there weren't any 'apostolic' churches around then a charismatic Baptist, a Vineyard or similar were acceptable and, if you really, really had to, one of the denominations (particularly if it had charismatic tendencies) was ok as last resort.



If you're Orthodox then all the canonical Orthodox are kosher, the RCs aren't but are fairly close (other than over-egging certain things and having a bully at the helm in the form of the Pope), the Anglicans are well ... good in parts, the Baptists and similar are some kind of heterodox conventicle and as for NFI and the restorationists - well, they're just cults.



As far as the restorationists I knew were concerned, the RC Church wasn't a Church at all in the NT sense - although individual Catholics, including the Pope - could certainly be 'proper' Christians. The Anglicans were simply a mixed multitude, the Methodists a sorry reflection of their former glory, the Baptists were ok but not ok enough ...

Sure, there was all the bollocks about the tribes who remained on the other side of the Jordan yadda yadda yadda but I never took any of that seriously. I can honestly say that I remained on good eirenic terms with practically everyone during my 18 years in restorationism - including Anglo-Catholics, RCs and Orthodox towards the end of my time there.

As for singing songs to the 'Church' - well, is it wrong, then, for Anglicans and others to sing 'Glorious things of thee are spoken/Zion city of our God?'

But I take your point.

These things were over-realised in restorationism as with much else. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and called themselves Over-realised and Over-Egged Ministries and then everyone would have seen immediately where they were coming from ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for singing songs to the 'Church' - well, is it wrong, then, for Anglicans and others to sing 'Glorious things of thee are spoken/Zion city of our God?'

---

quote:

---

Blest inhabitants of Zion,
washed in our Redeemer's blood;
Jesus, whom our souls rely on,
makes us monarchs, priests to God.
Us, by his great love, he raises,
rulers over self to reign,
and as priests his solemn praises
we for thankful offering bring.

---

quote:

---

In a lot of ways I feel that the restorationists were in a parallel universe to the Orthodox. Sort of mirror-images.

---

Terry would look great with a beard!!!
Does this inform your Bosphorus paddeling?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok ... but you're beginning to remind me, I'm afraid, of a vicar who recently expressed squeamishness about 'singing to Mother Earth' because they'd sung the wholly unexceptionable 'All Creatures of Our God and King' at an ordination service - Victorian words based on a poem by St Francis of Assissi.

---

Sorry about that. It was a moment of revelation for me, that's all. In happier days I went evangelising with Lex on Cape Town trains.

The fact is, I believed that stuff. From what I can make out, I'm as eirenic as you and somehow thought there was room for that in NF. It turned out there wasn't. In the meantime I committed to it 110% because that's the kind of person I am (or was).

(Well before our NF days, Mrs. E. and I came to France in a rickety Commer combi-type van (which we bought just to make the journey) with all, and I mean all, our possessions in the back, including 2 bikes, because I thought that's what the missionary spirit was about. Turns out I was wrong ).

I was among people I would have risked my life for, and I thought they would have done the same for me. I thought their word was their bond. I endured a whole other kind of wilderness here by committing to promoting NF and its vision in France. When it came apart I thought it must be because I'd come across a single rotten apple in the barrel, but the more I've dug, and despite the best efforts of some good people within NF, the more it looks as if I'd come across the, if you'll excuse the pun, core.

Rant over. Psychoanalyze all you like; it still hurts.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I meant was that the restorationist groups may certainly have seen themselves as THE way of doing things and there may have been - at an early stage of development - a sense that the rest of Christendom would eventually see sense and join in ...

But that didn't mean that they didn't regard other churches AS churches. Although sometimes the rhetoric suggested that they didn't.

---

quote:

---

As far as the restorationists I knew were concerned, the RC Church wasn't a Church at all in the NT sense - although individual Catholics, including the Pope - could certainly be 'proper' Christians. The Anglicans were simply a mixed multitude, the Methodists a sorry reflection of their former glory, the Baptists were ok but not ok enough ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The True Church on Earth is the gathered church, the individual congregation where the word of God is rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered, and where we meet with God though the Holy Spirit and each other. (To be honest I would agree with that)

---

Well, I'd agree with that also - though I don't think I've heard anyone from those circles using such language. I'd be surprised if 'the sacraments' played a particularly important part in the thinking of any of the leaders (apart from an injunction to do them).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You're right there, Chris. In fairness, some of the more thoughtful and reflective leaders (generally those with a Brethren background it seemed to me) DID try to articulate a more sacramental approach to the Lord's Supper/communion - although they wouldn't have put it in those terms.

Equally, some of them had a rather 'high' view of baptism that went beyond the purely symbolic - and certainly beyond what many Baptist ministers would find comfortable.

None of this was ever fully worked out in practice, though.

There were no fools, but neither were they they quite 'with it' when trying to articulate a systematic theology or ecclesiology. That said, in their own clumsy way, they had rather more of an ecclesiology than most independent evangelicals and indeed evangelicals in general.

The standard of ecclesiological reflection among evangelical Anglicans is generally pretty woeful in my experience. Ken's experience might be different.

Eutychus: of course, it still hurts.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyse nor diminish that. But I suspect the issue with NFI is symptomatic of something more rotten in the state of enthusiastic evangelicalism per se.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
And a lot of difference there is from Harvestime and now we go to New Wine - both women and men leading all sorts of things, and not being always forced to go to sessions etc, and the food here is great! Not just fish and chips
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm sure it is a lot better and broader than Harvestime was ... but it still seems pretty narrow to me. At least, judging from their magazine which doesn't seem to be the last word in theological depth as far as I can see ...


 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
I read New Wine and Christianity magazine and I would suggest the latter as a teaching document.

It could be suggested that New Wine comes with a whole load of hang ups. Despite being part of an apostolic sacramental church in theory, non-Anglican Charismatics often strike me as more apostolic and more sacramental, and more sympathetic to Anglicanism.

It is a bit like my Anglo-Catholic friends who see the 1662 BCP as invalid ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you've nailed it, Edward.

I mention anything vaguely sacramental or Anglican to our New Wine-y vicar and his pals and they'll step back as if I'm a vampire and make the sign of the cross ...

Well, actually, they don't do the latter ... but they do recoil from me as if I'm breathing fire or my head is swivelling around at 360-degrees ...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure it is a lot better and broader than Harvestime was ... but it still seems pretty narrow to me. At least, judging from their magazine which doesn't seem to be the last word in theological depth as far as I can see ...

---

I'd agree with this but, in defence of New Wine and the people who put the magazine together, I'm not sure it's meant to be the last word in theological depth! I just take it as a starting point for finding out more about a project, an author, a theological issue or whatever.

Declaration of interest - I've been doing some training with New Wine so I'm probably biased.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I hope the training goes well, South Coast Kevin ... I'm coming from an ex-restorationist perspective so I'm probably biased ... insofar as I baulk at anything that looks suspiciously similar to where I've been ...



But I'm sure you're right ... New Wine material can be a good place to start.

Anyway, we've gone on a tangent from Terry Virgo ...
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I mention anything vaguely sacramental or Anglican to our New Wine-y vicar and his pals and they'll step back as if I'm a vampire and make the sign of the cross ...

Well, actually, they don't do the latter ... but they do recoil from me as if I'm breathing fire or my head is swivelling around at 360-degrees ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Despite being part of an apostolic sacramental church in theory, non-Anglican Charismatics often strike me as more apostolic and more sacramental, and more sympathetic to Anglicanism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
So it becomes a case of 'we believe in signs and wonders' 'this looks like a sign and wonder' 'we believe in it'.

---

Pure gold! I'll have to remember that one.
 

---

Posted by caty (# 85) on :
 
New Wine seems to me to be more about relationships between churches and charismatic practice ("Living the Christian life") than in-depth theology. The magazine reflects that - it's pretty woolly and at times reminds me very much of an Adrian Plass spoof...

At the conferences, there's more depth in some of the teaching, but it very much depends on the speaker(s). I get the impression that they're trying to be as inclusive as possible, so people with all sorts of different (charismatic ) viewpoints can feel at home there.

Only went to Stoneleigh once, it felt very much more like everyone had been carefully briefed. (Or perhaps just sounded out to ensure that they "shared the vision"...)

caty
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting comment, Caty ... and yes, your judgement on the magazine is on the money!

You've also brought it back neatly to New Frontiers ... I never visited Stoneleigh but did attend a NFI church for about four weeks after we left our own restorationist set-up. Nice people ... but it did feel pretty 'corporate' even though it was in its messy church-plant early days.

I s'pose my beef with New Wine, though, is that this is the particular vintage that's being promoted at our parish church at the moment. It feels like a rather poor quality, bargain-basement wine rather than a vintage wine or even a decent drop at a reasonable price such as you can get at any supermarket these days.

Ok ... so I appreciate that there are new Christians around and it needs to be a bit pappy ... but there's not a lot to chew on.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but I'm genuinely interested ...

At the risk of another tangent, Caty, ARE they really different views/nuances within mainstream charismatic evangelicalism these days? From where I'm sitting it all pretty much looks the same ... particularly in middle-class mainstream charismatic circles such as you find within the charismatic Baptists, at the Vineyard and over at HTB etc.

It all seems a bit 'beige' - a kind of IKEA charismaticism.

Ok, so they'll sometimes expose themselves to something more edgy, such as Bill Johnson's Bethel ... but for the most part its a form of charismaticism that isn't going to frighten the horses too much.

What level of nuance are we talking about here?

They don't seem to include many of the more sacramental charismatics, for instance.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
The general impression that I get from NF is that they are intentionally light on theology (that doesn't mean there aren't some serious theologians in there... though I've yet to meet one ), but instead place a greater emphasis on experiencing God... esp. through the gifts.

I'm sure there are some people who do experience God and lot of people who walk away thinking they've experienced God... but for me the emotional quagmire of the NF retreat was too thick to swim through and I walked away with nothing more than a headache from the noise and a pegged out introvert meter. (that's the local NF retreat mind you, not the big one... only about 300 people)

I would actually agree with the emphasis on experiencing God over theology, I just get it from a different venue these days... and looking back I'm not sure what I was really getting in my Penti/Charismatic days.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
The man who was talking tonight in NW said that God was happy with all the denominations in UK and God was filling UK. That was good for me, so that all sorts of Christians are all "the same" for feeling God's love, or loving God etc etc. It sounded not prejudiced as I've experienced in the past a lot.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
The man who was talking tonight in NW said that God was happy with all the denominations in UK and God was filling UK. That was good for me, so that all sorts of Christians are all "the same" for feeling God's love, or loving God etc etc. It sounded not prejudiced as I've experienced in the past a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...sacramental charismatics...

---

quote:

---

Maybe it is time they just went

---

quote:

---

Obedience to the HERETICAL IMPERATIVE
is not being afraid to listen
to ask questions
to be converted to truth
in whatever form it may be presented

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The flip side of prejudice is a lack of definition and/or wooliness.

It's a sort of - "Give us today our daily quiche" tendancy of middle of the road/middle class christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the risk of another tangent, Caty, ARE they really different views/nuances within mainstream charismatic evangelicalism these days? From where I'm sitting it all pretty much looks the same ... particularly in middle-class mainstream charismatic circles such as you find within the charismatic Baptists, at the Vineyard and over at HTB etc.

It all seems a bit 'beige' - a kind of IKEA charismaticism.

Ok, so they'll sometimes expose themselves to something more edgy, such as Bill Johnson's Bethel ... but for the most part its a form of charismaticism that isn't going to frighten the horses too much.

What level of nuance are we talking about here?

They don't seem to include many of the more sacramental charismatics, for instance.

---

You're probably right! In some ways, it's the "let's all be polite about this and not scare the horses" attitude that I like about Anglican Charismatics, or the ones I've experienced anyway. Not sure I have wide enough experience to answer your point, but I'll give it a go.

I think the IKEA beigeness is probably because mainstream Charismatic worship IS now mainstream - my suspicion is that people have got a little weary of all the splits and are now trying to work together where possible. So any theological differences are swept to one side, if they can be.

I've experienced some nuances, but I think that these don't come from the charismatic bit, but the "other" bit of a church's DNA - what's their root, and where did they come from?

So for example, NFI churches seem to have more Reformed backgrounds, and their emphasis is more on reformed theology (PSA in particular). Anglican churches (in my experience) place less emphasis on expository preaching and theology and as a result can seem more woolly to those of us brought up on 40min sermons twice on Sundays. (PSA encouraged in the evangelical wing but generally optional ) I've heard a couple of Pentecostal preachers at New Wine, and they seemed to have a completely different frame of reference to anything I'd heard before - the language and emphasis was completely different.

The nuances seem to be fading with time, perhaps because the link with the original root is weaker. Perhaps because theology has less of an emphasis in the wider church - I think we've generally moved towards a more Post Modern "let's all share our experiences and stories and learn about God together" model and away from more abstract theology. We've probably lost something important in that transition.

I still notice some differences in emphasis, but it's mostly about church practise and the way that the leadership works.

caty
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrAlpen:

This is true, but only significant if you think that the defining axis ranges from wool to rock (of various types) in theological clarity. If, on the other hand, you think that the defining axis ranges from disinterested academic observer to disciple then you might see it as turning the spotlight on the importance of spiritual, practical and theological practice within a more broadly-drawn theological and ecclesiastical landscape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrAlpen:

I share my journey of faith most comfortably and frequently with anglicans from all points on the candle, methodists, charismatic NFIers, Roman Catholics, free evangelicals ... we disagree on many things theologically and ecclesiastically, and have vigorous debates on these things. But we share a commitment to explore and practise our faith. This doesn't seem to me be woolly w.r.t. our commitment, just w.r.t. the importance of hammering out a shared theology before we can share practise.

---

In my humble opinion, that you still have vigorous debates on such things makes you somewhat of a minority in the broad sweep of what constitutes the charismatic end of evangelicalism (or even evangelicalism as a whole - I wasn't picking on New Wine in particular). To use the Lewis metaphor - while the hallway is something you are perfectly comfortable with, you also know which room you call home. I would suggest that in percentage terms, your position is somewhat of an anomaly.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm committed to a broad and ecumenical approach in the C S Lewis 'Mere Christianity' and 'Deep Church' sense ... as expounded by Andrew Walker et al.

But that doesn't mean settling for a MOR beigeness.

I think Caty's struck onto something though ... if it is true that the charismatic thing is 'a spirituality in search of a theology' then it can only bring to the table a pre-existent theology from whatever stable it has taken root within - be it Reformed, Catholic or whatever else.

