quote:

---

Restorationism has died a death now

---

quote:

---

It's far from dead

---

quote:

---

Restorationists [and] their power structures [...] I see evidence of both in a number of third wave charismatic movements

---

quote:

---

How would you characterise the various 'morphed' forms of Restorationism? If I didn't know what I was looking for, how would I identify it?

---

Gamaliel mentioned Andrew Walker's book Restoring the Kingdom and the link it makes between restorationism and Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church, while I provided some historical background here.

There seems to be a consensus that Ramarius' question might make for interesting discussion in its own right, and to keep things focused I've decided to go for a new thread. Hopefully we can keep the key issues distinct from the original topics on the "discernment", "Bethel", "Newfrontiers" threads etc., even if there's some overlap.

So have at it. What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?

[ 20. September 2012, 13:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I would argue that it's part of the warp and woof of most (if not all) reforming or renewal movements.

So, to that extent, groups and movements as diverse as the Franciscans and the Baptists could be described as in some way 'restorationist' - ie. they set out to restore or recover something they felt had been lost or obscured by developments subsequent to the New Testament.

I had some email contact with a former restorationist recently who is currently non-aligned in church terms but still banging on about uprooting and tearing down and so on and so forth in order for a 'pure' New Testament form of church to emerge. He'll be uprooting and tearing down for a long time to come ...

I think the original premise of the 1970s-90s (early 2000s?) UK restorationists is dead in the water but there are elements of it yet amongst the smaller groupings that remain from all of that - as well as within New Frontiers which was the last real stronghold ...

Ramarius may disabuse us of that.

For my money, I think Andrew Walker put his finger on it when he said that events like Spring Harvest and the continuation of the wider charismatic renewal effectively put the kibosh on the whole thing by showing that it was possible to have charismatic experiences and church growth and so on without having to align oneself with a self-styled 'apostle' in 'new church' terms.

With the benefit of hindsight, I now see the UK restorationist scene as an attempt to adopt a form of episcopacy (under a sexier name) and an understandable (and commendable) effort to grapple with ecclesiology amongst people and groupings that would otherwise be prone to fads and faddism. Unfortunately, there was insufficient theological ballast and the whole thing became stultefied by authoritarian structures before being swamped by waves of revivalism and enthusiasm - Toronto, Lakeland, Bethel ...

I don't doubt the sincerity or integrity of any of those who were involved - but we had an over-realised sense of our own importance in the grand scheme of things that could only ever end in disillusionment. The whole thing was a well-meaning chimera.

To be frank, I'd rather the restorationists any day of the week to the topsy-turvy world of independent charismaticdom ... or even sections of the Anglican charismatic renewal (Ellel Grange and the like). There were genuine attempts to ground things in theological debate - although I don't believe we had the full set of theological tools to do this properly - and to engage in social issues etc.

I s'pose my take these days would be that a smidgeon of restorationism is no bad thing ... just as a pinch of pentecostalism can add a bit of spice ... but I wouldn't want to over-dose on it. I'm trying, Eutychus, to keep eggs and puddings out of this analogy ...
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Eutychus: So have at it. What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?

I shall watch this with interest, and contribute as able.

I had a fairly good idea of the New Churches in the 80's as I spent some years researching them. My conclusions were focussed on the Empowerment of members, succesful up to the point where a member became a threat to the leadership, at which point enfeeblement set in.

Lots of disappointments in congregations, failed prophecies etc. Lots of what seemed to me to be froth - and froth does not last.

But since those days, I have lost touch and my gut feeling is that many congregations have disappeared or must have changed beyond recognition. I see the odd (sometimes very odd!) leader crop up on TV but they seem a pale reflection of their past as I remember them. I also notice the odd building (often redundant denominational churches) which I guess, from their names, have a history back in the New Churches. But there don't seem to be all that many.

I'm out of touch, and in my area there has been a rapid rise in mega African congregations.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
.... For my money, I think Andrew Walker put his finger on it when he said that events like Spring Harvest and the continuation of the wider charismatic renewal effectively put the kibosh on the whole thing by showing that it was possible to have charismatic experiences and church growth and so on without having to align oneself with a self-styled 'apostle' in 'new church' terms.
....

---

But no gold teeth or dust, no froth, so important for maintaining the numbers (for a short while).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you're on the money, Mark.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Mark your thesis has recently emerged during the course of an archeological dig in my office, so I can cross-check what you say

Off the top of my head and to extricate myself briefly from the niceties of a hideous explanation of Franco-French public procurement tenders I'm supposed to be translating, the key points of restorationism I'd see are:

• belief in restoration of the Church to become a glorious bride fit for the return of Christ
• belief in the recovery of the fivefold (or fourfold) 'Ephesians 4' ministries of apostle, prophet, pastor/teacher and evangelist as foundational to this restored church
• belief in 'delegated authority' and (upward) accountability (what Gamaliel describes as a 'new form of episcopacy') with apostolic figures in particular having authority over local churches and more particularly their leaders (with a corresponding rejection of all forms of congregational government)
• belief in charismatic gifts as part and parcel of what needs to be restored to the Church, often with the help (or 'anointing') of 'Ephesians 4' ministries
• belief in a committed membership of local churches (as opposed to what South Coast Kevin referred to on the "discernment" thread as a "centred set" concept)

How this can fit into deonominationalism is a mystery to me.
 

---

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
Is one view of restoration a kind of progressive trajectory starting with when the Reformation went 'back to basics'? (Except not enough for, say, the Puritans). Subsequently, various bits of the New Testament church have been 'restored', such as charismatic gifts.

If the latest restoration is of miraculous signs on a more regular basis, it's probably too early to tell. Plenty of people get disillusioned about it, but others are still excited about it.

The other view of it is of new church structures by restoring apostles etc. That side of things also sounds like it replaced the Reformation rejection of the Catholic church with a rejection of established denominations generally. It looks like the latter has toned down and the former is, as Gamaliel says, a revamped episcopacy.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Eutychus: belief in 'delegated authority' and (upward) accountability (what Gamaliel describes as a 'new form of episcopacy') with apostolic figures in particular having authority over local churches and more particularly their leaders (with a corresponding rejection of all forms of congregational government)

As I said, empowerment and enfeeblement!

I saw less 'delegated authority' than I did of authoritarianism (of both those with authority who enjoyed wielding it and those who wanted authority imposed upon themselves).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Some of it can fit (or be accommodated) within denominationalism, Eutychus - or else it just replaces one form of denominationalism with another.

It always used to strike me how inconsistent we were when we slagged off labels such as Baptist or Methodist but in the next breath would ask, 'Do you follow Bryn? Do you follow Gerald? Do you follow Terry? Barney? Derek Brown ... Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and All?'
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't see the specifics of the restorationist 'vision' to be very much in evidence these days, but I do see echoes of it - generally in anything that's over-egged (sorry Eutychus ) or more full of a sense of its own significance than it ought ...

I've often felt that convert Orthodoxy (as opposed to cradle Orthodoxy) is a form of parallel universe restorationism in reverse ...

@Tomsk ... it's too early to say whether there's been any major restoration of charismatic gifts, healings and all? Really? These things have been allegedly going on for over a century now - how much longer do we need before forming an opinion?

My own? These things can happen.

Are they happening more regularly than heretofore?

I doubt it.

But their exponents claim they are and they often aren't in the best position to judge for reasons I've outlined in the 'discernment' thread.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of it can fit (or be accommodated) within denominationalism, Eutychus - or else it just replaces one form of denominationalism with another

---

quote:

---

its external role in Christendom has not been to restore the kingdom, but to establish a sect

---

I think that may well be true of restorationism, too, but I have trouble seeing how the governmental aspects of restorationism can be made to fit within existing denominationalism.

Most denominations involve the leadership being held accountable to the membership in some way or another, whether formally or informally (can anyone find any exceptions to this?) whereas in restorationism it's all about delegated authority (Mark, I was trying to use restorationists' self-descriptions rather than our own ); it's all about following leaders, and democracy in any shape or form is anathema.

The bit of restorationism I knew best certainly used to make a special claim (however illusory) to its 'anointed' leaders being more than mere denominational leaders.

If this special pleading is no more, I can't see any justification for restorationists remaining outside mainstream denominations. They ought, by their lights, to be getting back in there renewing them.

[Gamaliel: strike one... ]

[ 02. January 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Off the top of my head and to extricate myself briefly from the niceties of a hideous explanation of Franco-French public procurement tenders I'm supposed to be translating, the key points of restorationism I'd see are:

...

How this can fit into deonominationalism is a mystery to me.

---

Surely the point of "hard" Restorationism (as evidenced by Arthur Wallis, for instance) was that it couldn't fit into denominationalism as these were the "old order" and God had finished with them?
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Eutychus: democracy in any shape or form is anathema

Indeed, on grounds that it is not New Testament teaching / practice. Which I always found a little odd but never looked into. To be honest I can see some advantages of not being democratic.

Baptist Trainfan Surely the point of "hard" Restorationism (as evidenced by Arthur Wallis, for instance) was that it couldn't fit into denominationalism as these were the "old order" and God had finished with them?

Hilarious - but accurate reflection BT.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Eutychus: democracy in any shape or form is anathema

Indeed, on grounds that it is not New Testament teaching / practice. Which I always found a little odd but never looked into. To be honest I can see some advantages of not being democratic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Surely the point of "hard" Restorationism (as evidenced by Arthur Wallis, for instance) was that it couldn't fit into denominationalism as these were the "old order" and God had finished with them?

---

quote:

---

"restoring the church" rhetoric in NFI is complete bunkum

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mark your thesis has recently emerged during the course of an archeological dig in my office, so I can cross-check what you say

Off the top of my head and to extricate myself briefly from the niceties of a hideous explanation of Franco-French public procurement tenders I'm supposed to be translating, the key points of restorationism I'd see are:

• belief in restoration of the Church to become a glorious bride fit for the return of Christ
• belief in the recovery of the fivefold (or fourfold) 'Ephesians 4' ministries of apostle, prophet, pastor/teacher and evangelist as foundational to this restored church
• belief in 'delegated authority' and (upward) accountability (what Gamaliel describes as a 'new form of episcopacy') with apostolic figures in particular having authority over local churches and more particularly their leaders (with a corresponding rejection of all forms of congregational government)
• belief in charismatic gifts as part and parcel of what needs to be restored to the Church, often with the help (or 'anointing') of 'Ephesians 4' ministries
• belief in a committed membership of local churches (as opposed to what South Coast Kevin referred to on the "discernment" thread as a "centred set" concept)

How this can fit into deonominationalism is a mystery to me.