I think Walker and others would acknowledge that one of the best aspects of the charismatic renewal (at least initially) was that it crossed theological and ecclesial divides and that Reformed and reformed, Evangelical and evangelical, Anglicans and Catholics etc etc could meet on the basis of a shared experience rather than being at one another's throats over theological differences.

But there does come a time when we need to do theology ...

DaisyMay ... your comment about the speaker at NW saying that God was 'pleased' with all the denominations and that he was 'filling' the UK begs a few questions in my mind ...

1) How the bloody hell does he know what God's thinking?

I have no idea whether God is pleased with the various denominations or not. I suspect he's pleased with some aspects and hacked off with others. But what gives any of us the right to stand up on a platform and pontificate as to what those aspects may or may not be? Sounds like illuminism gone mad.

2) If I had a fiver for every time I'd heard that God was doing this that or the other I could retire a wealthy man.
 

---

Posted by MrAlpen (# 12858) on :
 

quote:

---

In my humble opinion, that you still have vigorous debates on such things makes you somewhat of a minority in the broad sweep of what constitutes the charismatic end of evangelicalism ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roots:
Long may Terry reign!

---

I'm sure if he has his way...

Honestly, and forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it's hard to take your post too seriously. Comparing TV with St. Paul is just silly. Paul had the Apostolic anointing given to him by Christ himself: after 1900 years without Apostles Terry pops up out of the woodwork and claims that God has given him the same level of anointing that Paul, John, Peter, and the original Apostles had; all that despite the historical insistence of nearly all Christians since the 2nd century that the gift of Apostleship died with the original Apostles.

The problem with TV's authority is that it's build on sand, evangelical faddism and wishful thinking. No one will remember his name or works 20 years after his death.

Oh, and "maybe a little direct control"? Go back and read the rest of the thread... the guy is/was pope of NF.

Forgive my blunt assessment, but having spent even a few years in a NF church has dissolved any good will I ever had towards their "movement" and leadership.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Very interesting to see what people make of the church movement I'm a part of (!). I'm currently in a Newfrontiers church but have also been with Pioneer and, at Uni, explored trad Pentecostals, Baltists, studied the Orthodox Church as part of my degree (most enlightening) and enjoyed worshipping with my now late mother in law at an Anglican church. So what of NF theology? Well I'd say it's pretty good as far as it goes. Remember that NF church leaders don't spend several years in a training college before starting work. They are essentially missionaries learning on the job. And there is a very bright young batch of leaders very open to learning from outside the network. Whilst It's not the same as spending three or four years at theological/Bible, they have a secure understanding of the historical doctrines of the church and can explain them clearly enough. OK - some of my pals in the movement think they know more theology than they really do, but they know enough to be plausible and more of then are recognising the value of Christian thinking from other spheres. Functional theology for new churches which, in the main, does the job of helping understanding what we're supposed to be doing in our churches and why.

Standing ready to be enriched by the views of shipmates....
 

---

Posted by Shiprat (# 12808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius: Baltists

---

Welcome aboard! Just when I had completely given up on finding a denomination, I am given new hope. I like the sound of the baltists, I am past caring about their doctrine, if the food is good then sign me up

quote:

---

...but they know enough to be plausible .... [/QB]

---

Alarm Bells
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
To this observer from a more traditional ecclesiastical subculture, the jargon-ridden fascination with the roiling structure and internal politics of a splinter group evident in this thread is remarkable. One only hopes, for the sake of Christ and the gospel, that the number of people coming in through the front door of these up-and-up congregations exceeds the number of disillusioned walking wounded exiting by the back door.

The only comparable that comes to mind is when breakaway Anglicans sink into an alphabet soup of their sub-groups, detailing their shades of doctrinal and liturgical difference and their dreams of eventual merger, or at least coalition. As if anyone in the big world cares. The main difference is that in one subculture, the leaders are guys who like to wear mitres and write "+" in front of their names; whereas in the other, they always want to go on a breezy first-name basis and pretend that everything is informal, when it is clearly is not.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roots:
Long may Terry reign!

---

I'm sure if he has his way...

Honestly, and forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it's hard to take your post too seriously. Comparing TV with St. Paul is just silly. Paul had the Apostolic anointing given to him by Christ himself: after 1900 years without Apostles Terry pops up out of the woodwork and claims that God has given him the same level of anointing that Paul, John, Peter, and the original Apostles had; all that despite the historical insistence of nearly all Christians since the 2nd century that the gift of Apostleship died with the original Apostles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
One only hopes, for the sake of Christ and the gospel, that the number of people coming in through the front door of these up-and-up congregations exceeds the number of disillusioned walking wounded exiting by the back door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
To this observer from a more traditional ecclesiastical subculture, the jargon-ridden fascination with the roiling structure and internal politics of a splinter group evident in this thread is remarkable.

---

Things may be different in the USA but in Britain these churches have probably been more significant in changing the way people worship in public than any other denomination in the last forty years.

Although the worship-band, charismatic-lite style originated before NFI - probably some time in the 1960s - there was very little of it visible in Britain until the "House Church Movement" of the 1970s. When they stopped being entirely separatist in the 1980s their worship style, especially the music, very soon spread to large numbers of Baptist and Anglican churches (two of our three largest denominations, the other one being the RCs of course who are less affected by all this - but not entirely unaffected)

My rough guess is that maybe somewhere between one in twenty and one in ten CofE churches might count as Charismatic-Evangelical these days - though a higher proportion of worshippers because they include many of the largest congregations - and possibly as many as half the Baptists. And many other churches will have been influenced by that style of public worship, at least as regards the music.

Even in the USA some of you will have heard of Graham Kendrick, Tim Hughes, Matt Redman, Stuart Townend and their friends and relations. Their music is in a sense the product of the interaction between the "New Churches" including NFI and the traditional Anglican and Baptist evangelicals.

So these folk are not obscure or marginal to British Christainity. I think that if you asked a random sample of British churchgoers what the major liturgical changes have been in the last few decades the most popular answer wouldn't be anything to do with the Liturgical Movement, or the consequences of Vatican II, or the CofE's Common Worship books, it would be amplified music, projected lyrics, and back-to-back "worship songs".
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, more's the pity ...

For the information of those posting as though Terry is striking out on his own, the chap is actually retiring as far as I can tell ...

I wouldn't write him off as severely as Irish Lord has, but neither would I insist that what the restorationists have achieved (and they have achieved a lot) is the best thing since sliced bread.

I suspect, ken, that it was the very spread and popularity of the style of worship you've mentioned did more to blunt the apparent radicalism and 'cutting-edge' of the original R1 style restorationists as anything else.

Once Spring Harvest and the various Baptist, CofE and other renewalists were singing the lively songs and choruses with OHPs and then Power-Point slides then there was little point in people joining up with a charismatic 'apostle'.

Andrew Walker and other analysts, such as the late Douglas McBain among the Baptists, acknowledged as much.

You could have the lively worship and so on without having to submit yourself to 'apostolic oversight' and bankroll someone's ministry ...

NFI has been the largest and most successful of the original restorationist groups in the UK partly because it had a semblance of theological weight about it that didn't alienate the more reformed end of the evangelical spectrum.

I would submit that this weightiness is illusory to a certain extent, but would concede that it is weightier than some pundits would suggest.

Where the real problems start, I would suggest, is with some of the NFI outfits further afield - in France, in Turkey (where Irish Lord is) and even up in Scotland where some pretty things have happened.

I'm not dissing the whole new church/restorationist thing ... well, not at least insofar as they have, in many places, engaged with the unchurched and brought people to faith in not inconsiderable numbers (although nowhere near the numbers that have sometimes been claimed).

I suspect it's an 'age' thing to some extent. I'm 50 so I can afford to be an old git and roll my eyes when these earnest youngsters come along telling us how wonderful it all is ... yadda yadda yadda ...

The older and more streetwise among us, and I make no apologies for making such a claim, have the grey hairs and the scars or blisters to prove how the charismatic roller-coaster joy-ride can knock you about ...

My own experience of NFI has been benign ... but I know plenty of horror stories ...
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not dissing the whole new church/restorationist thing ... well, not at least insofar as they have, in many places, engaged with the unchurched and brought people to faith in not inconsiderable numbers (although nowhere near the numbers that have sometimes been claimed).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrAlpen:

If I reflect on the serried ranks of anglicans, methodists, baptists and the handful of catholics that I know then I'd say that the human facility to allow Christ only limited access is certainly not the sole preserve of the charismatics. I'd like to say it's been my experience that it's more common outside the charismatics - at least the charismatics think that there ought to be _some_ evidential change!

---

quote:

---

So what about Gamaliel's idea that there must come a time to do theology when you've had some woolly old sharing? Maybe I am being too severe in this, but bollocks to that! People do theology together _when_ they're sharing, and rightly so. When you test what you believe against the experiences of yourself and others and in the light of your disparate traditions then that's when theology happens. It's not a sequential thing, it's a parallel thing - and I expect that you'll find it going on between Christians of all denominations at New Wine, just as much as Greenbelt and down at the Old Bakery in our town next week. Do we really think that it's a good thing if the woolly old sharing brigade get a dose of proper theology and retreat back to their monolithic traditions?

---

Well, either they are a wooly sharing brigade or they aren't, which is it ?

Here's the thing. I'm not demanding that everyone become exactly as critical about things as I am,but history is fairly clear that a movement which comes to build itself largely on experience alone tends not to have a centre after a while, and tends to fade away.

I think that's in danger of happening to large parts of the evangelical world - there's a real danger that the next generation comes to dismiss the church of their parents because it appears to be superstition minus any kind of belief.

I don't think everyone should be anglican, or baptist or whatever. I just feel that once baptists aren't able to explain why they are baptist, that there won't be any baptists left to do the explaining. Substitute any other denomination/group at will.
 

---

Posted by MrAlpen (# 12858) on :
 
I think you'd be right if the issue was that large sectors of the baptists or whoever have stopped thinking about why they're baptists and just settled for non-specific experiential comfort. I don't think this is where the evangelical end of the church has got to, however. Maybe I'm just a dewy-eyed optimist, but I am hoping that there's a growing recognition (tacit or explicit) that denominational history and theology can be challenging and illuminating, but does not have a history of leading inexorably to consensus. Whilst debating these things,we have to get on with living out our faith, and this can legitimately be a shared experience without resolving theological divisions that have proved to be intractable over centuries. I see the parlous state of the church in general as the child of theological and ecclesiastical obsession from the 19th and 20th centuries (and who knows when), rather than the newly-created spawn of Christian who would rather get on with each other and their faith. It's not an abdication of rigour, but a recognition that knowing why you were a baptist never proved to be sufficient to deal with the legions of non-baptists anyway.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrAlpen:
I see the parlous state of the church in general as the child of theological and ecclesiastical obsession from the 19th and 20th centuries (and who knows when), rather than the newly-created spawn of Christian who would rather get on with each other and their faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Generally movements that have lost their doctrinal precision have sooner or later disappeared.

---

Mind if I quote you on over on the C of E perfect-storm thread? Dave Marshall pleads there that the Church of England will survive only by abandoning what doctrinal precision it still has, and claims to have his finger on the pulse of a good segment of the British unchurched. Although not the greatest enthusiast of doctrinal precision myself (at least if presented as dogma), I'm with several skeptics about that proposal. (Wouldn't want to draw you into controversies you'd rather stay out of... )
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Take for example this interaction:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2006/09/n_t_wright_on_t.html

I rather like the ideas that miracles still fulfil a theological function in terms of the Kingdom.
 

---

Posted by MrAlpen (# 12858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Generally movements that have lost their doctrinal precision have sooner or later disappeared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrAlpen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Generally movements that have lost their doctrinal precision have sooner or later disappeared.

---

I think the point that you raised originally was different - that cooperation was evidence of lost doctrinal precision. That's the issue at which I balk.

---

quote:

---

Theological precision has always been a minority pursuit. It used to be used by church hierarchies as a pretext for exclusivism and ultimately the burning of heretics.

---

quote:

---

If you're concerned about the practical theology of some local charismatic then how much better it would be to discuss this with them at your local soup kitchen as you dole out the gruel than grumble about it amongst the tiny minority that agree with your peculiar interpretation?

---

Actually, my chosen venue of service sees me mixing in with people of very ill-defined beliefs or none. The taste in beer and films are better, and it reminds me that common grace doesn't require special revelation
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm with Chris Stiles. These days I'm far more likely to rub shoulders with the unchurched over a decent pint ...



I think, Mr Alpen, that you've taken some of my comments the wrong way. I'm all for Christians collaborating and hob-nobbing across denominational boundaries and, indeed, serving gruel on soup kitchens together and so on ... bring it all on.

But, to be brutally frank (and without saying too much that might identify myself to folk who might know my parish church), I've found that our local vicar positively tries to dampen and discourage theological debate if it begins to become half-way heavy and less 'beige'.

He wasn't at all pleased with me, for instance, for taking a chap to task over decidedly Arian views that he expressed publicly in a service and which received a round of applause from some of the recent Alpha converts ...

His reason? I might frighten the chap away and he might not come back to church again.

As it happened, I was a tad clumsy in my approach but no-one else had said anything and the whole thing had passed without comment or challenge.

So don't go telling me that there's plenty of robust theology about in touchy-feely charismatic evangelical circles because there patently isn't. Or at least, what there was has been allowed to dribble away.

My mother-in-law has copies of Renewal Magazine going back to the early editions in the mid-1960s. What strikes me about them is that the level of theological debate and discussion, whilst not being of a nose-bleed high academic standard, is nevertheless way, way, way above anything you're likely to read in the New Wine Magazine - or even in 'Christianity' magazine perhaps.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Although not the greatest enthusiast of doctrinal precision myself (at least if presented as dogma), I'm with several skeptics about that proposal. (Wouldn't want to draw you into controversies you'd rather stay out of... )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
DaisyMay ... your comment about the speaker at NW saying that God was 'pleased' with all the denominations and that he was 'filling' the UK begs a few questions in my mind ...

1) How the bloody hell does he know what God's thinking?

I have no idea whether God is pleased with the various denominations or not. I suspect he's pleased with some aspects and hacked off with others. But what gives any of us the right to stand up on a platform and pontificate as to what those aspects may or may not be? Sounds like illuminism gone mad.

2) If I had a fiver for every time I'd heard that God was doing this that or the other I could retire a wealthy man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Someone mentioned upthread census data reporting that Brighton, NF's historic fief, has the lowest number of practising christians in the UK - what an indictment on the prophecies that have been trumpeted over the years!

---

quote:

---

The more cynical side of me worries that this is a clever business approach as much as anything else. Contemporary christian music (CCM) is a big and lucrative market. I'm not sure about the financial relationship (if any) between ThankYou Music and NF, but there seems to be some overlap in personnel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Very interesting to see what people make of the church movement I'm a part of (!). I'm currently in a Newfrontiers church but have also been with Pioneer and, at Uni, explored trad Pentecostals, Baltists, studied the Orthodox Church as part of my degree (most enlightening) and enjoyed worshipping with my now late mother in law at an Anglican church. So what of NF theology? Well I'd say it's pretty good as far as it goes. Remember that NF church leaders don't spend several years in a training college before starting work. They are essentially missionaries learning on the job. And there is a very bright young batch of leaders very open to learning from outside the network. Whilst It's not the same as spending three or four years at theological/Bible, they have a secure understanding of the historical doctrines of the church and can explain them clearly enough. OK - some of my pals in the movement think they know more theology than they really do, but they know enough to be plausible and more of then are recognising the value of Christian thinking from other spheres. Functional theology for new churches which, in the main, does the job of helping understanding what we're supposed to be doing in our churches and why.

Standing ready to be enriched by the views of shipmates....

---

quote:

---

they have a secure understanding of the historical doctrines of the church and can explain them clearly enough. OK - some of my pals in the movement think they know more theology than they really do, but they know enough to be plausible and more of then are recognising the value of Christian thinking from other spheres. Functional theology for new churches which, in the main, does the job of helping understanding what we're supposed to be doing in our churches and why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

You also appear to do the 3 – 4 year college process a slight dis-service. The process isn’t about “book learning” and theory, it’s about formation.

---

quote:

---

There is very little theology coming out of churches like NFI that’s at academic level. They haven’t yet found an NT Wright (or even his lesser known mate, Nigel!). And often the way the debates are presented in their own literature are weak and one-dimensional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

You also appear to do the 3 – 4 year college process a slight dis-service. The process isn’t about “book learning” and theory, it’s about formation.

---

'book learning' is also a poor way of dismissing learning the primary languages, which is just part of learning the skills to critically assess ideas when encountering them for the first time.

quote:

---

There is very little theology coming out of churches like NFI that’s at academic level. They haven’t yet found an NT Wright (or even his lesser known mate, Nigel!). And often the way the debates are presented in their own literature are weak and one-dimensional.

---

Quote from one the magazines "We don't have unregenerate bishops baptising unregenerate children" - though a significant number of churches seemed to have no problem with communing those same (presumably unregenerate) children.

---

Now I'm confused. I think you misunderstood my point about college courses as that's exactly what I went onto say.

You'd hope by now that people would have moved on from making snide remarks about other churches in order to make themselves feel better about their own.

Tubbs

[ 01. August 2011, 14:11: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Now I'm confused. I think you misunderstood my point about college courses as that's exactly what I went onto say.

---

quote:

---

You'd hope by now that people would have moved on from making snide remarks about other churches in order to make themselves feel better about their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Now I'm confused. I think you misunderstood my point about college courses as that's exactly what I went onto say.

---

Yes, sorry. I was emphasising the same point though from a different angle as you hadn;t mentioned primary languages.

quote:

---

You'd hope by now that people would have moved on from making snide remarks about other churches in order to make themselves feel better about their own.

---

Well, the quote I gave from one of their magazines was a real one - and was in the context of what seemed to be inconsistencies elsewhere in the movement.

---

Thank you for clarifying. Where Mr T studied, the Greek and Hebrew modules were compulsory for the college based students, but they were optional for people doing the church / work based courses.

It's a shame that they let that stuff go into the magazine. (Still!) It counteracts the good work that individual churches are doing locally to build relationships.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's a shame that they let that stuff go into the magazine. (Still!) It counteracts the good work that individual churches are doing locally to build relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's cognitive dissonance and one of the most troubling aspects of NF - the seeming of fraternal relations when in fact the underlying position is much, much more exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This probably sounds awfully cynical but it sounds like the same old, same old ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I think you are both right. Inside NF, it felt like we were the biggest thing happening on earth christianly speaking. Once I was outside, in terms of churches at least, it shrank to near invisibility, at least as compared to what it's supposed to be in the revivalist rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Just to reassure Tubbs and other ship mates, I was in no way dissing bible/theological college training and didn't describe it as 'book learning'. Curious that you thought I had. If you don't have a college to send people to, you need another way of training people. The NF approach seeks to incorporate some of what you get in college, including the ministry opportunities that formal training provides.

There are various ways of training people. My sister in law a just finished training as a Baptist minister which she did whilst pastoring a church. So it's not just NF that train people on the job.

Hope that's a bit clearer. Such is the magic of virtual discussiions....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's a shame that they let that stuff go into the magazine. (Still!) It counteracts the good work that individual churches are doing locally to build relationships.

---

I think it's cognitive dissonance and one of the most troubling aspects of NF - the seeming of fraternal relations when in fact the underlying position is much, much more exclusive.

---

I tend in the same direction. It can be a source of strength and grace, but can also be used to internally devalue other Christians.

For example I believe Baptismal Regeneration is Christian Orthodoxy, I am however quite happy to work with Christians who are un-orthodox on this issue, just as I am happy to work with Christians who are un-orthodox on other issues, like the virgin birth or physical resurrection ...

I am filled with grace and delight at working with other Christians even though they are damnable heretics or 'missing out'.

This sort of ecumenism is common in Charismatic circles I suspect and Charismatics tend to get very nervous when other faith positions are presented in the same tone.

So my testimony that 'for 10 years I paddled in the shallow end of faith (NFI et al), never really experiencing the presence of Christ, being blown about by spiritual experience ... until I had a powerful encounter with Christ in the blessed sacrament and came to the fullness of faith' does not tend to go down well with folks who have just given me the 'for 10 years I was in a dead Anglican church ... until' spiel.

In terms of learning and study I wish that restorationist and renewal folks would just read the Apostolic Fathers and come to realise the church they are trying to restore never existed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A few caveats and comments ...

Re Terry Virgo. I've heard him preach a number of times and always enjoyed listening to him. Many ex-NFI people I know still hold him in high regard personally whilst expressing misgivings about the modus operandi.

Re our own bubbles. Yes, of course ... we all move in our own circles and some of us can get tied in very strongly to whatever conventions, publications and ethos/sub-culture there is ... and this doesn't just happen with charismatic evangelicals.

However, I don't know many Methodists, for instance, who would put their Methodist identity before their Christian identity ...

Nor many other people from whatever Church or denomination one might care to mention, come to that ...
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
So my testimony that 'for 10 years I paddled in the shallow end of faith (NFI et al), never really experiencing the presence of Christ, being blown about by spiritual experience ... until I had a powerful encounter with Christ in the blessed sacrament and came to the fullness of faith' does not tend to go down well with folks who have just given me the 'for 10 years I was in a dead Anglican church ... until' spiel.

In terms of learning and study I wish that restorationist and renewal folks would just read the Apostolic Fathers and come to realise the church they are trying to restore never existed.

---

While I fully accept the notion that there are some in the Charismatic end of the spectrum who are experencing the presense of Christ, and there are probably some 'dead Anglican' churches; I too am very annoyed by the marketing scheme that announces all other churches to be dead and that the way for all to experience Christ is through Charismatic or NFI worship. I finally decided never to set foot in the local NF branch again when they proclaimed that for the umpteenth time from the pulpit. I'm glad that they're all happy with where they are, but the idea that the whole world would be happier in there is a pipe dream.

I also resonate with your comments about the Apostolic Fathers, and I don't understand why NF et al need the restorationist tag at all? I mean, there are lots of Charismatic churches out there that simply proclaim "We like to worship this way, we feel it brings us closer to Christ, that's why we do it. We don't feel that the Bible tells us not to do so, so why not?"

Why this need to try and fabricate an picture of the early church in their own image? Most other Protestants don't see the need to do that.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I too am very annoyed by the marketing scheme that announces all other churches to be dead and that the way for all to experience Christ is through Charismatic or NFI worship. I finally decided never to set foot in the local NF branch again when they proclaimed that for the umpteenth time from the pulpit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I also resonate with your comments about the Apostolic Fathers, and I don't understand why NF et al need the restorationist tag at all? I mean, there are lots of Charismatic churches out there that simply proclaim "We like to worship this way, we feel it brings us closer to Christ, that's why we do it. We don't feel that the Bible tells us not to do so, so why not?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, I don't know many Methodists, for instance, who would put their Methodist identity before their Christian identity ...

Nor many other people from whatever Church or denomination one might care to mention, come to that ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...
However, I don't know many Methodists, for instance, who would put their Methodist identity before their Christian identity ...

Nor many other people from whatever Church or denomination one might care to mention, come to that ...

---

You and I have obviously met some very different people. I know quite a few who'd put their <insert denomination> identify before their Christian one and wouldn't dream of attending a different kind of church.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I know plenty of people who wouldn't dream of attending a different type of church, but most people I've met would put their Christianity before their denominational loyalty.

Sure, you'll get people saying, 'I'm a Catholic' for instance, but that doesn't mean that they're saying 'I'm a Catholic first and a Christian second ...'

I've never, ever, ever in my whole life (and I've been around the block plenty of times) come across a Methodist who'd self-identify as a Methodist over and above being a Christian.

The only people I've met who'd come anywhere near this are those who'd say 'I'm CofE ...' simply because that's what they'd put on the Census Form and not because they were regulars at their local parish church etc.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Evening all,

Couple of comments to reply to. Tubbs - training is a mix of in church, and weekend residential. Some of this we do ourselves, some leaders use the Porterbrook network. Depends a bit on where you are and what you think you need. So there's a programme of training for prospective church planters, and ad hoc training that you can opt into to improve your skills in various areas.

Eutychus - has a bit of a look at your history. I'm really saddened by some of your comments (not that you made them, but because of the circumstances that have given rise to them) but not surprised since they reflect some of my own experiences. All I can say on safeguards is that we do have churches in the network that promote a culture of openness and genuine accountability between all members, and the leaders are committed to modelling this. But there are other
congregations that espouse the same ideals without practicing them. The people I relate to at the moment give me hope that we have a future as a more open, engaged and collaborative movement.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
All I can say on safeguards is that we do have churches in the network that promote a culture of openness and genuine accountability between all members, and the leaders are committed to modelling this (...) The people I relate to at the moment give me hope that we have a future as a more open, engaged and collaborative movement.

---

I could have said that virtually word for word until things went pear-shaped for me and all the bits I thought were "open, engaged and collaborative" suddenly turned out to be anything but.

The key question for me is whether this new, um, "season of change" in NF really is an opportunity for changes of the kind I've suggested (and which, so far, everyone still connected to NF who's active on this thread has shown an extreme reluctance to comment on) or not.

I dare to hold out some hope that this is such a season.

However, there's the fuzziness of the current declarations (just how much is Terry actually relinquishing? I'm not sure even those closest to him really know. Can anyone find a clear quote?);

there's the historic authoritarianism (which, while it doesn't necessarily permeate to the fringes of NF all the time, very definitely in my view lies at its core and (as others have pointed out) ultimately defines its restorationist theology);

and there's this prevalent and continual cognitive dissonance (all friends together/hierarchical; irenic/exclusivist; constantly "on the verge of a major breakthrough).

All that doesn't give me much cause for optimism right now.

[ 02. August 2011, 19:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Eutychus - yes you've asked some specific questions, and I'm having trouble keeping up with them all (!). I can't claim to be a definitive representative of NF but will tell you what I know and think.

On finance and transparency - don't have a clue. In all the NF churches I've been involved it, all financial issues were completely open to scrutiny. I did see some discussion about Brighton and the Clarendon trust, but to be honest I didn't really follow it and can't comment.

What's Terry giving up? Well as I understand it, we are moving from having one man at the head, to a number of regional 'apostolic' spheres (bishoprics?). So in the UK there will be three main leaders who oversee these who will meet together with David Stroud who will act as a kind of convener. The annual Brighton leaders conference has been put to bed, and we can expect to see regional conferences in the UK and other countries. Not really sure what Terry will be up to. I'm sure these regional leaders will be keen to see him one to one. He will be doing mote work outside the network.

On safeguards, the new dynamic is that regional leaders are all parts of regional teams. So if you have an issue with one leader, you can in theory have a word with his peers. How well this would ever work in practice would depend on the dynamic in the team. Would we ever look to external arbitration? Can't see it personally. We are quite fussy about doing our own washing.

Comtradictions in NF? Oh yes. I don't see much evidence of us embracing failure which is a real weakness. Maybe breakthrough would come more quickly if we asked ourselves some hard questions about why it hasn't happened yet. We have been justly accused of over-promising and under-delivering.

And as for me taking what could have once been your own words from out of your mouth - I take it in the spirit it was given. There's much to admire in all churches and we have strengths of our own. But I'm not blind to issue that we face and the necessity of more ronust self-appraisal. We are getting better at it (how much of where we are now can be traced back to Mark Driscoll challenging NF to think seriously about life without Terry?). I hear your caution and believe me, I take heed.

What have I missed? I'm off line for a couple of days and you won't get any more sense out of me tonight.

Now I really should check this, but the last time I pressed 'preview post' I lost everything I wrote. So here we go...press..
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
"mote work"?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
On finance and transparency - don't have a clue. In all the NF churches I've been involved it, all financial issues were completely open to scrutiny. I did see some discussion about Brighton and the Clarendon trust, but to be honest I didn't really follow it and can't comment.

---

quote:

---

Not really sure what Terry will be up to. I'm sure these regional leaders will be keen to see him one to one.

---

quote:

---

On safeguards, the new dynamic is that regional leaders are all parts of regional teams. So if you have an issue with one leader, you can in theory have a word with his peers.

---

quote:

---

Would we ever look to external arbitration? Can't see it personally. We are quite fussy about doing our own washing.

---

quote:

---

What have I missed?

---

That will do quite nicely for now . Your comments about calling the movement into question from within are brave ones and I hope they translate into constructive action for everyone's sake. But don't expect them to go down well with everyone in positions of power.
 

---

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :
 
Eutycus, silence from me ony our questions is for two reasons.

1) I want to discuss them with the person in nf you have given them to

2) I want to discuss them with the trustee of newfrontiers that I know

The fact I want to do both suggests that I see much validity in both of them, and also want to check some of the underlying assumptions about what does and doesn't happen already.

And the fact we are now talking about real people and real situations and real conversations means I take it seriously, but will probably not comment too much more publically on that score.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks for this welcome news... the same caveat I wrote to Ramarius applies.

[ 03. August 2011, 05:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Ramarius wrote:

quote:

---

On finance and transparency - don't have a clue. In all the NF churches I've been involved it, all financial issues were completely open to scrutiny. I did see some discussion about Brighton and the Clarendon trust, but to be honest I didn't really follow it and can't comment.