---

The first two bullets are what I would call emphases *peculiar* to Restorationism. Don't know enough about other churches to comment on 3). The re-emphasis on charismatic gifts is a continuing legacy of the Pentecostal movement (although I've only ever heard one Restoration leader give them any credit for it).

I'm not getting much of a sense of the difference between 'morphed' restorationsim and neo-Pentecostalism more generally. In the grand scheme of things, Restorationism is a (actually very small if very noisy) sub-set of the modern Pentecostal movement.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@Eutychus. I've cross-posted. What didn't you understand about my earlier post mentioned above? Happy to clarify.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't understand how the "hard" restoration tenets (specifically the four/fivefold ministries and more particularly the foundational role of apostles in building a church which is "shaped like the NT") can be viewed as "bunkum" within a movement for which these are (or were) its raison d'être and differentiating characteristics.

In my day, which is surely not so long ago for something of this magnitude, the whole reasoning behind "new churches" (at least Andrew Walker's R1 and R2 categories thereof) stood or fell on this kind of issue.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Some pretty general thoughts and observations -

Gamaliel's point about most movements in Xtain history having been "restorationist" is very true, obviously the "restart point" and degree and nature of contextualisation varies no end!

Most movements have to define themselves against whatever else is around at the same time and thereby justify their existence. When a movement is better established or even just older the rhetoric tends to be less strident and more measured.

Many Restorationist churches have members who aren't that fussed about "restorationism" per se they just find that church the "best fit". Consequently many tend to operate with a more "centred set" mentality. To be fair the consumerist model of church that seems to be common in the UK tends to produce that kind of thing anyway. Restorationist theory and practice seem to be at tension here - but that's real life.

Some of the things that I've noticed as being attractive to people coming into a restorationist setting (and that not to say there isn't a flip side to all of these) are

1)Surprisingly, a catholic inclusive attitude!
A Baptist Pastor (who later became Baptist/NF but that's another story) related to me that he found the NF folk he knew at that point much more welcoming, genuinely friendly and open to mutual fellowship/prayer than for example Vineyard and New Wine he had mixed with previously. He put this down to their being secure in what they believed. He said that this was also the experience of a local Anglo-Catholic priest!

2)A clear ecclesiology which is connected to mission.
Despite Grove booklets etc. many Renewal Anglicans seem to be embarrassed to actually be Anglicans (some of the New Winey Vicars even call themselves Lead Pastors etc. (Vineyard envy?)).

3)Clear leadership, direction and action.
A chap in our church who had previously spent many years in churches with umpteen committees, and who's Son pastored a Congregational church with much opposition (both active and passive) keeps telling all and sundry (and has done for a few years now) that he finds the way our church operates a breath of fresh air.

Phew and no excessively ovulated desserts
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Absolutely. I remember one of the big cheeses in R1 telling some delegates from independent charismatic churches in my area who weren't part of any 'new church' network that they couldn't possibly consider themselves churches in the true sense because they weren't 'founded' on an apostle.

The hardline R1-ers back then made the RCs and Orthodox look like the most convinced ecumenists on the planet.

Things softened though, over time ... it was impossible to keep so hard-line for so long.

@Ramarius - I don't think there is much, if any, difference these days between what were the R1 and R2 restorationists and the broader neo-pentecostal scene. The revivalism and faddism of the latter effectively swamped the former.

There are, however, more extreme 'apostolic' groups in the US, many of them characterised by a very right-wing approach to things. I'd also say that groups like Bethel are now far more influential and are setting the agenda for former restorationists - only this week I heard of a former R1 leader (not one of the original main men) who is now involved with Bethel.

R2 was the first to fizzle out or fade into the broader stream - in a rather arty and post-evo way for many of them ... then R1 began to crumble ... first Covenant Ministries and now - quite possibly - New Frontiers. What was Covenant Ministries is now a small group of unrelated fellowships clustered around the wreckage ... Keri Jones is still ploughing the same old furrow under the Ministries Without Borders banner, then there's Alan Scotland and Life Link (I'm still in touch with some of the folk there), Destiny Church in Glasgow, Abundant Life in Bradford and another group in Cambridge - all of which have taken on more US prosperity-gospel wannabe megachurch characteristics.

The original Arthur Wallis style approach has all but dissipated but there's an element of it there in some form.

I had a lot of time for Arthur. He was a real gentleman. I don't think he'd have liked what subsequently emerged.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry - I should have said, 'All three of which ...'

Life Link is less like that than the others.

As for the 'delegated authority' thing ... I'm told that Life Link is less authoritarian than the others too.

But to all intents and purposes, I'm not sure that the former or morphing restorationists have anything distinctive to add to the party any more - nothing in fact that isn't already there within old school Pentecostalism, the charismatic wing of the Baptists, the Vineyard, the Anglican New Wine thing or the various third-wave movements.

The thing they all have in common, though, is that they're all ... over .... over ... (prepare to strike Eutychus ) over ... over ... over-realised.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

The original Arthur Wallis style approach has all but dissipated but there's an element of it there in some form.

I had a lot of time for Arthur. He was a real gentleman. I don't think he'd have liked what subsequently emerged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You need to get your hands on Andrew Walker's book, Twangist. He explains the background and the connections very well.

What's slowly sinking in for me here is that shortly after I became completely disillusioned (or undeceived) with restorationism, the new churches seem to have quietly ditched it themselves... I still find this hard to come to terms with both intellectually and emotionally.

---

I've read it many times - was after some opinion .
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, Twangist, I can still remember Arthur in his tweed jacket and brogues dancing like a little gnome in church services ...

Yes, he was very much like a Plymouth Brother but without the dispensationalism. Effectively, the Bryn and Keri Jones axis of what Walker called R1 was a fusion of AoG and Wally North ('South Chard') influences and Brethrenism ... with a significant Baptist influx a little later on.

Certain US-style prosperity influences were also there from the outset - Keri in particular was heavily influenced by Oral Roberts. These were held in check whilst Arthur and the other former Brethren guys like David Matthew were able to exert some influence but eventually these came to be a dominant note ... although, mercifully, without some of the whackier atonement theories promulgated by guys like Hagin and Copeland.

There were always tensions there between the Brethren elements and the more 'reformed' elements that came in with some of the Baptist guys - but essentially Pentecostalism was to become the dominant note within Covenant Ministries. It was effectively a more contemporary form of Pentecostal church when all was said and done ...

It had its own interior logic and sort of made sense for a while ... but it was forever prone to personality clashes and splits. It was always 'my way or the highway.' Sometimes there'd be a flash of glasnost or perestroika - only for the hard authoritarian hand to fall again. To my amazement as I look back, I stuck with it for 18 years - mostly due to the relationships I formed there. For much of the time I was fairly marginalised and felt like a square peg in a round hole.

It was all very intense and you spent most of your waking hours around church people. There was a lot going on and a lot to do ... but it was very easy to get cut off from the rest of what was going on. The intensity of the fellowship and the relationships seemed to suit some people though.

Do I regret it? Yes and no. I think the quality of the fellowship and relationships was very good ... but looking back it was very, very claustrophobic.

It's funny what you'll put up with and accept though. As I gradually moved out of it all I would mention some of the things that went on to Anglican or Baptist friends and see their eye-brows rise into their scalps ... I knew that things were done differently elsewhere but don't think I clocked quite how authoritarian it all was until I was out of it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think, Eutychus, that one of the ironies is that the hard-line restorationist emphasis simply fizzled out and was brushed under the carpet just like the unfulfilled prophecies, over-e .... exaggerated expectations ( ) and much else besides. You had to have a short memory to be a restorationist.

One minute some bloke you'd never heard of was put forward as the next big cheese and within a short time they'd disappear just as quickly, never to be referred to again. It was like 1984.

My brother and some of his pals in a shared house (still restorationist at that time) were once sat watching a documentary about Stalin on the telly. One by one they all turned and looked at each other. Nothing was said - explicitly - but they all knew what each other were thinking ... they were watching the political equivalent of their ecclesiastical setting ...



I'm not sure it could have turned out any other way though. It's like a 'weeble' - remember those?

Whichever way you push a weeble it wobbles back to its original position. Authoritarianism was there in restorationism's spiritual DNA - just as sectarianism was and endless seceding and splitting. Take it to its logical conclusion and you end up with a church of one. Well, arguably Protestantism itself does that ... but restorationism takes it all a few steps further.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Just a few random thoughts.

Has the restorationist axis adopted a solid realpolitik now? (That is patently their 'streams' weren't growing and historical denominations are clearly still here (and in some cases thriving) so let's be realistic about it all was a common reaction by the Restorationists..

Walker seems to say that the adoption by main stream denominations of restorationist aspects of church life, mean the full on restorationist carpet is pulled away from the remaining restoratinists feet.

The authoritarian pull (of restorationists) is repellent to a lot of ordinary Christian British people. Trans national apostolic oversight within protestant non conformist sects is not going anywhere and was genuinely unpopular. It was the proverbial dead horse. These men often were abusive in a number of (small) cases?

A lot of independent charismatic streams/ churches are much more pragmatic these days and seemingly actively work with other local Christian churches and why shouldn't they? The rug has been pulled from such sects.

The only folk who've lost out as far as i can see are the quite authoritarian men (and they usually were men) who rose to the dizzying heights of apostolic oversight and often quite scary authority over often gullible people.

Saul
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think, Eutychus, that one of the ironies is that the hard-line restorationist emphasis simply fizzled out and was brushed under the carpet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Most denominations involve the leadership being held accountable to the membership in some way or another, whether formally or informally (can anyone find any exceptions to this?) whereas in restorationism it's all about delegated authority...; it's all about following leaders, and democracy in any shape or form is anathema.

---

quote:

---

The apostle [Paul] – for all his divine call, diverse gifts, and founding labours – does not set himself in a hierarchical position above his communities or act in an authoritarian manner towards them. He refuses to do this since Christ, not he, is their master [2 Corinthians 4:5].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't understand how the "hard" restoration tenets (specifically the four/fivefold ministries and more particularly the foundational role of apostles in building a church which is "shaped like the NT") can be viewed as "bunkum" within a movement for which these are (or were) its raison d'être and differentiating characteristics.

In my day, which is surely not so long ago for something of this magnitude, the whole reasoning behind "new churches" (at least Andrew Walker's R1 and R2 categories thereof) stood or fell on this kind of issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose in reality this is actually accountability to the nth degree, in that someone would cease to be thought of as a leader if people stopped following them. People aren't following you, therefore you are not a leader; simple fact, not a matter of titles or anything.