---

quote:

---

On safeguards, the new dynamic is that regional leaders are all parts of regional teams. So if you have an issue with one leader, you can in theory have a word with his peers. How well this would ever work in practice would depend on the dynamic in the team. Would we ever look to external arbitration? Can't see it personally. We are quite fussy about doing our own washing.

---

If I’ve understood correctly, what’s being proposed is a kind of souped up Trustee / Non-Executive Director who comes from completely outside the church. As well as ensuring that the church fulfils its legal obligations, they would act as a combination of ACAS, Union Rep, and Employment Tribunal etc. I’m not sure that any church group has that, but if anyone knows different … [Having been through a mediation process, the level of success depends on the quality of the mediator and whether everyone involved is committed to the process. And there are numerous examples of how successful non-executives are at making companies behave properly ].

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be systems / checks and balances … There must be some as they help prevent wrong-doing. But whatever is in place, it will only prevent some incidents, not all.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Oh yippee another NFI are a dodgy outfit thread

I've been slow to join in mainly because this thread seems to reappear on a yearly basis with the same voices expressing the same points (some valid and some not IMHO).

Eutychus - don't you get bored doing the same thing? You and I have a very similar background in our time within NFI, yours ending in negatively and mine positively.

I think we have already stated in previous threads that what happened to you, although is very sad and I make no excuse for it, similar things happen to others who have been in other streams (Orthodox, C of E, Baptist, Methodist)

If such people continued to post their frustrations on this board then they would be dealt with very sharply.

For everyone else's info I was part of NFI for 20 years and am now starting my first pastorate as a Baptist pastor.

I don't agree fully with Baptist theology concerning a number of issues just like I didn't agree with some of NFI theology.

My experience is that I have found arrogance concerning theology and belief in both church families. It exists in all church streams.

quote:

---

irish_lord99 posted

I too am very annoyed by the marketing scheme that announces all other churches to be dead and that the way for all to experience Christ is through Charismatic or NFI worship

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted

However, I don't know many Methodists, for instance, who would put their Methodist identity before their Christian identity ...

I've never, ever, ever in my whole life (and I've been around the block plenty of times) come across a Methodist who'd self-identify as a Methodist over and above being a Christian.

---

Seriously??!! Maybe Methodists are so much better than everyone else as I have seen such attitudes in every church stream.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Eutychus - don't you get bored doing the same thing?

---

quote:

---

If such people continued to post their frustrations on this board then they would be dealt with very sharply.

---

quote:

---

My experience is that I have found arrogance concerning theology and belief in both church families. It exists in all church streams.

---

Agreed, but not many make the high claims NF does. They set a very high standard for themselves. I don't think that places them beyond dispute - quite the opposite.

Are you afraid NF can't take the heat, or do you think all criticism should be stifled because it's "a bad witness?" The NF contributors on this thread don't seem to think so, and all credit to them. I genuinely think they're very courageous, and I'm enjoying my interaction with them.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Marketing scheme is the wrong word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I know what you mean though but disagree that it is a policy within NFI.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
This thing happens in reverse from non charismatic churches directed towards NFI and like (have heard it from Orthodox and C of E as well as Baptists).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Where as I agree it is wrong there is a certain amount of people on this thread who need to remove the plank from their own eye...!

---

Everybody on here realizes that they've got problems and that their church of choice has problems. Your post history indicates that you show up only when you feel the need to defend NFI. Who do you really think is more devoted to the appearance of righteousness here?

Yeah, I've got a chip on my shoulder, sorry about that...
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Some posts on this thread are focusing on other poster's motivations more than substantive arguments. Please don't..

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
This thread has introduced me to at least one new term.

If one speaks of a branch, or branches, of the church, one invites sighs and as the concept is apparently dismissed as antiquated and discredited.

Maybe if I just learn to say "church streams" instead, I'll suddenly be ?
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Some posts on this thread are focusing on other poster's motivations more than substantive arguments. Please don't..

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

---

Sorry about that.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Evening Polly,

I'm glad your time in NF had a happy ending. To be fair to our mutual friend E, he kicked the thread off asking about the future of NF which is highly topical given TV's announcement of change of role.

I also followed the link to E's blog. I am shaking my head in disbelief. The patterns of behaviour he describes are exactly ones I have seen first hand. This is still a live issue.

Having said that, in some NF churches (including four I am personally involved with at the moment) they would be unimaginable.

Any church needs to eradicate bad practice, and ensure that good practice is universal best practice.

Genuinely wishing you every success in your current role.....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'll meet you half-way, Polly.

The last time I visited an NFI church I was a member of a Baptist church in another city. When an earnest young member of the congregation found out that I went to a Baptist church he began to lecture me on how the 'traditional Baptists' were 'dead' and how NFI was the place to be yadda yadda yadda ...

When I told him that I went to a lively and very untraditional Baptist church he modified his tune a bit. But I was lenient with him. He deserved my knee in his nuts.



Ok - I've found Orthodox converts to come out with some very dismissive comments about other churches and other Christians and I would agree that to some extent or other all churches have a tendency to think of themselves as a cut above the others ...

But with NFI it's different, I submit, insofar as it's part of their spiritual DNA and how they self-define over against everyone else - but the mileage will vary, of course. There are 'Big Baptists' who are complete pains in the neck too, and they make a big deal about being Baptist over and above everything else.

Some of my friends within other restorationist set-ups are quite pleased with the current developments within NFI as they feel it might lose the very 'corporate' and 'branded' aspect which does come across as marketing patter, I'm afraid.

Time will tell.

I'd be interested, though, Polly as to what you see the theological differences are between the Baptist Union Baptists in the UK and NFI? I'd have thought the differences were more a question of ecclesiology and emphasis rather than any genuine theological differences ... other than with, perhaps, the less or non-charismatic Baptists.

My own experience of the Baptists has been that they are way, way, way, way, a million light-years way more balanced, eirenic and indeed theologically savvy than most NFI-ers I've met. There are exceptions of course, and I'm sure that some, in not a considerable number, of NFI churches aren't that dissimilar to the charismatic end of the Baptist spectrum.

In my experience, the charismatic Baptists admire aspects of NFI and warm to its 'reformed' heritage but in practice are more influenced by the wider charismatic scene represented in the UK by the Vineyard and the New Wine Anglicans at the moment.

The Baptists are also open to movements like the Northumbria Community and contemplative prayer etc which probably wouldn't even get a look in over in New Frontiers land.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of my friends within other restorationist set-ups are quite pleased with the current developments within NFI as they feel it might lose the very 'corporate' and 'branded' aspect which does come across as marketing patter, I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus posted:
(And if you think nothing's changed for me since the last long NF thread, you're not paying attention - this link is in the OP).

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting I'm getting special treatment? I think I'll leave the hosts to make a call on that one.

---

quote:

---

Are you afraid NF can't take the heat, or do you think all criticism should be stifled because it's "a bad witness?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Maybe if I just learn to say "church streams" instead, I'll suddenly be ?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted

I'll meet you half-way, Polly.

---

quote:

---

When I told him that I went to a lively and very untraditional Baptist church he modified his tune a bit. But I was lenient with him. He deserved my knee in his nuts.

---

quote:

---

But with NFI it's different, I submit, insofar as it's part of their spiritual DNA and how they self-define over against everyone else - but the mileage will vary, of course

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested, though, Polly as to what you see the theological differences are between the Baptist Union Baptists in the UK and NFI?

---

quote:

---

My own experience of the Baptists has been that they are way, way, way, way, a million light-years way more balanced, eirenic and indeed theologically savvy than most NFI-ers

---

That's very kind of you to say - always hoping that I'm not the exception to the rule!!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The topic for discussion is not what I am questioning.

---

quote:

---

In regards to the 'safe guards' of NF after TV steps down I'm not entirely sure why it's such a big deal for those outside NF.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus: What safeguards do you now think should be in place in churches and how do you see them functioning?

---

quote:

---

The level of debate would not be given if it was one of the traditional church streams and possibly not tolerated as much as it is with other board members on this thread. (...)
as a general observation of the board these threads concerning charismatic wings of the church are treated more leniantly than say with similar threads of other church streams.

---

quote:

---

For me the debate doesn't have enough balance to it.

---

quote:

---

I honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Maybe if I just learn to say "church streams" instead, I'll suddenly be ?

---

Oh we Anglican evangelicals can do much better than that! Those New Churches may have Streams of Renewal and the Rubicon of Restorationism but as well as streams we have Canal, River and Rapids. Get that under your belt, and memorise which churches are R1 and R2, and you will be nicely learned up in Streamology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
That's a shame because after a number of different threads my argument on this matter has been consistent. If you don;t get it now I'll move on.

---

As I understand your post (and of course I may have misunderstood you), you were claiming that the standard of debate - and by implication the standard I was setting - would not be tolerated on the board if parts of the church other than the charismatic/evo end were being debated.

To me, that is a question about hosting and as such belongs in the Styx.

If you're challenging my motives, I think that the hosting ruling a few posts up rules you out of court. If you do want to complain about my motives, take it to Hell or PM me.

I'm offering those comments as my take on things. If I'm wrong, then I'm sure a host will pull me into line.

If your point is that you think I should just shut up and move on myself (although I really don't read that in what I quoted in the relevant section in my previous post), I think that I've adequately addressed that upthread. I've moved on, so has NF, and now both I, folks in NF and others are all discussing what lies ahead.

[ 03. August 2011, 20:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I know this is between Eutychus, the Hosts and yoruself, Polly, but I have to say that your recent posts here have displayed what I take to be a very cavalier attitude to the sort of abuse that people like Eutychus have suffered within NFI.

I've got no axe to grind with NFI but I am a recovering restorationist ( ) and I wouldn't go back into one of those settings for all the tea in China. That said, I have oodles and oodles of time for lots of individuals who're in those settings and, to be frank, lots of time for Terry Virgo himself.

I don't think that NFI or any other charismatic evangelical group gets more than its fair share of stick on these Boards. The RCs seem to get more of a pounding ...

It's true that there have been threads about NFI but that's because they're the largest and arguably the most successful of all the restorationist streams in the UK. And no-one is suggesting that it's all bad.

I would suspect that Irish Lord's experience has been particularly unfortunate in Turkey, but I've heard sufficient for a number of sources to know that the sort of thing that happened to Eutychus is by no means unique. I've heard similar stories from a number of sources.

Just because you've had positive experiences overall doesn't mean that NFI can't be abusive and toxic in some instances. Nor does it imply that other groups are squeaky clean.

Anyway ... I was interested in your account of the differences between NFI and Baptist theology. I was quite surprised that you mentioned that most Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit is received at baptism ... my understanding has been that most Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion.

In fact, I don't believe I've ever met any Baptists who'd say that the Holy Spirit isn't received until baptism. I've come across some Pentecostally people who'd say that, but not Baptists ...
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted
I know this is between Eutychus, the Hosts and yoruself, Polly, but I have to say that your recent posts here have displayed what I take to be a very cavalier attitude to the sort of abuse that people like Eutychus have suffered within NFI.

---

quote:

---

I was interested in your account of the differences between NFI and Baptist theology. I was quite surprised that you mentioned that most Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit is received at baptism ... my understanding has been that most Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion.

---

I don't know any charismatic Christians let alone Baptists who think that the Holy Spirit is received upon conversion.

Baptist colleges teach that this happens upon water Baptism and many of the writers (Baptists and favoured by) quoted state this. It is based upon what happened at Jesus' baptism.

As I said I don't agree with this thinking. It's too formulaic and not great practice or teaching for those wanting to be Jesus' disciples.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, there are plenty of charismatic Christians (Baptists among them) who would say that we receive the Spirit at conversion (how otherwise could we be 'born again'?) but that the 'fullness' comes at a subsequent 'Baptism in the Spirit' type experience.

Baptists though, in my experience, tend to be cagey about the term 'baptism in the Spirit' as it's a pretty loaded term and implies a Pentecostal and 'second-blessing' type theology - which doesn't go down well if you're in any way 'reformed'.

I don't find many Anglican charismatics talking about 'baptism in the Spirit' so much these days either. They talk about speaking in tongues and receiving the gifts of the Spirit but they tend to shy away from the kind of language that was used in the 1970s and '80s.

I suspect there's a Vineyard influence behind a lot of this - as Wimber and co tended to emphasis repeated fillings or 'anointings' rather than a one-off pneumatology.

To be honest, though, I tend to find much charismatic 'theology' on these issues to be pretty woolly - the proverbial 'spirituality in search of a theology' thing.

In fact, I wouldn't give much of it the courtesy of referring to it as 'theology' at all.


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
My surprise as previously stated was that for someone who has been so badly hurt by NF would want to continue to start discussion about them. My earlier analogy about a divorced couple is IMHO a good one.

---

quote:

---

My observations are that there are some who turn up at every NF thread who like to be critical without accepting any sort of balanced opinion.

---

quote:

---

Over the years I have had various discussions with current and former leaders within NewFrontiers about this situation. These and the 2011 developments have reinforced my conviction that there are good folk within NewFrontiers, and I have been impressed with the courage and integrity of those who have accepted their share of responsibility in events.

At the same time, these developments have also reinforced my conviction that as things stand, despite its claim to integrity and relationship-based workings, there are things which are seriously wrong with the structure of NewFrontiers in terms of governance which means there is a particularly acute risk of this type of spiritual abuse happening. I hope this can change as personnel move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The patterns of behaviour [Eutychus] describes are exactly ones I have seen first hand. This is still a live issue.

(...)

Any church needs to eradicate bad practice, and ensure that good practice is universal best practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I'm not denying that such attitudes exist within NF but to suggest its as widespread as you or anyone suggests is laughable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suspect that Irish Lord's experience has been particularly unfortunate in Turkey

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suspect that Irish Lord's experience has been particularly unfortunate in Turkey

---

Actually, in the context of this thread, although there is obviously evidence within the UK of the kind of problems I encountered here in France, I have actually wondered whether things aren't potentially worse in NF churches outside the UK, particularly in less protestant-friendly countries.

In the UK, if things go wrong for someone in an NF church, it's much easier to simply move to a church down the road. In many other countries, there isn't one (of anything like the same stripe) for miles! Furthermore, being in a more "mission" setting perhaps raises the stakes and encourages more extreme positions. There may not be the benefit of something like the local "churches together" to dilute the message a bit, and there aren't lots of christian counsellors to help pick up the pieces afterwards. Plus the language barrier.

I mentioned somewhere upthread that Ichthus consciously decided not to extend their network overseas. They have a far looser understanding of apostolic authority anyway, and they felt the geographical and cultural distances involved just made it too complicated, settling for a more informal "link church" status instead. Perhaps that is in reality where NF is heading, too.

---

That is certainly a factor: I'd have to travel over an hour and a half to get to another church, and then it would be an Orthodox parish. That's not a problem for me, as I'm heading that direction anyway; but for my other disillusioned friends around town... They're pretty much stuck with either going to the local NF meetings or nothing. Most of them can't afford to make the trip once a week (or even once a month), and they're all convinced that they aren't able to start even a Bible study themselves.

Certainly this isolation also affects the attitude of the newly converted. Since they don't have a wider body to observe, it's very easy to tell them that the rest of the Christian world is "dead" etc. Some of the local converts have become more fanatical about obscure points of NF doctrine than the missionaries. It's a bubble, is what it is.

I wonder about your last sentence: the local leadership here has come because they were sent by their apostle, one wonders where they would be and what they'd be doing if things were less formal. All of their authority in the church is also derived from the authority of their apostolic delegate: a looser understanding of apostolic authority would really affect how they did things and the amount of power they wield. Ultimately, they've rationalized their authority using a very shallow pool of Apostolic succession: from TV on downwards.

The more I think about his retirement (or whatever you want to call it), the more I wonder how they're going to make it as a large group. I think eventually they'll have to have a 'counsel of Brighton' and write a creed, properly canonize a set of approved NF literature, establish a seminary, etc. In short, if they want to survive at the scale they are currently operating at... they'll have to become a real denomination.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are those who would say that New Frontiers is already a 'real denomination' and has been for some time. It's also been said (by other, non-NFI restorationists ... those few that are left ) that 'NFI can be more denominational than the denominations.'

I think what Eutychus and irish lord have said about the missionary situation is a pertinent point, and simply a more extreme example of what tends to prevail among Protestant missions in non-Protestant European/Middle Eastern countries. I've heard that evangelicals in Greece, for example, are highly divided along denominational and doctrinal lines and that there is often very little collaboration among tiny Protestant congregations in the same locality - further reinforcing the indigenous Orthodox view that Protestants are inveterate schismatics.

Some years ago, I met a chap who'd spent some time in Gibraltar where a Pentecostal church had been established and was being nurtured by a large Pentecostal assembly in Newport, South Wales. The Gibraltan congregation dressed, spoke and acted more like 1960s/70s South Walian Penties than those in the mother church.

I'm sure things have moved on since, but I suspect that the particular pressures of a missionary context can skew things in all sorts of funny ways.

Which isn't to say that things can't be skewed back on home turf.

I may start another thread about pneumatology ... if Polly is articulating the NFI view then the theology is more skewed than I thought. Back in my restorationist days we were very much into 'baptism in the Spirit' and so on but we'd have never have suggested that people didn't have the Spirit at all until they'd had that experience ...

I also wonder what the heck they're teaching Polly in the Baptist seminary these days. I doesn't sound anything like the Baptists I know (and have been) ...
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
When Stephen Parsons wrote his book Ungodly Fear on spiritual abuse, the Ship ran a dedicated board. Posters from all parts of the church shared experiences and stories and many found the board helpful and healing for the reasons that Eutychus describes – the idea that you’re not alone; that you didn’t necessarily do anything wrong etc. Spiritual abuse isn’t not an issue that’s unique to NFI. (Sadly). Many of the people who posted on the Ungodly Fear board came from church traditions that do have structures in place to prevent it.

Which, in a round about way brings us back to the OP … Yes, the retirement of TV creates an opportunity for NFI to look at its internal structures and create some additional accountability / transparency within the leadership. It also creates opportunities for them to consider their direction; look at how leaders come up through the system; engage with social issues and some of the debates that exist within the wider church (women!) etc.

I do wonder what has motivated TV to do this now and it would be interesting to get some feedback on this. I wondered if he’d decided that although there is still stuff to do, at 70 he doesn’t have the mental, physical or spiritual energy to build a new team in order to do it so has handed things over to those who do. Many of the original team he gathered are of a similar age and are probably wanting to step away from front line leadership as well.

The problem with any discussion of NFI or the similar churches on the Ship is that charismatic evanglicals are very under-represented here. That means that discussion is often dominated by posters who don’t have first hand experience of those kind of churches OR have left them for whatever reason. Makes for very one-sided debate IMO. If there were more posters from that section of the church, the debate would be more rounded and robust. [And would have probably resulted in some Hell calls by now].

Tubbs

[ 04. August 2011, 09:44: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think what Eutychus and irish lord have said about the missionary situation is a pertinent point, and simply a more extreme example of what tends to prevail among Protestant missions in non-Protestant European/Middle Eastern countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
I do wonder what has motivated TV to do this now and it would be interesting to get some feedback on this. I wondered if he’d decided that although there is still stuff to do, at 70 he doesn’t have the mental, physical or spiritual energy to build a new team in order to do it so has handed things over to those who do.

---

quote:

---

The problem with any discussion of NFI or the similar churches on the Ship is that charismatic evanglicals are very under-represented here. That means that discussion is often dominated by posters who don’t have first hand experience of those kind of churches OR have left them for whatever reason. Makes for very one-sided debate IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also wonder what the heck they're teaching Polly in the Baptist seminary these days. I doesn't sound anything like the Baptists I know (and have been) ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also wonder what the heck they're teaching Polly in the Baptist seminary these days. I doesn't sound anything like the Baptists I know (and have been) ...

---

My brother teaches at Spurgeon's. I'll ask him when I see him in a couple of weeks' time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If what you're saying is true, Tubbs, doesn't it beg a few questions as to why more people from such fellowships aren't posting on these Boards?

Could it be that they couldn't handle the robustness of the debate nor have the theological nuance to cope with the range of views expressed?

Just a suggestion.

---

There's an automatic assumption here I'd like to challenge and that is just because more posters from NF/charismatic streams aren't present doesn't mean that they are unable to present a robust point of view.

Reading your posts I'd say that I find you are fair and do listen to others but the assumption you've made is an exception.

Hopefully without getting a smack from Mrs Tubbs or getting her in trouble there have been comments behind the scenes (and not I'm not going to explain any further) that others prefer not to enter into debate on such threads as this because of the assumptions that are made about them. I have already pointed out my concerns with what has been yet another NF thread which has included rather a lot of unbalanced and negative comments. The originally question a valid one but these are often used as a vehicle to swipe at NF.

It is possible that people don't contribute because they have other things to do or a whole host of other reasons. To suggest they are unable to put forward a robust opinion is an unfair assumption.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, that's a fair call, Polly. In fairness, I was in a bit of a snarky mood when I posted that and I've been loosing off in all directions recently, as some Shipmates may have noticed. I've been having a go at Calvinists, at Arminians, at charismatics at ...



The instance you've cited was a cheap shot though and I withdraw it unequivocably.

Ramarius:

On the role of apostles, you posted -

'First, they are responsible for ensuring that churches don't slide into heresy. Second, they provide accountability for the leadership of local churches, providing a check and balance against local elders become like chiefs in a village. And I can't for the life of me remember what the third one was, but part of it is about giving local leaders a reference point outside the church - a sort if external consultant if you like.'

Well, the last time I looked that was the remit of bishops in the historic Churches. If you speak to the Orthodox you'd find that these are the sort of roles they expect from their Bishops. Whether they all properly fulfil that is a moot point - but then it's a moot point with 'apostles' in the new church set-ups too.

I never saw the 'signs associated with an apostle' when I was involved with a church that was 'under' apostolic ministry - and I was in it for 18 years.

I notice too, that you've very eirenically extended the possibility of Anglican bishops acting 'apostolically' in Nigeria. Of course, Anglicanism in Nigeria is very charismatic and evangelical. Would you not extend the same courtesy, say, to Anglican bishops who were not evangelical or charismatic but who operated within a different paradigm?

And how about Orthodox Bishops in the Middle-East and other countries? They aren't particularly evangelical or charismatic in the 'Western' sense but many of them are doing good work with theological training, the development of schools and orphanages etc. Others among them aren't ... but then that's true of clergy in any tradition.

I have heard the Orthodox apply the term 'apostle' to significant missionary figures - such as St Hermann of Alaska or St Nicholas of Japan - and even, in a whisper, to some contemporary missioners.

Within the evangelical tradition there seems no qualms about referring to Hudson Taylor, say, as 'Apostle to China' and the RCs would do the same for Francis Xavier and other missionary figures from their history.

I can't speak for NFI but within Covenant Ministries there were no such qualms about referring to contemporary ministers as 'apostles'. I suspect they took things further than Terry Virgo ever did, though. For all the gripes that have been expressed here, I've always found, and still think, that, by and large, NFI was always more balanced than Covenant Ministries.

That said, the Covenant Ministries guys could cite things that Terry said or did that went that bit further than even they were prepared to go. I suspect it was a case of swings and roundabouts.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
To suggest they are unable to put forward a robust opinion is an unfair assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
there have been comments behind the scenes (and not I'm not going to explain any further) that others prefer not to enter into debate on such threads as this because of the assumptions that are made about them.

---

quote:

---

It is possible that people don't contribute because they have other things to do or a whole host of other reasons. To suggest they are unable to put forward a robust opinion is an unfair assumption.

---

quote:

---

I have already pointed out my concerns with what has been yet another NF thread which has included rather a lot of unbalanced and negative comments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Since as a movement in NF we want to express tha best of the foundational principles of NT Christianity, the office of apostle must, logically, play a part in that. I've quite recently heard the role of the NF apostle described as follows. First, they are responsible for ensuring that churches don't slide into heresy. Second, they provide accountability for the leadership of local churches, providing a check and balance against local elders become like chiefs in a village. And I can't for the life of me remember what the third one was, but part of it is about giving local leaders a reference point outside the church - a sort if external consultant if you like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it's a fair point, Doc Tor. The same could apply to other traditions. Elsewhere, Mousethief has noted that ultra-traditionalist Orthodox people don't post on these Boards and if they did they'd be chuntering and ranting about 'pseudo-Christians' and the wicked, evil West and so on and so forth ...

I made a bit of a cheap shot and I stand by my withdrawal of it.

---

I don't have a dog in this fight (except I like Euty and the way he was treated both sucks and blows), but this is Christian unrest, and we have a duty to stick it to the Man (and it usually is a man, let's face it), whichever Man it is.



 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
There's a false association being made if one equates the robustness of a debate with the depth of knowledge or understanding of the participants. I have never noticed in the ship of fools or life generally all that strong a correlation between how forcefully people express themselves and how much they know what they are talking about.

Some people like the tone of discussion on ship of fools, some people don't. But the tone also comes across differently to those in groups who are mostly being critical and those in groups who are mostly being criticised. It's not that surprising if fewer people in the latter groups enjoy participating, regardless of how well they've thought out their ideas.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It's not that surprising if fewer people in the latter groups enjoy participating, regardless of how well they've thought out their ideas.

---

Sure, but there would be external evidence of those ideas being well thought out.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Couple of quickies for Gamaliel and Eutychus's. Gamaliel - thanks, I'vr been called a few things in my time but 'eirenic' is a first

I defer to your knowledge of the operation of other church. I chose the Nigerian example as one I brought up with colleagues in NF to make the point that people elsewhere seem to be just as 'apostoloc' as we are. I think the fact in NF we now talk more about 'apostolic ministry' and less about 'apostles' is an early sign that we are becoming less precious about this. One thing I didn't mention was that our apostolic people are supposed to encourge mission and, in particular, church planting. So in practice I would say that some of our apostolic people major more on promoting mission, whereas others act more as senior pastors. Gamaliel I'll leave you to decide which label best fits leaders in other churches, although personally I recognise what could only be described as 'apostolic' ministry in other churches including Orthodox. Broadening the perspective as you have is very helpful.

Mr E. On appointing elders we tend to work on the 'three green lights' approach. Prospective elders are recognised by the congregation, the existing leaders, and the apostolic person. Ultimately the apostolic chap appoints them, but really this is more of an affirmation of what the church is happy with. In my experience, the main driver for appointing an elder comes from the church leader rather than anyone else.

I'll have to defer on the one about how to disagree with a leader. Got some bills to pay, and starts a different train of thought.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Mr E. On appointing elders we tend to work on the 'three green lights' approach. Prospective elders are recognised by the congregation, the existing leaders, and the apostolic person. Ultimately the apostolic chap appoints them, but really this is more of an affirmation of what the church is happy with. In my experience, the main driver for appointing an elder comes from the church leader rather than anyone else.

---

Yes, I accept that in practice things usually work that way round.

Where I discovered the flip side was when there was a conflict in which beforehand, the 'apostolic delegate' already backed two of the elders against the other one, prior to there being any open discussion of the issues. Effectively, the lone elder was removed from ministry at the behest of the 'apostolic delegate' without any possible recourse and with no possible action by the congregation.

People at the "apostolic" level who could have intervened either fell in behind the action of the 'delegate' or found somewhere else to be for the duration.

To put it another way, the "three green lights" were replaced by "one red light".

Of course, this kind of thing could happen in many denominational contexts and no solution is perfect, but I think it's particularly acute in NF because of the weight given to 'apostolic authority' in such situations.

That's the kind of area where I think a way needs to be found to explore alternative arbitration.

[ 05. August 2011, 11:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Thread has moved on a bit, but this too so long to think through and type, it's a shame to waste it. [IMO. By the time you get to the end, you may think differently. ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There's a false association being made if one equates the robustness of a debate with the depth of knowledge or understanding of the participants. I have never noticed in the ship of fools or life generally all that strong a correlation between how forcefully people express themselves and how much they know what they are talking about.

Some people like the tone of discussion on ship of fools, some people don't. But the tone also comes across differently to those in groups who are mostly being critical and those in groups who are mostly being criticised. It's not that surprising if fewer people in the latter groups enjoy participating, regardless of how well they've thought out their ideas.

---

Thank you, moonlitdoor. Your final paragaph explains exactly the point I was trying to make.

It’s a kind of chicken and egg thing … Posters from these churches avoid threads relating to them because they end up defending rather discussing. But, if more posters from those churches got involved with those threads then there would be less defending and more discussing.

It’s nowt to do with hosting. It’s more about wanting the charismatic evangelical equivalents of Triple Tiara, Trisagion, Chesterbelloc and IngoB etc to start posting to balance things out a bit.

I don’t doubt that spiritual abuse is a live issue within NFI. Never have. But it’s only part of the picture and sometimes, on the Ship, it can feel like it’s all of it. The analogy of the sweet talker who woos you with hearts and flowers before kicking the crap out of you is a very good one. But that sweet talker hangs out in every church. I encountered them at a highly respected and large Baptist church about 20 years ago. Friends of ours have just met them in the same place. And although structures and transparency will stop sometimes stop them, it won’t always.