---

quote:

---

God's ultimate purpose is that the church should become a 'mature man' (Eph. 4:13), a body with all it's members functioning. In Ephesians 4 Paul describes how God has purposed for this to be accomplished through the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers.

Our desire is to see churches that are built on New Testament principles through receiving these Ephesians 4 ministries, where the word of God is honoured, and there is openness to the work of the Holy Spirit. We believe in a restored church and embrace Haggai's promise that 'The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former.' (Hag 2:9)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Still is a deal breaker for some people in the movement. There are more shades of opinion these days as Twangist notes.

The view that Restoration has 'restored' the 'lost office of apostle' simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That it's 'bunkum' is a personal view. Some of our 'apostolic' figures are really just senior church leaders. For some of them, the further they get up the hierarchy, the less time they spend with unbelievers. I don't see that as being 'apostolic' in any NT sense.

There are notable exceptions.

But more anon.

---

I guess it's hard for me to see a church actively within NFI or any other restorationist denomination (pardon me, 'family of churchs' ) who don't actively teach and support the 'lost office of the apostle' and 'apostolic authority'.

If nothing else, wouldn't your church's leader/apostle be a bit put out by that? Certainly if they show up and wave the 'apostle' title around, people are gonna have to respond in some way?

I don't suppose asking if 'apostle'='bishop' in NFI-speak would be constructive?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What's slowly sinking in for me here is that shortly after I became completely disillusioned (or undeceived) with restorationism, the new churches seem to have quietly ditched it themselves... I still find this hard to come to terms with both intellectually and emotionally.

---

To an extent, I'm starting to wonder what part of my experience with restorationist churches is along similar lines: a bunch of missionaries that didn't get the memo that times had changed a little. But if that's true, their regional apostle (initials D.D., for those of you 'in the know') certainly seemed to be working to maintain the old status quo.

There was never any hint from him that restorationism had been 'ditched.'
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I thought you might say something like that

I wonder if Saul the Apotle hasn't got it exactly wrong above when he says

quote:

---

Trans national apostolic oversight within protestant non conformist sects is not going anywhere and was genuinely unpopular.

---

I wonder in fact whether this aspect of restorationism is (deliberately?) played down in places where there are relatively lots of evos (like the UK) but actually alive and well, as evidenced where there is less competition.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This may denote a fleshly resistance to the truth, but experience has made me very wary of anyone, however they put it, who says, 'The scriptural pattern is that there should be authoritative leaders, and your calling is to recognise my authority.'
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
@ Eutychus

I honestly don't know anymore. I recognize within myself a tendency to construct conspiracy theories about 'behind the scenes' motives and manipulations in such organizations: probably due to growing up in Alaska where we have little else to do in the winter but construct conspiracy theories (heard a few doosies about the Food and Drug Administration).

I will say that when the poop hit the ventilator with the local branch I was involved with, I found your testimony and that of others I found online to be very, very familiar, that is to say, classic restorationism with all it's typical characteristics seemed to be in full swing where I was; but now I'm less sure as to the why. The way I see it a few possibilities exist, the two that are foremost in my mind are:

* NF proper is really starting to grow out of the 'restorationist' mindset and morph into a more mainstream charismatic denomination with slightly eccentric titles for their upper management ; at the same time there is either a break-away splinter sect that still follows the previous hard-core restorationism paradigm OR (but less likely) a scattered bunch of churches that haven't gotten the memo and are just out of touch with the new direction and mindset.

* NF proper is putting on a more politically correct face that some members (like dear Ramarius) have actually started to adopt as the status quo; while at the same time maintaining the old, pure restorationist rhetoric amongst their over-seas missionaries in order to maintain control and proper enthusiasm.

Contrary to what was posted above, the pastor I knew in Turkey would always maintain that his authority and leadership did not come from the voluntary submission of the congregation, but from the blessing of the 'apostle.' His authority was an extension of the apostle's, who got his authority from Terry Virgo himself (who, of course, got his authority direct from the Big Guy Upstairs).

I guess the question (as tends to be the case in NF) is 'what does Terry V. think?' If he's truly gone 'mute' then I don't see any definitive answer emerging from NF any time soon.

It would be interesting to hear some of the leadership answer-up to some quotes from Terry and some of the 'prophesies' from others. I wonder if anyone would actually come right out and say "yeah, that was wrong."

[ 03. January 2012, 07:43: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Contrary to what was posted above, the pastor I knew in Turkey would always maintain that his authority and leadership did not come from the voluntary submission of the congregation, but from the blessing of the 'apostle.' His authority was an extension of the apostle's, who got his authority from Terry Virgo himself (who, of course, got his authority direct from the Big Guy Upstairs).

---

And I suppose anyone seeking to defend this way of doing things would point to the NT passages where leaders / apostles are commissioned (or whatever word you wish to use) by people like Paul. But was this simply in recognition of the fact that these leaders / apostles had the gift of leadership; i.e. people followed them?

How I wish I could time-travel back to AD50 or so and see how leadership really worked in the very early church! I find these questions so fascinating.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks for your further insights IrishLord!

On a point of order, Ramarius offered to revisit the specific question of "Newfrontiers after Terry Virgo" six months after the end of the last thread to allow time for developments. This takes us to the end of February. Being a sporting chap, I decided to take him at his word.

As I said in the OP there will probably be some overlap with NF issues on this thread (and I'm as guilty as the rest ), but my aim here is nonetheless to try and address the broader theological implications of restorationism - and particularly, whether these can, in fact, "morph" (which I doubt) - rather than NF-specific issues.

My aim is to keep a broader readership of the thread onboard and thus get a broader range of contributions and insights, for instance from people within the New Wine scene.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Others can answer Irish Lord's points (which seem very valid to me).

But, quite apart from any theological/ecclesiological aspects, what I do think is happening is the almost inevitable sociological shift from "sect" to "denomination" as posited by Troeltsch. The result is ultimately a gradual move from the "bounded set" to "centred set", with some folk (the apostles perhaps) doing all they can to resist the change - or even forming a breakaway group of "true believers".

Isn't this what happened when the Primitive Methodists split from the Wesleyans, for instance - or the Montanists from the Catholic hegemony?
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Contrary to what was posted above, the pastor I knew in Turkey would always maintain that his authority and leadership did not come from the voluntary submission of the congregation, but from the blessing of the 'apostle.' His authority was an extension of the apostle's, who got his authority from Terry Virgo himself (who, of course, got his authority direct from the Big Guy Upstairs).

---

And I suppose anyone seeking to defend this way of doing things would point to the NT passages where leaders / apostles are commissioned (or whatever word you wish to use) by people like Paul. But was this simply in recognition of the fact that these leaders / apostles had the gift of leadership; i.e. people followed them?

How I wish I could time-travel back to AD50 or so and see how leadership really worked in the very early church! I find these questions so fascinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I said in the OP there will probably be some overlap with NF issues on this thread (and I'm as guilty as the rest ), but my aim here is nonetheless to try and address the broader theological implications of restorationism - and particularly, whether these can, in fact, "morph" (which I doubt) - rather than NF-specific issues.

My aim is to keep a broader readership of the thread onboard and thus get a broader range of contributions and insights, for instance from people within the New Wine scene.

---

Fair enough!

I suppose then the question is (for me at least), if you take away or tone down the apostles, the restoration of a defunct church, and belief in the 'recovery' of the Ephesians giftings: how is it restorationism? Isn't it then just another charismatic church?

Sure, they still think that they behave and worship 'just like the 1st century church', but so do a lot of protestant denominations (to one extent or another: I've even heard a good bit of it from the SB's).

[ 03. January 2012, 08:09: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The charismatic scene is very eclectic and tends to pick up (and just as quickly drop) particular emphases or teachings that participants find useful at any particular time.

New Frontiers was always the more 'acceptable face' of restorationism across the wider evangelical scene in the UK, partly because its more 'reformed' emphasis chimed with many Baptist and Anglican evangelicals. My own dealings with NFI were uniformly positive - apart from a mild run-in with a zealous young chap on a visit to one of their Scottish churches - but that was the sort of thing that could happen anywhere. The impression I got, though, was that it was all very 'driven', rather 'corporate' and target-oriented - plant so-many churches by such and such a date ...

You can see some of these elements too in other charismatic outfits - New Wine has it to some extent.

I agree with Saul that the restorationists effectively had the rug pulled out from under them. That had happened already to some extent during the Wimber visits of the mid-1980s - whatever reservations one might have of the Wimber methodology (I have plenty) the effect was to 'democratise' the supernatural (or apparently supernatural) to a large extent ... it wasn't just the property of the big cheese on the platform.

But even with the rug removed it was very, very, very difficult to leave ... our own leaving process must have taken upwards of six months with a further six months or so before that trying to reach some form of accommodation. I don't think anyone who hasn't been involved with a church like that can understand just how gut-wrenching a process it could be ... and we left at a time when it had been made relatively easy to do so and some of the heavier aspects had fallen by the way-side ...

I don't think the authoritarian thing is restricted to restorationists. It's there on the independent charismatic scene in general. Only this week my brother-in-law was telling me about an outfit where, 'God told me so-and-so and such-and-such ...' seemed to be the favoured hermeneutic of a particular independent charismatic leader.

@South Coast Kevin ... yes, I'd like to share your time machine too but I don't think it would make any difference. What would we do when we returned? There's no possible way of replicating the 1st century NT experience. We can't recover or 'restore' it - we have to start where we are now with 2,000 years of tradition behind us (and part of us). This whole Pol Pot Year Zero approach doesn't make any sense ...

Indeed, I'd say that it was the lack of any rigorous historical perspective that is leading to some of the dafter things we see around us today.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Eutychus: Of course, in theory (as we were often told too) people could leave at any time. But the fact is that when such a compelling vision is placed before you and you're highly committed in many ways (as Gamaliel relates) it's very hard to walk away. Certainly no easier than in a "democratic" setup. There are ways of saying "you can leave any time you want" that scream the opposite.

"You may leave" - (by this time ISTM there must be the beginnings of a breakdown in relationships) - but I say to myself "I have paid my dues / contributed tythes, offerings and lots of other money, time, energy, how can I lose all that? Was I wrong??!! Then the promises that have been made (i.e. prophecies) indicate that the church will grow to 200 by next year, new leaders will be identified, good times are ahead for those who trust the Lord etc etc etc. And it is exciting - gold dust the day before yesterday, barking in the Spirit the day before. Sunday is so cathartic. And, after all, these people are my very special friends. And I saw what happened to X when they left. When all is said and done, there is no such thing as a perfect church so it's a waste of time looking around (and my friends will discover what I am doing because I will not appear at the house group / Bible Study / jamboree). No, I'll stay a little longer."

My experience of 'Apostles' was that they rarely, if ever, referred to themselves in this way ( but lots of others did!). And, in six years, I rarely ever set eyes on them in the local congregations I researched. But they were ever-present and worshipped, of course.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My experience of 'apostles' was that they referred to themselves in that way all the time ... particularly when their authority was questioned or challenged.

As for their day-to-day input ... that was fairly negligible. Mostly they'd just boss the pastors and other leaders around and left the rank-and-file alone.

To all intents and purposes, most things carried on pretty well without them ... rather like bishops in the CofE ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair, the 'apostles' did get involved when there were some major issues and potential problems - but generally their role was one of setting the scene and outlining the vision - or preaching corrective sermons to ensure we remained on track.

I had a pretty rough and tumble encounter with them towards the end - but subsequently made my peace.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My experience of 'apostles' was that they referred to themselves in that way all the time ... particularly when their authority was questioned or challenged.

---

quote:

---

As for their day-to-day input ... that was fairly negligible. Mostly they'd just boss the pastors and other leaders around and left the rank-and-file alone.

---

quote:

---

To all intents and purposes, most things carried on pretty well without them ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Indeed, on grounds that it is not New Testament teaching / practice. Which I always found a little odd but never looked into.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks for your further insights IrishLord!

On a point of order, Ramarius offered to revisit the specific question of "Newfrontiers after Terry Virgo" six months after the end of the last thread to allow time for developments. This takes us to the end of February. Being a sporting chap, I decided to take him at his word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The original Arthur Wallis style approach has all but dissipated but there's an element of it there in some form.

I had a lot of time for Arthur. He was a real gentleman. I don't think he'd have liked what subsequently emerged.

---

quote:

---

And, for all my criticisms, I will always say that they did steer clear of some of the whackier routes that elements of the charismatic renewal went down ... there was no Ellel Grange style stuff about inner-healing, healing of the memories and all that kind of malarkey. We had far too much common sense for any of that ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With the benefit of hindsight, I now see the UK restorationist scene as an attempt to adopt a form of episcopacy (under a sexier name) and an understandable (and commendable) effort to grapple with ecclesiology amongst people and groupings that would otherwise be prone to fads and faddism. Unfortunately, there was insufficient theological ballast and the whole thing became stultefied by authoritarian structures before being swamped by waves of revivalism and enthusiasm - Toronto, Lakeland, Bethel ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Chris Stiles added that with regard to

quote:

---

Restorationists [and] their power structures [...] I see evidence of both in a number of third wave charismatic movements

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I thought you might say something like that

I wonder if Saul the Apotle hasn't got it exactly wrong above when he says

quote:

---

Trans national apostolic oversight within protestant non conformist sects is not going anywhere and was genuinely unpopular.

---

I wonder in fact whether this aspect of restorationism is (deliberately?) played down in places where there are relatively lots of evos (like the UK) but actually alive and well, as evidenced where there is less competition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I've started my research.

---

So have I

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
That is why a very good friend of mine broke from the Kerri Jones set up many years ago. It tended to gather power (by design?) to the top.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
To simplify a little; a lot of what was going on was a search for the difference between the pneumatology most of these groups were reading into Acts, and the reality that they saw.

In fact much of charismatic/pentecostal theology can be put down to such an impulse; if we only have total santification/really want the spirit to move/really pray in the name of Jesus/really organise ourselves like the disciples then we would see what went on in Acts happen regularly.

This latest set of groups just happened to gloam onto the idea of the 4-fold ministry as the key to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Don't we all tend to modify our operative (as opposed to theoratical) theology on the basis of experience or lack of experience?

---

Of course, but the impact of that depends a lot on which bit of it one is modifying.

The thing I keep coming back to here is how foundational, in every sense of the term, the restorationist mantra of "a church built on the foundations of the apostles and prophets" was, and (some are arguing here) how fast it has not just been tweaked, but simply evaporated.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
I don't think it's disappeared (round the parts I'm familiar with), maybe a bit less aggressively emphasised?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's what I'm trying to ascertain!
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Well that's my answer - it's still there but not made such a big deal of.
Obviously, might all change! Interested to see what you and Ramarius dig up.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Okay... let me ask you a few questions if I may in the meantime. Do you think my "bullet points" on restoration back on page 1 are accurate? And do you think they could be transposed into other settings?

Do you think the feeling within live restorationism (trying not to be movement-specific here ), particularly at the level of leadership and teaching rather than the consumerist pew-filler (if such a thing exists in such churches) still sees historic denominations as so much dead wood (because of not being plugged into "translocal [ie 'Ephesians 4'] ministries"), or is there some sense of these denoms having a viable part to play in preparing the glorious bride?

[ 03. January 2012, 20:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Context of the birth of the Restorationist movement may help a bit with this discussion.

During the 60/70's both relationship and ecclesiology was vital in the growth of the movement.

Mainstream church's in the main didn't take to kindly to this new movement. Accusations of Restorationist leaders starting up Cult communities and leading people astray were common.

I'm not so naive to think that the unkind accusations wereone way but the new groups took a lot of flack.

Basically relationships within the new groups were not just vital but essential for support and growth.

But it was't quite you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Relationships were important but thevdriving force was the understanding of scripture and the aim (as stated earlier in this post) to restore the church to a more Biblical model (more specifically New Testament).

An example of this camewhen the Restorationists split into 2 groups: R1and R2.

The main reason for the split was the understanding of grace. Grace was given to enable us to change not as an excuse to carry on with questionable behaviour ( eg going to the pub directly after church and getting drunk as was the case at the time).

This was painful because the division was between those who and originally stood shoulder to shoulder when the movement began.

The London Brothers as they were once known were no longer unified.

If we fast forward to today I think all parties have toned down their attitudes as each group either faded away or became more established and then became accepted in wider circles.

I still have quite a lote of respect and fondness for Restorationist church families (I'd run a mile from independent ones).

The virtues of church's built upon relationships and scripture is very strong within Restoration churches.

A wise man once said to me that our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. We need to be aware of what ours are.

I think this is very true especially appropriate for this topic.

My critic of Restorationist churches would be that they are sometimes blind to their strengths also being their weaknesses.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

1)belief in restoration of the Church to become a glorious bride fit for the return of Christ

2)belief in the recovery of the fivefold (or fourfold) 'Ephesians 4' ministries of apostle, prophet, pastor/teacher and evangelist as foundational to this restored church

3)belief in 'delegated authority' and (upward) accountability (what Gamaliel describes as a 'new form of episcopacy') with apostolic figures in particular having authority over local churches and more particularly their leaders (with a corresponding rejection of all forms of congregational government)

4)belief in charismatic gifts as part and parcel of what needs to be restored to the Church, often with the help (or 'anointing') of 'Ephesians 4' ministries

5)belief in a committed membership of local churches (as opposed to what South Coast Kevin referred to on the "discernment" thread as a "centred set" concept)

---

(numbering added to help)

I think that they are a fair summary.
I think that 4 is what drives Restorationism - the desire to have a "Sprit-filled" church.
1 is rather abstract in expression sometimes - which is why restorationism is prone to revivalism
2 has focused on the Apostolic more than the others in my experiance and tends to be indeed "what Gamaliel describes as a 'new form of episcopacy'" - hopefuly charismatic and relational (horror stories not withstanding).

As for transposition into other contexts - that depends on degree, context and interpretation. Most charismatics would sign up to some extent to 4, most Pastors would like a more comitted membership (point 5), 3 can be recast as a form of non-conformist Episcopacy and there are plenty of churches out there who are Episcopalial in structure ( mind you not many Bishops would get the heave-ho for "not representing Rowan" which may be the rub )
1 and 2 are the more unique ideas but no 1 is certainly latent in any "positive" eschatology.

I can only comment on my little corner of "live restorationism" - I'm not sure that the feeling is "all other churches are bad and we can't learn from them or do stuff with them" - Alpha is Anglican and we (let the reader understand) make plenty of use of that! Good relationships with other churches is one of the "however many" values. Prior to Christmas our church raised c.£1K for 3 local Christian Charities that we haven't started, don't run etc etc so we've put some money where our mouth is on that one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly - these days I'd run away from both ... but probably not as far from 'relational' restorationists as non-aligned, independent groupings.

That said, I still have a lot of time and affection for many people in what were the old R1 and R2 settings ...

@Twangist - yes, indeed ... I've noticed a greater willingness among NFI and similar groups to collaborate with other churches and that's a good sign.

As for the 'apostolic' thing - nah - not convinced. It's just episcopacy with a fancy name and no funny hats. That's fine by me, but just don't go round using a fancy name for it and acting as if it's in any way different from other models that are available.

I suspect you're right about restorationism still being on the agenda within NFI - but await Ramarius's reflections and Eutychus's response.

To an extent I'd argue that the 'apostolic' thing could and did act as a buffer against some of the wierder and wilder aspects of charismatic practice - but the decks were swept and swamped by revivalism at times. You won't like this, but I suspect it's because there's insufficient theological ballast. In my restorationist days I always had the impression that NFI was somehow more theologically heavyweight than it actually was ... I'm not saying it's entirely lightweight and frothy ... just that it ain't anywhere near as heavyweight as it likes to think.

But again, it's all relative. Compared to the independent and non-aligned outfits that Polly mentions groups like Covenant Ministries and New Frontiers were paragons of virtue.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

That said, I guess there is some biblical precedent for doing things this way round - after all, the disciples had a lot of experience before Peter, Paul & co got round to thrashing out the associated teaching. "This is that", and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

Don't we all tend to modify our operative (as opposed to theoratical) theology on the basis of experience or lack of experience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The virtues of church's built upon relationships and scripture is very strong within Restoration churches.

A wise man once said to me that our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. We need to be aware of what ours are.

I think this is very true especially appropriate for this topic.

My critic of Restorationist churches would be that they are sometimes blind to their strengths also being their weaknesses.

---

It's funny you should say that, I wrote something very similar about restorationism and relationships in my last draft before I decided it was long enough without it!

I think they are indeed the great strength and weakness of the way restorationism is structured.

John Le Carré has a line somewhere (I think in The Honourable Schoolboy) where one of the characters enjoins Smiley not to concentrate on Karla but to "stay with the institutions if you don't mind, after all that's what they're there for", the idea being that they prevent things from becoming personal.

This is cast as a bad thing in that context, and certainly restorationism was all about getting away from institutionalism. But the problem of removing the institutions is that you remove all the checks and balances and create the right climate for toxic relationships - especially when the concept of spiritual authority is involved.