People who’ve been through that need others to listen, support and comfort them. [You have no idea how grateful I was for the opportunity to talk about stuff with Stephen Parsons both privately and publically via Ungodly Fear]. I’m glad that Eutychus is there to do that. I just wish he wasn’t needed.

The whole church needs to acknowledge that this crap goes on. And there needs to be a better understanding where the fine line exists between a leader legitimately exercising their spiritual authority and abusing their position to avoid being challenged when behaving badly. “Father doesn’t always know best …”

Will put soap box down now. Hungry.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Yes thank you MoonlitDoor. You've been able to explain this far better than I ever could.

Eutychus- some further clarification on my part. I have never denied or rejected the idea that abuse has or is happening inside NF. Nor have I intentionally be-littled anyone who has been hurt in this way. However if I have unintentionally caused further stress then my unreserved apologies.

I'd demonstrate my apologies by buying much beer for those concerned

In addition i'd like to add that I've never devalued the original questions or concerns asked of NF. I wonder too what will happen hoping the movement will stay together.

My concerns have always been that when highlighting worrying events it has felt like some have spoken about as if this kind of behaviour is only happening within NF or charismatic groups.

It wouldn't hurt those who do this to show in some posts that sadly abuse happens just as much in other church streams.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Ok, that's a fair call, Polly. In fairness, I was in a bit of a snarky mood when I posted that and I've been loosing off in all directions recently, as some Shipmates may have noticed. I've been having a go at Calvinists, at Arminians, at charismatics at ...



The instance you've cited was a cheap shot though and I withdraw it unequivocably.

---

Gamaliel - thank you.

For my part I was probably grumpy too. Something here about not posting when I'm very tired and its late!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
<busy collecting beer vouchers from Polly from all previous NF threads>

Since the last time we had a long NF thread, some of the people in NF who were directly involved have personally apologised to me and Mrs E. for what happened (although disappointingly for all concerned, no apology from NF as a whole has so far been possible).

One of those people asked me what steps I thought could be taken to ensure that kind of thing didn't happen again. I took that as an honest question and an indication that there was a new-found willingness for self-examination within NF on this issue.

This thread confirms that to me, and I think the current turn of events offers an opportunity to address that.

Yes, abuse happens in all church streams.

Yes, no amount of safeguards can prevent all abuse or bad conduct.

No (again), abuse is not omnipresent in NF.

However, I still think that some types of church structure leave more room for abuse than others.

What it boils down to for NF, from my perspective, is this:

If within NF, it is seen by those in authority as a point of doctrine (and in the absence of any concrete measures to the contrary) that accountability only functions 'upwards' to apostolic leaders higher up and not 'downwards' to congregations, and there is no alternative path for dispute resolution, then I think NF is one such structure.

I think changing that involves a shift in both doctrine and practice, but I don't think that's actually unthinkable at the present time.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Polly, buying beer, and you a student pastor at a Baptist church. Disgraceful

I remember when ...
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Polly, buying beer, and you a student pastor at a Baptist church. Disgraceful

I remember when ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

When do I get my pint?

---

I can't always get to Ship meets as Mrs Tubbs tends to go and I take on Babysitting services but anytime you're in St Albans which has as many pubs as churches....
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I'm only just down the road. Will be there in 30 minutes. Or I would if I hadn't already been drinking
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm only just down the road. Will be there in 30 minutes. Or I would if I hadn't already been drinking

---

Anoher time would be good.
 

---

Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Polly, buying beer, and you a student pastor at a Baptist church. Disgraceful

I remember when ...

---

Before the temperance movement Baptist pastors used to get a beer fund instead of a book fund!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
<busy collecting beer vouchers from Polly from all previous NF threads>

...

Yes, abuse happens in all church streams.

Yes, no amount of safeguards can prevent all abuse or bad conduct.

No (again), abuse is not omnipresent in NF.

However, I still think that some types of church structure leave more room for abuse than others.

...

---

Hopefully I've kept the meaning. I'll start a new thread on this as it's worth discussing properly. Won't be this weekend as we have guests.

Tubbs

PS If you do ever make it to our neck of the woods, it's going to be expensive! You've got quite a bit of beer to collect.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Mr E. On appointing elders we tend to work on the 'three green lights' approach. Prospective elders are recognised by the congregation, the existing leaders, and the apostolic person. Ultimately the apostolic chap appoints them, but really this is more of an affirmation of what the church is happy with. In my experience, the main driver for appointing an elder comes from the church leader rather than anyone else.


Well that certainly did not happen recently in my New Frontiers church. The 'apostle' thousands of miles away had a say, but the congregation did not get to choose who was to be trained for Eldership. Nor did the leadership back down when their chosen one received a large number of objections from the congregation. The 'family' meeting to discuss leadership consisted of the two pastors talking at us for one and a half hours about what they had decided was best for us, and refusing to allow anyone else to talk or discuss things.
There seems no way of keeping the leadership in New Frontiers accountable for who they appoint as leaders, how much they pay themselves, what projects they pick, how they spend the money, how many foreign trips they go on, or what exploitative doctrines they adopt (tithing).

I'm glad I left. If this is not yet a cult, it certainly does have cult like tenancies.
The structure is wide open for abuse. No amount of wishful thinking can fix something where accountability goes only upward.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Interesting feedback Arminians. I suppose the test of these noble principles is what happens when the ideal breaks down. If that has happened in a church I had been in you wouldn't have seen me for dust either.

Others have had better experiences than you. I do know of one NF church where the 'apostle' was unhappy with a proposed elder but withdrew objections when he saw that both the current eldership team and church were fully behind the appointment. So in the end there were still three green lights even though there were some sparks along the way.

But I also take your point that the way NF is set up in invites the potential for this sort of behaviour and I hope we give this some serious thought as a movement as we explore our future.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Hi Eutch (and others)- I have been away in RL and then not been at the pooter much so sorry for not getting to reply to your points.
I also though that the thread had petered out ...
Any hoo

Eutch I think your checks and balances have a lot of merit, Ramarius has covered that more fully.

I think the ship would be different if there were more charis/evo peeps on it. I must confess that it is certainly helpful for me to interact with those of different views and try to make sense.

quote:

---

In terms of learning and study I wish that restorationist and renewal folks would just read the Apostolic Fathers and come to realise the church they are trying to restore never existed.

---

Eddie,the snarky answers would be
that they spend more time just reading the Bible and want the church to look like that!!
Or perhaps if they spent more time in the Fathers they would see more clearly how quickly the glory departed
Or that they spend more time in other parts of Church History trying to get the Gospel correct!!!

Regarding the "three green lights" don't forget there is the fourth which is the individuals sense of "call". I think that these ideas are present in all forms of vocational discernment in whichever church setting. I'm not sure that they are always evaluated well or weighed proportionately in NF (mind you I've seen some duff leaders in every denomination and in the workplace too).
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Eddie,the snarky answers would be
that they spend more time just reading the Bible and want the church to look like that!!

---

quote:

---

The closer I look at NT church life, the less it looks like something glorious to be aspired to and the more it looks like barely organised chaos, squabbling, and generally trying simply to get a grip on the implications of the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

The closer I look at NT church life, the less it looks like something glorious to be aspired to and the more it looks like barely organised chaos, squabbling, and generally trying simply to get a grip on the implications of the Gospel.

---

Like real church life and church history.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Agreed, but that's hardly the picture of restored church life that you (or NF) "want the church to look like", is it? You think it's different and enough of a blueprint to want to get back to it.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Yo Twangist. Love the name by the way particularly given your profession . When in NF we talk about 'restoring the church' I wonder a bit what part of the glorious NT church we are trying to restore. They seem to have all the lifestyle and very human issues that are common to churches today. And if it's NT ministry we are, frankly, quite selective about how we define this. So we define the 'restored' role of the apostle very much in terms of the role as a senior church leader. But in the NT this was only half the story. Apostles were as much defined by their personal interaction with their mission field as they were with their churches. It seems the more 'apostolic' our people become, the further away they get from the people we are trying to reach with the Gospel.

To that extent, we do with a bit of 'restoration' of our own. When the people we call apostles don't, in functional terms, look much different to people with similar roles in other streams we don't help our own credibility.

Keep breeding them minstrels my friend.....
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

You think it's different and enough of a blueprint to want to get back to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

You think it's different and enough of a blueprint to want to get back to it.

---

I think we have to try and ground NT principles and practices in our varied real life settings and live them out.

---

And my pals in other churches would agree. But they don't talk about 'restoring the church' which implies that we're alright - it's all them others who have, to some extent, lost the plot. I can understand why we went in for this sort of rhetoric when the restoration movement started, but I really think we have outgrown this now.

And I've just worked out how to use quotes. Must be an importation of your didactic gift....


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I think we have to try and ground NT principles and practices in our varied real life settings and live them out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Eddie,the snarky answers would be
that they spend more time just reading the Bible and want the church to look like that!!
Or perhaps if they spent more time in the Fathers they would see more clearly how quickly the glory departed [Biased]
Or that they spend more time in other parts of Church History trying to get the Gospel correct!!!

---

quote:

---

quote: The closer I look at NT church life, the less it looks like something glorious to be aspired to and the more it looks like barely organised chaos, squabbling, and generally trying simply to get a grip on the implications of the Gospel.

Like real church life and church history.

---

Right - so presumably the Glory had already departed by the time the Epistles were written. Not exactly the ideal example for the golden picture of the restored church, is it?

One would be forgiven for thinking that the restorationist doctrine is based less on exegesis than wishful thinking.

It's only a slightly more sophisticated argument than the one that reads of churches meeting in houses and imagines a gathering of middle class people in Guildford swapping pleasantries while sipping tea.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
This post got a bit longer than I wanted it to: it's not really NF specific, but became more of a defense of reading the Church Fathers... apologies if it's too off-topic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I think we have to try and ground NT principles and practices in our varied real life settings and live them out.

---

I think one of the things that I'm starting to realize is that the church of NT was not the ideal that we should be shooting for, nor was it the model on which we should base modern CP work. I certainly don't see the need to 'restore' it.

The reason that we need the writings of the Church Fathers is that the church continued to develop and mature after the passing of the Apostles. The Fathers were humble enough not to canonize their own works into scripture; but that does not mean that their writing did not shape the course of Christian belief, practice, and theology.

Is looking solely to scripture 'enough'? Yes, of course! But if the thoughts and writings of those who canonized the scriptures are available to you, wouldn't reading them be beneficial simply because it helps you to see how the original audience of a fully canonized Bible would have viewed the contents therein?

The sad fact of the matter is, that the 'snarky' answers twangist provided are what I usually hear when I mention the Fathers to Evangelicals (though admittedly, I give similar answers when someone hands me a book by Joel Osteen, Terry Virgo, etc. ). The ironic thing is, the things I have read by Basil the Great, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc. give accounts of men wielding far greater spiritual prowess than anything NF has ever witnessed!

I recently read a series of treatises by St. John of Damascus and in them he says this:

quote:

---

Let us, therefore, brothers, stand on the rock of faith and in the tradition of the Church, not removing the boundaries, which our holy fathers set in place, nor giving space to those who wish to innovate or break up the structure of God's holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. For if license is given to anyone who wishes, little by little the whole body of the church will be broken up.

---

In my opinion, that's a prophetic word about would eventually happen when the teachings and traditions of the Fathers were jettisoned and people started to rely only on the Bible. Is the Bible alone 'enough'? Yes. But the incredible division that we see in the Church is a result of everyone 'having license' to interpret the Bible as he/she wishes.

And then what I see is the Bible being interpreted ever-more radically in an attempt to get at the top of the ever-growing pile of denominations. Since the thread is about NF, I'll use their teachings on Apostles as an example of trying to 'get ahead' of the herd. Seen through the eyes of ancient church tradition, the idea that TV et al are apostles is heresy. Without that tradition to 'level the playing field' as it were, various denominations are pretty much able to claim that the Bible says whatever they want it to say.

It's madness I tell you!
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Eutychus wrote I think one of the major realisations for me was that, considerations of the Church Fathers aside, NF's imaginary picture of what "New Testament Church" looked like was actually highly selective and bore no resemblance to what's actually in Scripture.

Agreed. Lets face it how many of us would be willing to do what those early Christians did ? How about selling all our possessions and giving it all to the poor or selling yourself into slavery to buy someone else out ? Setting up meetings where there is no paid expert, but all contribute in the context of a small group of Christians in a home. Where leadership is about risking your life by hosting the meetings, and simply aiding those around you by providing food and shelter.

We are in a totally different culture. The problem NF has is that the leaderships seem self deluded enough to actually believe they are the true New Testament church. This puts the structure beyond rational criticism. It institutionalises a hierarchy of spiritual Father's and sons that I don't see in scripture. Who was St Paul's spiritual father ? Who was the lead apostle in charge of the organisation ? These concepts that NF have adopted are absent from the NT.

If we want to get back to New Testament apostles we need to figure out how St Paul managed what he did without power point, expensive pa systems and nice music ! If Terry Virgo really wanted to put back New Testament apostles he would make sure that there was no one apostle in overall control, and take a part time job so as not to burden other believers with a paid ministerial salary ! St Paul was in part time unpaid ministry. The Didache is pretty strict on getting paid for the gospel. I'm not sure a 1st century Christian would be too happy with what modern apostles are paid. Again we are in a different culture and its not bad that people are paid, we just need to realise that we aren't the 1st Century Church and are unlikely to return to it any time soon. Our concepts of leadership are in the context of much larger gatherings where only a few get to share. It is a big deal in large churches, less so when its based on service in a small group where all freely participate. I suspect our entire modern concept of 'church' would be unrecognised by early Christians.

How about a church plant where you get a bunch of people healed in the street and then convince some with the basic gospel. Give them a few days training, but no bible. Just a few bits of the old testament, and then not see them for a year. This is pretty much what Paul did, but is this the ideal ? Probably not, but it did work with the need for some serious tweaking later.

If we go back to the church Fathers we have to decide which ones. Few of them got the same results as St Paul. How do we know that the majority of Christians of the day didn't hold differing views but simply didn't record them ? We don't of course. Some of the Fathers added in too much from Gnosticism for my liking. Don't get me started on later reformers like Calvin ! (you can guess from my sig I'm not exactly a fan of his theology !).