This is one of the reasons I'm sceptical as to whether restorationism, morphed or not, can cohabit for very long within a historic denomination.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmmm ... well, other forms of charismatic renewal seem to manage within a denominational context, Eutychus. Although I think you're right that full-on restorationism as per your bullet-points wouldn't and presupposes creating its own structures ... yes, its own denominational structures ...

The NFI and Covenant Ministries people I knew would spit blood if anyone dared suggest that they had set up new denominations ... even though it was obvious to everyone else that this is exactly what they had done.

How could it be otherwise?

If anything, New Frontiers at one time (less so nowadays I suspect) was more denominational than the denominations ...

I've certainly come across a lot less denominationalism among Baptists, URCs, Methodists and Anglicans than I ever did among the restorationists ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm not sure you've got my point.

To my mind, restorationism (as opposed to renewal) depends very much on the "Ephesians 4" teaching and specifically the "church built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets".

Relations and informality were at the heart of the beginnings of the movement as Polly's post recounts. Leaders were identified (being benevolent here) in terms of their function and not because some denominational office had put them in place. Their authority was seen as deriving from their anointing and not from letters before or after their name.

Denominational structures were (theoretically...) eschewed because they were seen as running contrary to a structure based on relationships and, I suppose, not flexible enough to allow for prophetic direction (new wineskins and all that).

I don't think you can infuse that view of how governmental authority is supposed to work out into a denominational structure without one or the other giving way. If restorationists join a denomination they are effectively turning their backs on the "apostles and prophets" cornerstone ( ) of restorationism.

If, on the other hand, restorationists quietly abandon their "hard restorationism" founding principles, their distinctive feature has disappeared. As Irish_Lord says above

quote:

---

if you take away or tone down the apostles, the restoration of a defunct church, and belief in the 'recovery' of the Ephesians giftings: how is it restorationism? Isn't it then just another charismatic church?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted:

As for the 'apostolic' thing - nah - not convinced. It's just episcopacy with a fancy name and no funny hats. That's fine by me, but just don't go round using a fancy name for it and acting as if it's in any way different from other models that are available.

---

quote:

---

In my restorationist days I always had the impression that NFI was somehow more theologically heavyweight than it actually was ... I'm not saying it's entirely lightweight and frothy ... just that it ain't anywhere near as heavyweight as it likes to think.

---

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but yes I'd agree with your statement. A number of times for my studies I have looked at the NFI Theological Think Tank pages on their website.

When my wife can pick holes in specific papers certain individuals have written then there are questions to be answered.

quote:

---

Eutychus posted:

But the problem of removing the institutions is that you remove all the checks and balances and create the right climate for toxic relationships - especially when the concept of spiritual authority is involved.

This is one of the reasons I'm sceptical as to whether restorationism, morphed or not, can cohabit for very long within a historic denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
For your last point I see no reason why Restorationist churches can not only survive but continue to grow. Boundaries between themselves and the wider church are a lot softer these days. There seems to be more than just a mutual respect amongst all the denominations.

---

quote:

---

I can't emphasise this enough. Of course we all think we have the best form of church. But restorationists (by my definition) don't merely think they have "a form of church government that can be justified on the grounds of the NT"; they think they have the form of church government straight from the pages of the NT which will ultimately be adopted by the whole of the Church to constitute a glorious bride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But restorationists (by my definition) don't merely think they have "a form of church government that can be justified on the grounds of the NT"; they think they have the form of church government straight from the pages of the NT which will ultimately be adopted by the whole of the Church to constitute a glorious bride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course we all think we have the best form of church. But restorationists (by my definition) don't merely think they have "a form of church government that can be justified on the grounds of the NT"; they think they have the form of church government straight from the pages of the NT which will ultimately be adopted by the whole of the Church to constitute a glorious bride.

Of course on a local level everyone is more ecumenical as time goes by. But I well remember the remit in my neck of the restorationism woods when it came to in inter-church relations: taking a leading role in them to bring others round to our way of thinking. I also remember the disgrace into which one leader fell when he was seen as engaging in inter-church relations for their own sake rather than with the above aim in mind.

---

Eutychus, I think this is a really helpful and important point; I guess with many church-related things we each think our church does things in a good way (or even the best way) but it's taking things a good deal further to say that others must do things in our way in order to bring revival / hasten Jesus' return etc.

One or two people have mentioned the Vineyard Movement so I'll add that I'm not aware of any element of this view within the Vineyard, either in my own Vineyard church or at the wider level. Not that I'd particularly know - I'm not a leader in any way - but I've never come across any hint of the view that other churches must do things our way in order to bring revival etc.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly - I have some sympathy with that view too and have even heard it mooted by some prominent Baptists.

I've known a Baptist minister say that it all depends on the 'anointing' and this applies equally to anyone - be it an Orthodox bishop or a 'new church' apostle.

An Orthodox priest once observed to me that all churches have bishops, even if they don't use the title. So, to all intents and purposes, I'd suggest that your 'regional superintendents' are a form of episcopacy and that 'new church' apostles are the same. They might differ in their modus operandi but essentially they're an attempt to do a similar thing. The only real difference, as Eutychus has identified, is that there is some imagined eschatological imperative behind the 'new church' apostolates. They have an over inflated, over-realised and (dare I say it?) over-egged opinion of themselves in the overall scheme of things.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The RC parallel has certainly been used by critics of restorationism, Eutychus ... I've read some very frothing-at-the-mouth reformed/conservative evangelical critiques of New Frontiers, for instance, where they see it as yet another thinly disguised attempt by the Evil One to lure us all back to ... (cue creepy horror-film music) DANG-DAN-DARRRRNNN!!! ... ROME!!!
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
<scribbles furiously in Little Black Book...>

[ETA (as a result of the post before last...)]

[ 04. January 2012, 12:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I know ... I know ... another strike and I'm out ...


 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
As a Baptist we have "Regional Supervisors" which is of course found where in the Bible??

---

Titus 1.5-9

 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

They have an over inflated, over-realised and (dare I say it?) over-egged opinion of themselves in the overall scheme of things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know ... I know ... another strike and I'm out ...

---

quote:

---

Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

---

quote:

---

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

---

quote:

---

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
As a Baptist we have "Regional Supervisors" which is of course found where in the Bible??

---

Titus 1.5-9

---

Ken - I'm not questioning the role just the title.

The debate here has brought into question the role of 'Apostle' used within Restorationist churches.

I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A bit harsh, Polly?



You're either incredibly naive or haven't spend 18 years in a restorationist setting like I did.

I think I've been pretty moderate on this thread, all things being equal and all things considered.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A bit harsh, Polly?



You're either incredibly naive or haven't spend 18 years in a restorationist setting like I did.

I think I've been pretty moderate on this thread, all things being equal and all things considered.

---

It was said a bit with tongue in cheek but only a bit.

20 years within NFI
5 of those within a leadership role, going to regional and national meetings.

Yes I agree there were some individuals whom I felt needed to touch base with that thing called humility but overall I left NFI with an admiration for most of the leaders I met including many of the 'Apostolic Leaders'.

So 20 years is only slightly more than 18 and I'd like to think I am not naive.

 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A bit harsh, Polly?



You're either incredibly naive or haven't spend 18 years in a restorationist setting like I did.

I think I've been pretty moderate on this thread, all things being equal and all things considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, but the twist restorationism gives it is that their form of church government - not just charimsatic renwal - would ultimately extend to everyone (certainly Harvestime used to think that way. The closest parallel that springs to my mind is actually the Catholic church!

---

Well if we restrict this to just church government (and ignore the extending bit), even this isn't all that new, though they seem to have come up with the idea all by themselves.

Perhaps it's more common amongst certain ethnicities, but the habit of setting up 'apostolic' leadership is not that unique.

The church my dad used to attend back in the 50s/60s had that - and in fact still does. The RC parallel is instructive, as as well as a 'Chief Apostle' in India, they have a range of regional apostles, homes that approximate to monasteries for all their church workers, and a rule of celibacy. They believe they take all of this from Paul's teachings. I've seen similar things elsewhere, so I don't believe this to be an outlier.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've enjoyed (and am enjoying) the discussion too, Polly. Sorry if I sounded patronising. But my 18 years were in Covenant Ministries not New Frontiers ... so that must be about the equivalent of 25 or 30 years in New Frontiers terms ...

Seriously, and without minimising Eutychus's experiences, I've generally been of the opinion that New Frontiers was more benign. Things could go horribly wrong there, though ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I reckon you're right, Chris.

Incidentally, I once described the apostolic pattern as it was found in the 'new churches' to an Orthodox priest and he said that there was nothing there that wasn't compatible with Orthodoxy - in theory at least.

And yes, the RC model does remind me of the restorationist ambit to an extent too - they talk about an 'apostolate' and so on.

In fairness, those restorationists with some grasp of history and a wider ecclesiology were very aware of all of this ... they would cite the Baptist 'Messengers' of the 17th and 18th centuries as earlier examples, for instance. Some would go so far as to see there are some kind of 'apostolic succession' in 'anointing' terms with the Lord always ensuring that there was someone there to bear the mantle - be it Wesley or whoever else. The head-honchoes would always insist that they didn't believe in 'apostolic succession' though and that when they went their 'mandate' would go with them.

Pastors and other leaders were only seen to have any mandate whatsoever in relation to the apostles - they weren't seen as carrying any authority in their own right but only that which was delegated to them by the apostles.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Pastors and other leaders were only seen to have any mandate whatsoever in relation to the apostles - they weren't seen as carrying any authority in their own right but only that which was delegated to them by the apostles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But restorationists (by my definition) don't merely think they have "a form of church government that can be justified on the grounds of the NT"; they think they have the form of church government straight from the pages of the NT which will ultimately be adopted by the whole of the Church to constitute a glorious bride.

---

That's not restricted to Restorationists as I'm sure you know. The meme of the 'One True Church' is something that has been present in the Pentecostal movement from Azusa Street onwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

Just struck by the Anglican parrallel (if memory serves) in that the vicar/priest in charge/lead pastor (for those of a New Wine bent) has the cure of soul on behalf of the Bishop - effectivley delegated authority. Is that correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But restorationists (by my definition) don't merely think they have "a form of church government that can be justified on the grounds of the NT"; they think they have the form of church government straight from the pages of the NT which will ultimately be adopted by the whole of the Church to constitute a glorious bride.

---

That's not restricted to Restorationists as I'm sure you know. The meme of the 'One True Church' is something that has been present in the Pentecostal movement from Azusa Street onwards.

---

...and you'll find it in Orthodoxy, among some Anglicans (personal experience) the odd baptist. And what about the Brethren? The more I think about it, the more I think it's an issue that runs through Christendom. It just has different drivers and historical roots depending where you dig.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, but the twist restorationism gives it is that their form of church government - not just charimsatic renwal - would ultimately extend to everyone (certainly Harvestime used to think that way. The closest parallel that springs to my mind is actually the Catholic church!

---

Well if we restrict this to just church government (and ignore the extending bit), even this isn't all that new, though they seem to have come up with the idea all by themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
That's not restricted to Restorationists as I'm sure you know. The meme of the 'One True Church' is something that has been present in the Pentecostal movement from Azusa Street onwards.

---

...and you'll find it in Orthodoxy, among some Anglicans (personal experience) the odd baptist. And what about the Brethren? The more I think about it, the more I think it's an issue that runs through Christendom. It just has different drivers and historical roots depending where you dig. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

Just struck by the Anglican parrallel (if memory serves) in that the vicar/priest in charge/lead pastor (for those of a New Wine bent) has the cure of soul on behalf of the Bishop - effectivley delegated authority. Is that correct?

---

That's the RC version of the story, and its one you often get from Anglo-Catholics these days. But on the whole CofE vicars have been pretty independent of their bishops since the Reformation.

The licencing ceremonies talk about sharing the "cure of souls". And once a parish is handed over to a new incumbent it has traditionally been in a sense their property - the Bishop can't take it away from them. In fact Bishops probably have less actual control over what is done in parishes that have an incumbent than those Baptist supervisors do in the churches they supervise. Its complicated because as an established church the whole thing is bound up with some traditional property rights - legally the incumbent is a perpetual corporation who owns the freehold of the church in some kind of trust for the parish - and where there is no incumbent the property rights don't automatically revert to the diocese or the bishop. Also the churchwardens (who are elected representatives of the people) have some legal rights the bishops can't easily get rid of. As do patrons. Its all very complicated. But not at all like delegation.

The ordination liturgies have no notion of the Bishop passing on any personal power or authority to a new priest. He prays that the Holy Spirit may empower them. And once ordained a priest remains a poriest even if not licensed to any parish. That continuing status does not depend on the Bishop, or all the Bishops.

So I'd say that its not really a delegation.

---

Thanks - I must have picked it up through my Biretta wearing Grandfathers side .....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
But don't forget that ken has a particular agenda, Twangist ... to downplay anything too 'carthlick' within the CofE ...

Just as the Anglo-Cafflicks have an agenda to overplay them ...


 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
You'll be telling that J C Ryle was unbiased and ecumenical next
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Its all in the BCP!

What do they teach them in these schools?


 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
Going back a bit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

I find it slightly strange that some Baptists do this as well not thinking that our own 'Apostles/Regional Supervisors' are are basically doing the same role but have a title not specifically found in scripture

---

But Regional Ministers, at least in the Baptist Union sense, don't have a power over local churches. They have influence, in the sense that they represent the denomination - and BU churches have signed up to the club - but within that, congregations are independent and call their own ministers.

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Apostles do not dictate or have any influence in the day to day running of the local church, there is no universal preaching plan amongst NFI churches and their budgets are administered locally as well.

---

quote:

---

Its all in the BCP!

---

Don't tell the AC's
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter. It is probably fair to say that depending on the church and its Apostle will depend on the amount of weight of influence is asserted by that Apostle. Some situations it will be very influential others less so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.

---

When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
It is true an Apostle has some influence and say over who becomes Elders and Lead Elders but the church also has a say in the matter.

---

When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
So we are recounting our nitty gritty experiences (nothing wrong with that by the way).

---

Inevitably, yes, to some extent.

But as I said in the OP, my hope is to keep the general thrust of the debate as broad and theoretical as possible in order to look at how (and if) restorationism can morph in addition to contributions fropm old-school practitioners.

This is partly in the hope of drawing posters who can lay claim to a morphed experience. I've mentioned New Wine, I'm not sure whether anyone here self-identifies with that neck of the woods.

It's also with a hope of drawing theological comment from people from other backgrounds, which I think has been achieved to some extent, so that's good

quote:

---

It struck me that power abuse is a general thing with a caveat, restorationist outfits were prone to it particularly due to the nature of it's ecclesiology

---

Well, I think my views on that are now well known...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've mentioned New Wine, I'm not sure whether anyone here self-identifies with that neck of the woods.

---

I do to some extent, in that I've been to several of their summer conferences / festivals and done some training run by them. As I understand it, New Wine is very much cross-church and cross-denominational - certainly at the summer events there are folks from many sorts of churches. Maybe someone involved in the leadership of a church that is signed up with New Wine can shed more light on how restorationist New Wine is.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't know a great deal about New Wine but my impression is that it is still quite Anglican - just ...

From what I can gather the conferences mainly attract Anglicans, Baptists and a smattering of Vineyard and 'new church' people - some from former R1/R2 outfits ...

I'm not sure it's at all restorationist in any formal sense - ie. the bullet-point list that Eutychus produced earlier - but I do detect some echoes of restorationism (as opposed to renewalism) in some of the things I've seen in their magazine ... but that might be a certain amount of hyper-sensitivity on my part having come from 18 years (1982 - 2000) in a Covenant Ministries setting.

Most of my encounters with the charismatic scene post 2000 have been in Baptist and Anglican settings and neither of those appear particularly restorationist although I would argue that there are echoes there in certain attitudes one encounters from time to time.

As for the Vineyard - South Coast Kevin might be interested to hear that I've never heard of any accusations of heavy-shepherding, authoritarian attitudes etc etc from that particular quarter - although I have come across things I've thought were pretty daft or deficient on the discernment front. I'd also say that they were insufficiently sacramental ... but hey ...


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Quite possibly, Eutychus ...

Now, let's not get all McCarthy-ite ...

Apostles under the beds ...

'Are you or have you ever been ...?'
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the Vineyard - South Coast Kevin might be interested to hear that I've never heard of any accusations of heavy-shepherding, authoritarian attitudes etc etc from that particular quarter...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...although I have come across things I've thought were pretty daft or deficient on the discernment front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm wondering, amongst other things, whether there are some wannabe apostles lurking in the shadows of New Wine.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Apostles under the beds ...

---

quote:

---

with a host of jiving Apostles

---

quote:

---

We're the soldiers of the Army of Salvation,
That God is raising up to save the world;
And we won't lay down our arms till every nation
Shall have seen the flag of blood and fire unfurled.

---

quote:

---

Ever true to the Army and God,
we will fight in the name of the King;
We shall win with the fire and the blood,
and the world to his feet we shall bring.

---

quote:

---

So we'll make a thoroughfare for Jesus and his train;
All the world shall hear us as fresh converts still we gain;
Sin shall fly before us for resistance is in vain,
As we go marching to Glory.

---

quote:

---

Though some would try to crush us,
We're rising every day,
And soon o'er every land and sea
Our flag shall have the sway;
Salvation free to all men
Shall be our battle cry,
For the day of victory's coming by and by

---

quote:

---

They say I can a Christian be,
And serve God quite as well,
And reach Heaven just as surely by
The music of church bell;
But O, the drum and clarion call
Of band make my pulse fly!
I cannot leave the dear old flag,
'Twere better far to die

---

quote:

---

1. God's trumpet is sounding: To arms! is the call;
More warriors are wanted to help on the war;
My King's in the battle, he's calling for me,
A salvation soldier for Jesus I'll be.

Stand like the brave! Stand like the brave!
Stand like the brave, with your face to the foe!

2. On land and on water my colors I'll show,
Through ten thousand battles with Jesus I'll go,
In danger I'm certain he'll take care of me,
His blood and fire soldier forever I'll be.

3. I'll fight to the last with the Lord's sword and shield,
And count it an honor to die in the field;
In death and the grave there is victory for me,
A salvation soldier in Glory I'll be.

4. The war will go on till the world is possessed,
The Salvation Army Jehovah has blessed;
More heroes of faith on the roll we shall see;
The Salvation Army's the Army for me.

---

To be fair, you have to add certain elements together:

19th century evangelical revivalism
British colonial expansion
the Army's use of secular melodies - US civil war tunes were very popular and we just swapped 'marching to Georgia' for 'marching to Glory' and absorbed the militaristic jingoism.
Music hall parodies were also popular and the style of singing led easily to the 'come and get it' attitude of our songs.

But there was still the attitude that God really was bringing in the Millennial kingdom and that the returning Christ would almost be accompanied by a Salvation Army brass band with flags flying, while the other churches looked on powerlessly or even with hostility!

Finally, maybe our experience where the other churches literally hated us during the early days, led us to be slightly more defensive than we needed to be; and that the attacks on us by the 'dead' church was proof positive that we were spirit-blessed while they had been left behind and had 'Ichabod' written above their arched doorways.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS NOW I hasten to add
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've often felt that convert Orthodoxy (as opposed to cradle Orthodoxy) is a form of parallel universe restorationism in reverse ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are not all new church groups somewhat 'restorationist' with a small 'r'?

---

Small 'r' is right. I think with the SA you are describing revivalism. I don't think the movement made any claim to superior interpretation of the NT or recovery of 'NT principles'. It just felt it was doing, in a gung-ho fashion, what others professed but did not implement.

The particularity of Restorationism (with a capital R) that I see is its claim to a form of church government that makes a case for authoritarianism on the basis of an unsophisticated (they might say "straightforward") reading of the NT, with a dash of the OT ("Moses and Jethro", Joshua, etc.) thrown in - and the assumption that church history since the days of the NT has been one of decline and loss rather than gain.

Restoring the Kingdom reproduces a chart from Restoration magazine showing a "bucket" with the church declining steeply to AD 600 and then flatlining (the bottom of the 'bucket' until 1500. Surprisingly return to "normal level of church life in NT" coincides with "Restoration - Charismatic - Pentecostal" in the 20th century, just prior to "fullness" and the "restoration of all things", although Mudfrog will be pleased to hear that the SA gets a look in, along with the Brethren, in the 19th.

[ 06. January 2012, 08:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Am I the only person who has real problems with this approach? It seems to me to be tantamount to claiming that God disengaged from both his church and individual Christians somewhere around AD 150 and didn't re-engage with either until he raised up XX somewhere around 1970. And why should XX be the only person to whom God has imparted the true message in all these centuries?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I the only person who has real problems with this approach? It seems to me to be tantamount to claiming that God disengaged from both his church and individual Christians somewhere around AD 150 and didn't re-engage with either until he raised up XX somewhere around 1970. And why should XX be the only person to whom God has imparted the true message in all these centuries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, as I recall another of his (also characteristically idiosyncratic) views is that each generation of the church gets a fresh crack at getting the gospel preached to the ends of the earth within that generation "and then the end shall come".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I believe he sees cause and effect: once the Church has succeeded in its task of preaching the Gospel in all countries/to all people (slight difference in aspiration there!), then Christ will be able to return. This is an interpretation of his prophecy in Matthew 25 (I think).