I don't think there is a perfect church structure as the church really is just individuals gathered in Jesus' name. I don't get the impression from scripture that God is that bothered by the chaos. He seems to look on as a doting parent looking at a bunch of kids running around in total chaos wondering what they will make of who he really is. I never got the impression Jesus was too impressed with religion or structure. Just loving each other and God.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
If we go back to the church Fathers we have to decide which ones. Few of them got the same results as St Paul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Because, ultimately, what they are are 'bishops' or overseers in the same (or similar) way to bishops and overseers in other churches and traditions. Ok, so they may not wear a pointy hat and carry a curly stick, but they do have an infrastructure, administrative hinterland and the PowerPoint slides, nice music and all the rest of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The notion that there was a sudden declension from the time of the last of the original Twelve Apostles and that the 'glory' quickly departed is a nonsense. And even if it wasn't, how does one propose that the 'glory' were to be recovered?

---

quote:

---

It speaks volumes because it reveals a chimerical and unattainable notion of perfectionism that lies at the core of the 'restorationist' ambit. It's illusory and it's 'over-realised'.

---

quote:

---

Still, what's going on in the SGM over in the US should be a salutary lesson for the more authoritarian end of NF, and some of the other 'spheres' will probably go off in a church growth direction anyway (see Jesus CEO).

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
I think we have to try and ground NT principles and practices in our varied real life settings and live them out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's vague enough that it applies to just about anyone who declares themselves to be a christian!

---

quote:

---

I'm particularly smarting at the moment because I've heard that a new church grouping is moving into our town, without reference to anything that's already happening here, and it's taking the line that (through it) "God is going to do something significant" in the area. To me this strikes me of the old Restorationist viewpoint that "only we are really at the forefront of where the Spirit is working". It sounds like kingdom -(rather than "Kingdom") building and - dare I say - arrogance.

I haven't actually met these guys so I trust they (and God) will forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and they turn out to be humble and delightful. But why can't they just come and strengthen the existing churches?

---

Some general comments
They would have trouble starting a church plant by saying that "God's going to do something insignificant"!
They may be good guys and gals who might become friends with you and strengthen your hand anyway.
There are plenty of non-Xtians to go round.
They may be nutters and it'll all come to nothing.
You may be able to get rid of some problem people to them
People used to ask the "why can't they just strengthen the church?" question about every branch of non-conformity that ever planted a church in history.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"Still, what's going on in the SGM over in the US should be a salutary lesson for the more authoritarian end of NF, and some of the other 'spheres' will probably go off in a church growth direction anyway (see Jesus CEO)."

Sorry, that's one acronymn too many for me - what's SGM?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
So what would you say NF is good at and should keep working to get even better at, and if you could change one thing in NF that could lead to us being seriously more successful in our mission, what would it be?

---

I think NF is in a cleft stick of its own making, and that being more "successful" (for varying values of the word) would involve ceasing to halt between two simultaneous and contradictory messages which have been coming across in the last few posts.

On the one hand there is the humble and laudable aspiration represented by Twangist as "seeking to apply NT principles to the challenges of life today." If NF could just settle down to doing that it might happily take its place as one of the many-faceted expressions of the wisdom of God, in other words, admit it's one denomination among many.

The thing that's getting in the way of this is NF's contradictory aspiration to, as Ramarius relates, "be a provocation to other churches"; or, in the words of the prophecy, "change the expression of Christianity" (presumably not into a sour-faced one...); or, in the preaching of Terry Virgo, set itself up as a beacon of restored christianity openly inviting other christians to leave their "synagogue religion"; or, in the words of Dave Devenish, "get to every nation before McDonalds does" (and yes I was there and have, or at least had, the tape...).

Whenever there's interaction with other churches, this second set of aspirations fades into the background and the first set takes precedence. But the second set is what has made NF into the organisation it has become to date, and it is inextricably interwoven with the notion of apostolic authority on a par with that granted to NT apostles invested in contemporary men for which, it is argued, no denominational position is a viable alternative. (And Twangist, the reason people get upset is because of the considerable but misguided sacrifices they may have made in pursuing that aspiration).

I think the cognitive dissonance between those two sets of aspirations is all over this thread. My €0,02 is that the best thing NF could do is publicly back away from all those pretentions once and for all. But I doubt it will happen.

Other matters arising:

Twangist, before you write "I"m sorry if..." again, you could do with reading the thread The Proper Apology. (Note that at the time I contributed on that thread, I was still a leader in NFI)

SGM is a movement whose leader, CJ Mahaney, was a frequent speaker at NF events. (Lately I've wondered if NF didn't borrow all its "business" ideas from SGM). The movement is currently in a major meltdown which is being splurged all over the blogosphere. Actually, its leaders could do worse than read that thread too.

I have just got back from a meal out with Mrs Eutychus and an NFI elder and his wife. I am still alive.

Ramarius, do you wist not that Twangist's "quote" anointing seems to have left you?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This isn't about having high ideals, Ramarius. I'm all for that. It's about not having an unrealistic and untenable viewpoint and an over-inflated view of one's own importance.

Twangist's comments about the new church plant are probably fine pragmatically ... as far as they go, but having once been part of a Baptist church plant I can attest that the way that other non-conformist groups go about this sort of thing is generally a lot more mindful of what other and existing churches are doing. Similar criticisms to those levelled at NF and similar groups have also been levelled at 'Fresh Expressions' developments within the Anglican church and indeed Anglican church planting (which does happen).

Heck, I've ever seen comments and complaints online by Orthodox people in the US narked that particular jurisdictions (like the Antiochians) which tend to attract more Western converts, are opening up shop on the patch of existing Greek or Russian Orthodox parishes. So this tendency isn't peculiar, apparently, to Protestantism.

But that doesn't let NF off the hook, of course, nor the approach of the group (of whatever affiliation) that Baptist Trainfan is talking about.

I tend to be a 'Gamaliel' on all of this stuff. Time will tell.

If you were to ask, though, as Ramarius has, how NF could move forward and how it could bring its distinctives to bear in terms of overall Christian mission ... well, it is very evangelistic and is very energetic. Those are positive attributes. These aren't exclusive to NF though. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of anything that is particular to NF other than the way it's been run ... and it was never alone in that respect either.

When all's said and done it is simply another development of Free Church/new church/independent evangelical charismatic-dom. A non-conformist Free Church akin to the Baptists but with a more explicitly charismatic agenda and an episcopal (sorry, 'apostolic' ) authority structure.

Other than that, it's just the same old/same old. I can't really see the point of it, to be quite honest. It may act as a vehicle for getting people into the Kingdom, as it were, and that's justification enough ... but it's where it takes them after that which bothers me.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Now now Euty, the Twanger was slipping into Eirenicism. The old boy should be encouraged (!). I don't think he's anything to apologise for; getting a debate going is one aspect of provocation we're all good at on this boat. But you're right - an apology starting 'If I...' is no apology unless you're genuinely not sure if you have caused offence in which case it's probably best not to bother at all.

I've noted your serious points mind, and I'm really keen to hear some others.....
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Now now Euty, the Twanger was slipping into Eirenicism.

---

You're right. I'm sorry, Twangist. It was unfair of me to pick on that one point in the context of your whole post.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] This isn't about having high ideals, Ramarius. I'm all for that. It's about not having an unrealistic and untenable viewpoint and an over-inflated view of one's own importance.

And there's the rub my learned friend. NFers would see themselves as going for the big prize and are often a little bemused at the charge of arrogance. Sometimes this is as much to do as ignorance (what do we call it these days - 'emotional intelligence' or the lack thereof) as arrogance.

High ideals great and we would get more credence if we showed other people a bit more of the respect they deserve. I've got some good examples of that within the Movement, but I'll save those for another time. I'm in listening/clarifying mode at the mo...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
NFers would see themselves as going for the big prize and are often a little bemused at the charge of arrogance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
NFers would see themselves as going for the big prize and are often a little bemused at the charge of arrogance.

---

There it is again though - the assumption that nobody else is going for the big prize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Our emphasis on grace and freedom in Christ is good

---

Actually, that's well spotted. I think if there's one thing I've taken intact (well, more or less, see below) from NF it's Terry's teaching on (if not exercise of... ) grace, and yes, that is really quite distinctive, I think.

I'm still very much into "not under law but under grace", but I do have some misgivings about how this is underpinned when you get down to the theological detail of it.

In particular, I think Terry Virgo's understanding of "the flesh" is flawed and that it leads into functional perfectionism (ie in practice, the belief that as a christian one cannot sin, notably with regard to sins of the intellect). That belief is not articulated as such but I think the outworkings of it have a lot to say to the trouble I had and the charges of arrogance being brought by others here.

The whole "grace" issue is quite a tangent here but for reference purposes, let me flag up the archieved Kerygmania discussion on Terry Virgo and the flesh, which can be found here.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
That belief is not articulated as such but I think the outworkings of it have a lot to say to the trouble I had and the charges of arrogance being brought by others here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think it has been articulated in his rejection of 'simul justus et peccator'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think it has been articulated in his rejection of 'simul justus et peccator'.

---

Ooh, do you have a reference for that rejection by TV?

---

The original blog posts appear to have disappeared when his website was re-organized, I can just find a copy of one of them on another NFer's website:

http://thebluefish.org/2010/01/is-christian-sinner-or-saint-by-terry.html
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks - saved to a pdf for further study...
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
This is slightly off piste but I think the idea Paul is playing around with is more about relationships with influencers than our essential nature. So he personifies sin as a slave master. Being dead to sin means we no longer have to obey the commands of the old bully, although we may choose to do so. Similarly being saints isn't about having a new nature, since to be 'sanctified' is to be set apart for God.

Our old self was at sin's beck and call. But if your property (slave) is dead, you have no ownership rights any more. Rights pass to Christ who has bought us with his blood, purchased us from the slave market.

In practical terms this isn't much different to where Luther got to. Practically we have long standing patterns of behaviour we need to change. This is what Paul's on about in telling us to 'put off' our old self and 'put on' the new. We need our minds renewed to understand the new way we need to live. We still need to learn how to live righteously, which is why the NT writers spell it out in such detail.

OK - one last time before I head off to an event for the weekend. Any last words of advice for NF?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Make accountability two-way.

Plus everything else upthread
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
In practical terms this isn't much different to where Luther got to. Practically we have long standing patterns of behaviour we need to change

---

Well practically TV seems to push the over-realised end of this. Here's the thing, why object to 'simul justus et peccator' unless you actually object to it? The author of that blog is clear that TV doesn't mean what the reformed confusions would claim on the matter (as the 39 Articles would have it "This corruption of nature doth persist, yea in them that are regenerate").
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Hi Chris. I wouldn't say Terry's the deepest theological thinker on the planet. His starting point is practical pastoral theology. Practically he would say we have, in Christ, the power to resist sin although we are still tempted and can still choose to follow sin's draw and push.

In terms of practical pastoral advice, what would Luther say? I may have understood the old monk.....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Without wishing to rain on your particular parade, Ramarius, I would contend that NF is only 'provocative in a good way' towards those churches which have a similar emphasis or soteriology. The 'grace and freedom in Christ' thing isn't particularly applicable beyond a particular form of evangelicalism, I would have thought. It just ain't an issue in some other traditions.

From what I've seen, NF has come like a breath of fresh air to those who have either been in more authoritarian settings (and yes, there are plenty of those) or involved with health/wealth style US prosperity teaching. If you're coming from that sort of background then NF is a beacon of sanity.

I would also agree that the balance between a dedicated emphasis on scripture and the seeking of charismatic experience is a good one too. There are lot of charismatic outfits which don't have the theological ballast that NF brings to the party ... however, the more I've seen of non-restorationist/traditional churches of various stripes the more I realise how much more theologically literate many ministers, pastors and priests are compared with the house-church/restorationist guys.

That's not to say that there aren't some clever folk nor people with well developed theological minds within NF and similar outfits - but there's a whole load of stuff out there (here?) that NF folk are barely aware of and not really engaging with. Some of it better left alone, it has to be said ... but then, they ain't that au fait with wider theological issues beyond their own immediate paradigm on the whole. Broad generalisation, but I stand by it.

As for the charismatic practice itself ... well, from my own direct experience, I've not seen anything 'flakey' in NF circles - but I've heard of some duff stuff. And I'm very wary of the apparent Bethel emphasis and connection.

But these days I'd regard only a small proportion of the charismatic things I've seen and participated in over the years as being the real deal. I wouldn't want to put a figure or a percentage on that ... but most charismatic things I've seen have been sheer puff and bluster when all is said and done. That said, I still believe that there was a kernel of the real McCoy there. I don't see any evidence to suggest whether NF are any 'better' or 'worse' than other charismatic outfits in that regard. They've had more than their fair share of duff and dud prophecies though ... but that is a charge that can be levied at the entire charismatic scene per se.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Gamaliel - I'd agree almost entirely. We need to remember how small NF is - 240 odd churches at various stages of development don't cover much of a nation of 61 million, and we tend to relate to people of a similar persuasion. So huge swathes of Christendom that are a complete mystery to many of our people.

The charismatic stuff is actually a bit patchy, but good where practiced regularly. We've seen some pretty dramatic healings and not always through what you might term platform speakers. Prophetic stuff is actually a bit lightweight overall (it's my specialism if you like to call it that). We don't seem to weigh stuff that carefully, but on a local and personal level can genuinely say we've heard the Spirit of God. And interestingly the most gifted prophetic guy in the movement is a feller called Julian Adams now in Bedford who we recruited from S Africa (another import to NF).

Nicely balanced post by the way Mr Rabbi, and appreciate the robust and constructive comment.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Hi Chris. I wouldn't say Terry's the deepest theological thinker on the planet. His starting point is practical pastoral theology. Practically he would say we have, in Christ, the power to resist sin although we are still tempted and can still choose to follow sin's draw and push.

---

quote:

---

In terms of practical pastoral advice, what would Luther say? I may have understood the old monk.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, I still believe that there was a kernel of the real McCoy there. I don't see any evidence to suggest whether NF are any 'better' or 'worse' than other charismatic outfits in that regard. They've had more than their fair share of duff and dud prophecies though

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
This is slightly off piste but I think the idea Paul is playing around with is more about relationships with influencers than our essential nature. So he personifies sin as a slave master. Being dead to sin means we no longer have to obey the commands of the old bully, although we may choose to do so. Similarly being saints isn't about having a new nature, since to be 'sanctified' is to be set apart for God.

Our old self was at sin's beck and call. But if your property (slave) is dead, you have no ownership rights any more. Rights pass to Christ who has bought us with his blood, purchased us from the slave market.

---

This is an over-realised view of sanctification. Even in the very article that is quoted (I am involved in the ensuing discussion on the blog, under a different name as it happens) it basically says "you can stop sinning if you want to". This, IME, leads to the leader who "knows" they have stopped sinning telling the upstart member that you are sinning by not doing the right things and you could stop if you wanted. The pastoral implications are many and various!

Luther's realism about indwelling sin is what leads to the humility to realise you will often be wrong. This over-realised view of sanctification is what leads, IME, to church leaders assuming they are right.