---

quote:

---

Chris Stiles posted:

When you say the 'church' I presume you mean the existing leaders/elders/pastors. Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist, I doubt if the congregation was ever formally consulted - apart the presentation of a virtual fait accompli with a plea for prayer for guidance.

---

quote:

---

Eutychus posted:

But when conflict arises, apostles can and do "pull rank" - and they have the full force of restorationist teaching behind them. The wagons are circled, dissent from the rank and file is viewed as "rebellious spirits" and so on. Imagery of Moses and the children of Israel is likely to feature strongly. No mechanism is in place in restorationist thinking for this kind of thing to be thrashed out with the congregation.

I repeat my contention that elders can't be appointed without apostolic blessing in NF - and from that moment on, the attendant apostolic authority is implicit and irrevocable, even if it's never expressed as such

---

'Is it "Pulling rank" or giving clear leadership in time of difficulties? I think the perception depends on who you are where you stand at the time. I'm not entirely convinced that in NF the 'Apostles' ever said consciously lets pull rank during difficult times. They have made mistakes, some very bad ones but in general my opinion is that they have provided a good example of what the role of Apostolic oversight is. This is probably where I and others differ.

But your illustration gave me this image of TV dressed as John Wayne and that's funny!


 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
For example the last NF church I was part (late 1990's) the lead elder before being appointed was invited by the local 'Apostle' to go and preach 10 times and then the church mtg called him to the role.

The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.

This church was a Baptist Church previously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I did know a Baptist Church which - against the counsel of its Association - called an unaccredited minister. I knew him - he appeared to be excellent and I liked him.

---

quote:

---

WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS NOW I hasten to add

---

I find your post a helpful comparison. But I wonder how widespread this comment is?

In East London, the area I know best, the Army disappeared as ‘corps’ (worshipping congregations) about 40 years ago – East Ham, I believe, was the first corps you met when travelling east from the founding place of Aldgate. Today, the Army is very weak in this area. It once was the case that the Army only appeared at inter-church events under their own terms, e.g. to provide the band at open-air services. But no longer; they are not seen at all. Certainly the Last Post has been played by a (Methodist)teenage girl for the last two years on Armistice Day in our local park. I haven’t seen an Army uniform for yonks (except an elderly man selling the War Cry in Romford).

This is leading me to note that, ISTM, the Army is not developing from a sect / protest movement towards becoming an institution / church as fast as might have been expected. (I am a firm believer in this development.) From what I have read here (what an interesting thread, Eutychus) the New Churches are moving much more quickly towards becoming a denomination / institutional church. For example, they have bought many buildings, they appear to be cooperating with other churches and they are blunting their distinctive cutting edge – and it’s still well under than 50 years since they first appeared as sect-like congregations.

It’s rather like rebellious teenagers who, sadly IMO, grow up into knuckling-down adults, thus making the revolution we all crave for take longer.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Does he mean that 'the end will come' in terms of that generation passing on and passing on the torch, or does he mean that each generation has a crack at things until one of them gets it right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The Ministers of some BUGB churches with older trust deeds do not have to be accredited ... There's a bizarre situation where a minister can be deaccredited for falling foul of the Ministry Dept rules but remain as Minister. A Minister can only be removed by the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
For example the last NF church I was part (late 1990's) the lead elder before being appointed was invited by the local 'Apostle' to go and preach 10 times and then the church mtg called him to the role.

The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.

This church was a Baptist Church previously.

---

Yes, as I said 'Outside of NFI churches which were formerly Baptist'. The default polity in NFI circles seems to be that the elders make decisions in consultation with the 'apostle', in your case your church had an existing polity that it still operated under.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The Elders appointed afterwards was done via the whole church being invited to put in writing their recommendations and then this was decided by the church meeting.

---

quote:

---

'Is it "Pulling rank" or giving clear leadership in time of difficulties? I think the perception depends on who you are where you stand at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
My parents NFI church has recently appointed as their Lead Elder guy who has very little NF experience.

---

quote:

---

all I want to say is that within this debate NF as a Restorationist church has not always operated a Standard Operating Position and on a number of occasions has been open in exploring other avenues of appointing Lead Elders.

---

And all I want to say in public on that is that to me, this demonstrates they used hard-line restorationist rhetoric when they thought they could get away with it (on mugs like me) and opportunistically didn't when they couldn't. Not very principled .
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
His tape series Radical Church History is somewhere around here. It's a veritable tour de force in explaining how radical christianity has been around in an unbroken line, via the Cathars, Albigensians, Waldensians, Methodists and so on through to the present day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I cross-posted with Polly.

Polly, can you show me one place in literature originating within restorationism in general or NF in particular that recommends appointing elders the way you relate it here, specifically, making it subject to the decision of a church meting? Because I'm sure I could provide pages and pages of references to the contrary.

I'm not saying your experience didn't happen, but I'm very much disputing that it was a viable or widespread alternative deemed acceptable by senior leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Some 'apostles' command more respect than others.

---

quote:

---

That's part of my research Eutychus - will it be part of yours?

---

I'll certainly add it to my list. The poor guy I'm due to be meeting for a friendly coffee in a while won't know what's hit him. Unless he's reading this thread unbeknown to me, of course...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Ken and Eutychus ... David Matthew of Covenant Ministries held similar views to Roger Forster on the Cathars thing. I 'called' him on it once and his reply was similar to what Eutychus reports Forster's take to have been.

It struck me then, and strikes me now, as reading into church history what you WANT to see ...

It's also a residual echo of 'apostolic succession' ie. you have to find something that looks similar to your own outfit (or what you think to be similar to your own outfit) in each and every generation. If the evidence isn't there you argue from silence ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
In practice, I don't know of a church that objected to a proposed appointment of an elder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
In practice, I don't know of a church that objected to a proposed appointment of an elder.

---

Sorry, missed this.

I don't think that's the point. The church is, generally, highly unlikely to mutiny a) if the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader and b) since the congregation ise conditioned to follow rather than to contribute to the leadership process (note this attitude is extolled as a virtue over and against the endless politicking and immobilism of the Church Meeting).

In the meantime, I'll reiterate my challenge to find support for these consensuses (?) and "green lights" in the literature, and perhaps dig up some choice passages that point the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?

---

Personally, I think it is definitely worse in principle than involving the church members / attendees because it is disempowering; it sends the message that only (or mainly) the apostles can recognise the gift of leadership, even though the church members are the people who will end up being led by this person.

Caveat - I've never been involved in church leadership so I speak without any personal experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I was interested that you said "..the apostle has any abilities at all in finding a suitable leader". Generally it's the elders who 'find' the new leaders

---

Of course it's likely to be the result of a discussion between the apostle and the elders. What I meant was that following all that, he would have to be pretty inept not to get someone the church was not willing to accept.

But the point is that the apostle does the laying on of hands and that's what cements the eldership role (if it doesn't, I'll start wondering whether you and I were ever in the same movement. Perhaps there are two? ). The authority of the local elders derives from the apostles.

It's top-down, not bottom-up - as emphasised by the attitude mentioned earlier, "leaders lead": people are following them, not putting them in front of them, in this thinking.

quote:

---

The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?

---

quote:

---

On NF literature - to be honest I wouldn't make too much of it. As Twangist noted upthread, what you need to look at is what people do, rather than what's in the corporate literature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The point about the compliance of church members is a different one to what I was commenting on, but is entirely right. It's very hard to take issue with a recommendation from the elders - they know best surely?

The flip side is to ask "Well so what if the people who get chosen do a good job?" You need a process for selecting leaders - is this any worse than any other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
When the system of Apostolic works well and all parties take their responsibility and 'play their part' this is an entirely legitimate way of being church.

This is true of Congregational Government.

The difficulties arise because humans are involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
Polly, I was in Baptist churches for 30 years, and still have a toe in one. M.

---

I didn't realise that Baptist churches were into veneration of relics.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
O definitely

The chipped china teacup given by Miss O' Reilly's mother fifty years ago that must not be thrown out! The hideous table cloth that great Aunt Lou made with her arthritic hands etc.

Or at least I assume they are no different from Methodists and URC in such matters.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@Eutychus. The world of NF is definitely achanging. As I say, practice isn't uniform. The reality is apostles rubber-stamp leader rather than cement them. Theoretically elders derive their authority from apostles but not in practice. As I said earlier, in areas where NF churches are sparse, most churches rarely get to see their apostle, and their apostle has very little contact with the church in general. When I was appointed an elder I had a 20 minute conversation with my 'apostle' and got the green light from him after the first question he asked me. (If you want to know how I managed that you will have to PM me (!). After that we hardly saw him. As far as the church was concerned my 'leadership' was derived from the favour of the lead elder rather than the apostle.

On the issue of the literature... Yes, there are foundational teachings that are regarded as apostolic - grace, five-fold ministry, sovereignty of God - but elders don't look to the NF website or (now defunct) magazine for teaching. Individual churches are increasingly making their own decisions about what influences they want to consider in addition to these core beliefs. Some are influenced by Bethel whilst others are wary. Some draw inspiration from St Thomas's in Sheffield, these and others send their leaders to Porterbrook (you can google that) for their theological training. At the same time, there are other leaders still living in their NF bubble, reading books by NF approved authors and getting their input almost exclusively from NF speakers.

I expect that, as NF takes on a more regional identity, we will see more diversity. It's certainly far less corporate than you remember it.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well, I've just spent quite a while during he time you were posting that researching and typing up the quotes, so I'm blowed if I'm going to be put off posting them by that disclaimer, Ramarius

Sorry this is going to be long, but I hope its length doesn't detract from the point I'm trying to make which is that this issue of authority is not secondary in Restorationism.

Here's how Andrew Walker puts things in "Restoring the Kingdom":

quote:

---

God's kingdom is a theocracy, and the spiritual principles which guide it are hierarchical.
(...)
An outsider who casually dropped into a Restorationist meeting… would not pick up this structure. He would notice the freedom of worship, individualistic expresion, and the exercise of spiritual gifts… The absence of formal titles only masks the reality of the power and authority of the apostles and elders within the movement….Shepherding transforms the formal ecclesiastical authority of the apostles and elders into an informal system of paternal relationships. This informalism does not undermine the formal authority; on the contrary, its very humanness reinforces it.