That's my advice, should you be interested.

 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Morning Lep. Useful discussion. The further question is what do we say to people when we do sin. In NF we are quite open about the fact that sin is part of our experience, and we encourage people to confess it quickly, and accept Christ's forgiveness so we don't get burdened down with guilt. Guilt is, of course, a teal crippler to a healthy life.

The idea that you don't *have to* sin doesn't automatically translate into *you will never * sin (and if you do you ain't as holy as your leader). All Christian traditions wrestle with the tension between the indicative and the imperative. Our starting point is to expect success and deal robustly with failure when it comes rather than accept your propensity to fail but be assured that, despite that, you have in Christ fantastic potential to succeed.

If you're in an NF church you will always hear both dimensions addressed - our relationship to sin, and what we do when we fall. I think where TV is coming from is that he's come across a lot of believers trapped in a cycle of I sin, I feel guilty as hell as a result, so I sin more....

Having said that, making more of the Lord's Supper to remind us of Christ's victory over sin, and preaching less PSA and more Christus Victor would also help us in this regard, but that's another story (!)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think there are lots of other stories here ...

As far as the Derren Brown cold-reading thing goes ... he's simply out to show how easy it is to create an environment where there's a semblance of these sort of things happening. I know that from my own experience during the 'Toronto' thing. I quickly realised how easy it was to line people up and create an expectation that they'd all fall over, or quake, laugh or whatever else. It's easy. All you need are the right cues.

That isn't to say that some of this stuff isn't genuine. But I backed off from it when I began to realise how easy it was - not to fake exactly in a manipulative sense - but to create the right environment and atmosphere where people genuinely thought that these things were happening to them.

All Derren Brown has done is to highlight for us how easy it is to do this sort of thing.

I am very, very, very sceptical indeed of the 'Treasure Hunt' thing and of Bethel as a whole. It is very, very, very flakey if you ask me.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:


The idea that you don't *have to* sin doesn't automatically translate into *you will never * sin (and if you do you ain't as holy as your leader). All Christian traditions wrestle with the tension between the indicative and the imperative. Our starting point is to expect success and deal robustly with failure when it comes rather than accept your propensity to fail but be assured that, despite that, you have in Christ fantastic potential to succeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

But the risk isn't universal. I know well one NF church where the leaders are very open about their own struggles, what they are learning about their personal motivations and insecurities, and modelling the value of being in supportive and mutually accountable relationships.

I'll add your comments to my list and thanks again.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
If you're in an NF church you will always hear both dimensions addressed - our relationship to sin, and what we do when we fall. I think where TV is coming from is that he's come across a lot of believers trapped in a cycle of I sin, I feel guilty as hell as a result, so I sin more....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as the Derren Brown cold-reading thing goes ... he's simply out to show how easy it is to create an environment where there's a semblance of these sort of things happening. I know that from my own experience during the 'Toronto' thing. I quickly realised how easy it was to line people up and create an expectation that they'd all fall over, or quake, laugh or whatever else. It's easy. All you need are the right cues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
...a teal crippler...

---

I so much want this to be amildly unpleasant idiomatic reference to cute little ducks rather than a simple miskey.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Ken...
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Twangist, before you write "I"m sorry if..." again, you could do with reading the thread The Proper Apology.

---

quote:

---

Ramarius, do you wist not that Twangist's "quote" anointing seems to have left you?

---

quote:

---

There was also the claim that Calvin and the Puritans would have gone along with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

There was also the claim that Calvin and the Puritans would have gone along with this.

---

Nope - just a single quote from Bunyan (a puritan).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Have you been talking to my wife?

---

quote:

---

I do see a direct theological link between Terry's rather idiosyncratic doctrine of sanctification and the approach to leadership, that won't just be sorted by more accountable structures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I think what I'm saying is that I do see a direct theological link between Terry's rather idiosyncratic doctrine of sanctification and the approach to leadership, that won't just be sorted by more accountable structures. (Although they always help)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
But the view on, say, cultural transformation and whether some forms of it are even possible is heavily dependent on how sanctification is said to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I've been dipping into this thread off and on for weeks, so forgive me if I missed this bit of info: who declared Terry Virgo an Apostle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
In the early church, the conduct of which they want to "restore" to the modern church, Jesus Christ did so while living (well, except for Judas' replacement). Then after the Resurrection he called Paul in a rather spectacular fashion before believers and non-believers. Later Apostles in that church were chosen by the original Apostles, I believe. Something that became apostolic succession.

---

quote:

---

My understanding is that after the original Apostles died off, their disciples were not called Apostles nor given Apostolic authority. The writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, et al talk a lot about the age of the Apostles in the past tense. They did give an incredible amount of authority to the bishops who were/are a part of the Apostolic succession, but did not refer to them as 'apostles.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
But the view on, say, cultural transformation and whether some forms of it are even possible is heavily dependent on how sanctification is said to work.

---

I have to heartily agree! One of the things I've seen locally is that the members of the local NF branch have 'arrived', for lack of a better word, when they start acting more Western. For example, when they abandon the respectful, quiet worship of their culture and start dancing in the aisles (or in the case of the Armenians, when they stop shedding heartfelt tears of humility during prayer) then they've come into 'true worship.'

That's when God has 'really touched them/ baptized them in the Holy Spirit.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
True enough. Which IMHO makes someone calling himself an "Apostle" rather cheeky. The word hubris comes to mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, I guess as a job description of someone who plants churches, apostle is an appropriate term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, I guess as a job description of someone who plants churches, apostle is an appropriate term.

---

Well, just remember that for Restorationist roles, having people in the office of 'Apostle' is part of getting back to the fourfold/fivefold ministry pattern of the first century church (and for them part of being truly Biblical).

---

Sorry to follow myself up - but there is something else worth saying here:

I think a lot of churches tend to take a minimalist view to the picture of church government in the Bible - in that they see their particular form embodied there (congregational, presbyterian, episcopal etc) but assume that they have Christian liberty to fill in the gaps as the Bible doesn't spell out every detail.

Restorationist outfits are more likely to take the view that the Bible spells out all there is to church government. So of course there is no need for checks and balances, as we are all brothers here and Paul can always tell Peter he is wrong to his face.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit", a much-read book in my day in NF circles, former Dallas Theological Seminary lecturer turned Wimber aficionado Jack Deere lists the following characteristics of apostles as a yardstick for their contemporary ilk:

- suffering for the gospel
- special insight into "divine mysteries"
- accompanying signs and wonders
- blameless integrity
- authority, particularly over demonic forces.

Church planting doesn't even make the list! Which is perhaps just as well for Terry Virgo, because I don't think he himself has ever actually planted a church from scratch.

In Restoration in the Church, Virgo lists the following characteristics of apostles:

- a master builder and foundation layer, with special insight into doctrinal issues

- appointment of elders, in which the apostle recognises the Holy Spirit's anointing on the elders in question

- breaking new ground with the gospel and 'inspiring existing churches', drawing them into the apostle's vision to support it ( )

Again, much is made of the apostolic-driven way of doing things being radically distinctive from denominational structures. Virgo puts it this way:

quote:

---

Where there is no anointing, democracy is probably the safest form of church government. But when God gives anointed leadership, democracy must make room for Him to have His way

---

quote:

---

So yes, at one level it's just someone who has planted multiple churches, on the other level it's something quite a lot more than that.

---

quote:

---

It's the baggage of a glorified past that comes with it that is pretty scary.

---

When people label themselves as significantly holy and anointed by God, run for the hills!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
When people label themselves as significantly holy and anointed by God, run for the hills!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, I guess as a job description of someone who plants churches, apostle is an appropriate term.

---

Well, just remember that for Restorationist roles, having people in the office of 'Apostle' is part of getting back to the fourfold/fivefold ministry pattern of the first century church (and for them part of being truly Biblical).

So yes, at one level it's just someone who has planted multiple churches, on the other level it's something quite a lot more than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And as I said:

quote:

---

It's the baggage of a glorified past that comes with it that is pretty scary.

---

When people label themselves as significantly holy and anointed by God, run for the hills!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(not Terry Virgo necessarily as he's now retired)

---

Not so fast. All the sources I can find scrupulously avoid being clear on this point, and one of these days I'm going to shell out the Companies House fee to look at the NFI Limited's board members and articles. As far as I can see, true to NF cognitive dissonance form, he's both stepped down and still there.

I can't speak for the other participants, but I think in the UK you had something called a Bank Holiday weekend...?
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Evening all. We seem to have got to the point of rehearsing previous conversations here. Functionally NF apostles don't look a lot different from similar roles elsewhre, and in some crucial respects quite dissimilar to the NT apostles they are supposed to model.

The real questions are around why anyone outside the movement should care, and what the future holds. And believe me I'm a lot more concerned about this than any of you lot, lovely though you are. So two quick observations. Accountability among senior leaders in NF works itself out amongst teams of leaders. It's oligarchic rather than democratic. The real question is whether it works effectively to bring about the kind of grace filled vibrant communities we aspire to. The picture there is mixed. Experience from the Ship is that bullying and controlling behaviour characterised the approach of some of our leaders across the network. But it's certainly not universal, and I could point you to a number of large influential NF churches with much more open approaches to leadership. How the culture of the movement will develop after Terry is something we will have to re-visit as new structures bed in. Re-open the quaestion in 6 months and we might have something new to talk about.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I appreciate the level of dialogue there's been with NF types on this thread and that in and of itself is encouraging.

I accept too that any of these much-talked-about changes would take time to implement.

So I'll take Ramarius' plea at face value, and put the date in my diary

Just in case there's any confusion, though, that doesn't mean I'm declaring a moratorium on the subject of NF between now and March 2012...
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

I can't speak for the other participants, but I think in the UK you had something called a Bank Holiday weekend...?

---

Well spotted! I've certainly spent too much time swearing, oops I mean speaking in other tongues, at self assembly furniture.

IME NF operates like a Presbyterian type set up at the local level - there is even (increasingly?) a distinction made between the lead elder and the rest of his team, which seems to mirror the teaching elder/minister and ruling elder distinction. At the (to coin the yucky phrase) trans-local level it looks much like classic episcopalian church government (our region even has 3 suffragans). The hope is that these offices will work on a relational basis.

For those who are interested P.J. Smyth has written a booklet on the NF understanding of the apostolic and includes some appendix's by Terry.

How it will all work out over the next period of time who can tell? My hope is that it will be a missional forward period of time for NF rather than a period of navel-gazing.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The question I would ask from that, is do they follow the Presbyterian rules and the local church being represented by an elder who is not the lead elder on higher councils. The lead elder is on such councils as a matter of right. Also are the other local leader voted for by the congregation and do the local congregation have a say in who their lead elder is?

Presbyterianism is a highly developed form of government and at its core is a balance of power between the trained cleric and the elected local leadership. Without this no system is really Presbyterian.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
I think you know the answer to that Jengie

Is there a better word to describe that set up at the local level?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the acid test is who appoints elders. If the buck stops with trans-local ministry, all the more so on theological grounds (see my quote from Restoration in the Church - will it be on your newly-assembled bookshelves? ), despite lots of touchy feely statements to the contrary, there's no actual, 'official' accountability to the congregation at all, even if this fact only emerges at times of crisis*.

Unless and until NF explicitly backs off the teaching of Terry as quoted above, I think it's all so much chasing after the wind.

==

*I found this out when I realised there was no constitutional way at all for the local congregation to get rid of its elders, even though (due to vestiges of democracy in our set-up) there was a way of getting rid of me as pastor or lead elder, i.e. a confidence vote, which I in fact requested as the least bad solution, but which never happened because of all that "anointing" nonsense quoted above.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Eutychus - I'm not disagreeing (see my comments on the "green lights" above).
I suspect that if you are asking the question of where power lies and where the buck stops it's actually at some variable point somewhere between lead elders and trans-local chaps depending on local cirumstances. There are plenty of churches (I imagine) that are ex-NF where the locals leaders left NF and took the church with them.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
For those who are interested P.J. Smyth has written a booklet on the NF understanding of the apostolic and includes some appendix's by Terry.

---

quote:

---

apostolic men and ministry are a gift to elders and their churches, given to equip and mature the church. Elders should acknowledge and welcome genuine apostolic authority, and should soften themselves to receive the imprint of God through these men. Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering. They and their churches are caught up with other churches on apostolic mission!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

I suspect that if you are asking the question of where power lies and where the buck stops it's actually at some variable point somewhere between lead elders and trans-local chaps depending on local cirumstances. There are plenty of churches (I imagine) that are ex-NF where the locals leaders left NF and took the church with them.

---

Surely if they are ex-Newfontiers because they disagreed with what you call the "trans-local chaps", that means in effect for any church in Newfrontiers that the buck stops not at some variable point between them and lead elders but with the "trans-local chaps", doesn't it?
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
There is just too much double speak for my liking in NF. Some of the phrases I've been 'conditioned' with include :

We are servant leaders and do not lord it over others.
You must submit to our leadership as rebellion is as bad as witchcraft.(Article on NF website about spiritual authority.

You do not have to tithe legaisticaly. You should give to the local church and tithe 10% or more or you could be under a curse. (Understanding Church life course booklet)

We are not a denomination but a loose affiliation of churches. You must submit to our apostolic team and we give 10% back to head office. You must submit to what Terry Virgo regards as good theology.

We are meant to be accountable to one another. You must submit to leadership. We do not need to submit to you or be accountable to you for what we are paid, who we employ, any sin in our lives, how many foreign trips we take, what we preach,or who we choose as elders. It is rebellion if you question this. We are however a priesthood of all believers and do not lord it over you. You will not have the opportunity to speak at a business meeting, but it is called a family meeting.

This sort of stuff is just a crap form of manipulative mind control. It looks from the outside like a bunch of self deluded alpha males using scripture as an excuse to lord it over others.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Ouch.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Blimey, Arminian, (and Eutychus) it sounds very much like other 'R1' restorationist networks in that regard. And I was always under the impression that NF was more moderate ...

I'm sure there are variations in practice and that the 'imprint' (doesn't that sound a bit intrusive? Like they've stamped something onto your forehead?) isn't as strong in some areas as others.

I'll agree with Ramarius that we need to give all this time to develop. But see my contributions to the 'apostolic covering' thread over in Kerygmania to see why I'll not be queueing up to get back under 'apostolic covering' any time soon.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Thanks for the cross ref Gamaliel. My particular interest on the Kerygmania thread was to see what people knew about the hermeneutic underpinning the term. But if it stimulates thought around the more practical issues on this thread, all well and good.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - the two threads are related because a faulty hermeneutic leads to faulty practice.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
....agreed Mr G....
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0