---

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit appointed elders, but they received public recognition through the laying on of hands by the apostles or their delegates.
Modern churches have often resorted to electing their leaders… Appointed by the congregation, such leaders are accountable to the congregation. Where there is no anointing, democracy is probably the safest form of church government. But when God begins to give anointed leadership, democracy must make room for Him to have His way.
… The Spirit-led appointment of elders was an important part of the apostles' foundation-laying ministry. Without the Holy Spirit's guidance, we resort to man-made structures with varying degrees of success, even leading to manifest disaster… Where there is no acknowledgement of charismatic gifts of leadership we are bound to hit problems.
…The laying on of hands [by the apostle]… is a time of further impartation of spiritual grace for eldership.

---

quote:

---

Apostles are gifted in confirming the rightness and readiness of a man for eldership in a church, and called by God to set him in place through the laying on of hands.(…) By extension, this implies the on-going role apostles have of input into the elders.
The appointment of elders is clearly an apostolic initiative.

---

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.

---

If you personally or as a church decide that's all old hat and not worth bothering with, I for one am not going to stand in your way!

The point I do want to underscore here, though, is that walking away from that is not a matter of discarding one of the finer points of Restorationism but really turning your back on a foundational element.

Almost thou persuadest me that that is happening, but I'm not sure the old order is going to take it lying down, and I have yet to learn what sort of organisation or structures might be taking its place, and on what rationale.

[ 06. January 2012, 21:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
A local NF church proposed a young(ish) man for an elder a few years ago, and invited feedback from church members. It seems the overwhelming response was that the chap was too young or inexperienced, so the appointment was delayed. Not sure what happened since though.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That's rather the opposite, though, to what happens in most churches, who push forward a younger person for Ministerial training only to be told by the powers-that-be the s/he needs to get more life experience first.

In the example you quoted, the initiative (if not the final decision) was still "top-down" rather than "bottom-up" - as a Baptist, steeped in congregationalism, I would want to go in the opposite directions. Other traditions might not.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I might upset a few people here and it's not my intention ... but it strikes me that one of the problems inherent within restorationism - and within certain forms of evangelical congregationalism - is a very narrow frame of reference.

Here's a 'for instance' ... my brother once challenged a member of a new church style set-up (I won't name names but it wasn't NFI but it combined restorationism with a more Reformed evangelical approach AND charismaticism ... trust me, Jengie Jon, it did ... ) that their reading and thinking were limited to a narrow margin. Indignant, his friend replied, 'What do you mean? I read Anglican material as well. I'm reading J C Ryle ...'



Had the guy been reading Lancelot Andrewes, Oxford Movement material, Anglo-Catholic material, Sea of Faith material even ... then I would have agreed that there was breadth to it.

As it is, there wasn't.

And forgive me, Polly, the kind of pietistic tone I detect in your posts (shock, horror, people come to the Church Meeting straight from work without having spent time in prayer! The sky will fall in on us!) suggests to me that you've not moved that far from a restorationist perfectionism paradigm either.

I might not have communicated what I mean very effectively - and I'm reluctant to use the 'over ....' phrase that Eutychus is fed up of me using ... but that's the sort of thing I'm getting at.

Practice may very but it seems to me that the CLAIMS made for apostolic oversight and so on go way beyond what actually happens in practice and way beyond anything that we might reasonably expect as an outcome. Sure, the same claims could be made for the attitude of some Baptists towards the 'church meeting' - it was joked that this was the closest thing Baptists had to a sacrament ...

But I've never met a Baptist who seemed to believe that Christendom would be transformed and that the Parousia would be brought closer through the deliberations of their 'church meeting' - even though they might be fully persuaded that they had 'found the mind of Christ' through it.

As for the Eutychus/Ramarius exchanges ... I'm looking on as something of a horrified/concerned observer. Either Eutychus is going to end up feeling he was even more badly treated than he was because things have genuinely moved on (I doubt that too, incidentally ... although I suspect that some rough edges have been planed smooth) or else Ramarius is going to try to convince himself that things have genuinely changed when they haven't.

I'm still convinced that at the back of all of this - both the restorationist and the renewalist impulses - lies an over-realised eschatology and a greater sense of one's own importance in the overall scheme of things than is actually the case.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the same claims could be made for the attitude of some Baptists towards the 'church meeting' - it was joked that this was the closest thing Baptists had to a sacrament ...

---

Don't be silly - the nearest thing we have to a sacrament is taking up the offering ..
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, the Baptist church I used to belong didn't take up offerings ... although members did contribute behind the scenes. Coming from a Covenant Ministries background where the offering was often accompanied by a mini-sermon (sometimes a very LONG mini-sermon) and all sorts of ballyhoo and pressure ... the Baptist model seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.

I remember a Baptist minister telling me about an NFI conference he'd attended where some bouncy, energetic husband and wife team (was that unusual in NFI?) were waxing lyrical about the 'commitment' of their church members.

'There's Joe, for instance,' they crowed. 'He works long hours as a high-powered advertising executive. He has a long commute home. But when he gets there he has a meal, changes clothes and he's there, sleeves rolled up to get stuck into the work of the Kingdom!'

'Hang on,' thought my minister friend, 'What about the rest of the day? Isn't he serving the Kingdom in his secular job?'

The impression this chap got of NFI was that it was all 'church, church, church, church, church ...'

Involvement in anything else - politics, sport, the arts, leisure, work ... seemed to come way, way down the list of priorities.

I put it to you, Polly ( ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the Eutychus/Ramarius exchanges ... I'm looking on as something of a horrified/concerned observer. Either Eutychus is going to end up feeling he was even more badly treated than he was because things have genuinely moved on (I doubt that too, incidentally ... although I suspect that some rough edges have been planed smooth) or else Ramarius is going to try to convince himself that things have genuinely changed when they haven't.

---

Very perceptive of you

I don't really want to get into the personal tangent here too much, but one of the reasons for me thinking nothing's really changed is that it would be the more charitable explanation of why there's been no "official" apology with regard to my treatment.

If things had changed, it seems to me that it would be easy for a movement to apologise for past mistakes. And my own story aside, I would have thought it would make sense more generally for the heirs of a given movement to state rather more clearly that they were shedding "childlike things" as they matured, or some such.

I prefer, if that's the right word, to ascribe the lack of any such apology (to date) to a lack of change in basic Restorationist beliefs (about authority and those who wield it) than to entertain the alternative.

As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.
 

---

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Chorister said:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
Polly, I was in Baptist churches for 30 years, and still have a toe in one. M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't realise that Baptist churches were into veneration of relics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:

---

with a host of jiving Apostles

---

I don't know if this was a typo or not but it's certainly given me a memorable image to brighten up my day.

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the Baptist church I used to belong didn't take up offerings ... although members did contribute behind the scenes. Coming from a Covenant Ministries background where the offering was often accompanied by a mini-sermon (sometimes a very LONG mini-sermon) and all sorts of ballyhoo and pressure ... the Baptist model seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.

I remember a Baptist minister telling me about an NFI conference he'd attended where some bouncy, energetic husband and wife team (was that unusual in NFI?) were waxing lyrical about the 'commitment' of their church members.

'There's Joe, for instance,' they crowed. 'He works long hours as a high-powered advertising executive. He has a long commute home. But when he gets there he has a meal, changes clothes and he's there, sleeves rolled up to get stuck into the work of the Kingdom!'

'Hang on,' thought my minister friend, 'What about the rest of the day? Isn't he serving the Kingdom in his secular job?'

The impression this chap got of NFI was that it was all 'church, church, church, church, church ...'

Involvement in anything else - politics, sport, the arts, leisure, work ... seemed to come way, way down the list of priorities.

I put it to you, Polly ( ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...

---

Sorry Gamaliel you're way out of date. In NF there's a very strong 'beyond church' emphasis. An example is
this. . We also have a senior leader who is the Uk 'social action' champion, who encourages churches to consider how to engage with their communities. He has the same status in the movement as the 'church planting' champion.

Yes we still have leaders who live in an ecclesiastical bubble. Happens in all denominations and streams. But the culture is clearly changing.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This wasn't that very long ago, Ramarius ...

Although I do accept that there IS an emphasis on external engagement and perhaps I should have balanced out my comment with a corollary about the initiative you've described/provided a link to ...

My NFI contacts have informed me about that one ...

I was making a more general point and one which, as you rightly indicate, can be levelled at all denominations and streams ('streams' are the new denominations, get over it ... ) ...

I s'pose what I'm driving at is the level to which this sort of thing happens. I'm sure things have moved on but I also agree with Chris Stiles that the restorationist project has effectively stalled. We're not seeing restoration in any way, shape or form. If anything, groups like NFI and the initiative you've informed us of, are merely playing catch-up with what everyone else has been doing for years ...

As I've said before, the kind of social-action emphasis that Bryn and Keri Jones sometimes brought (alongside less welcome emphases) was only novel insofar as it was taking place within a conservatively charismatic evangelical context - with roots in Brethrenism and Pentecostalism. The sort of things they were saying wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in Methodist or URC circles.

If NFI is getting into social action stuff then great. Let's have more of it. But if they ditch their restorationism then I am puzzled as to what else they believe they're bringing to the party ... they may as well become just another loud and lively charismatic denomination ('stream' if you prefer ... I know you don't like the 'd' word and are probably in denial about applying it to your own set-up).

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that - in and of itself - but there's still something rather over-realised about it to all intents and purposes ...
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@Gamilel. NF playing catch up? As if..... . Seriously though, I agree with much of you write here. We still have some distinctives, but changing the expression of Christianity worldwide? Eutychus hasn't fingered me yet so I feel emboldened to describe certain notions as "over-omlettised."

@Eutychus. You quoted:
"Finally, on the last NF thread Twangist helpfully posted a link to a paper by PJ Smyth, a current leading figure in NF, about apostles and elders. This dates from 2008 so it's not that old. Here's what PJ has to say on the subject:

quote:
Apostles are gifted in confirming the rightness and readiness of a man for eldership in a church, and called by God to set him in place through the laying on of hands.(…) By extension, this implies the on-going role apostles have of input into the elders.....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."

You can read that in the context of your own experience of NF and say it supports your analysis. On the other hand, I can affirm all of PJ's quote and say it's consistent with my experience.

(One point of detail. You said appointment of elders was "clearly and apostolic initiative." Actually PJ doesn't say that. He speaks about apostles having a "confirming" role. That's reacting to the initiative of someone else.)

Here's how it's worked in my experience. The current elders identify potential new elders and take soundings in the church. A consensus thereby develops around who the likely candidates are. The apostle provides some external validation. 

Now let's look at this quote."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." 

An apostle could take that as saying "Your local autonomy as elders is at my discretion." Or you could have a more benign relationship based more on mutual respect. The 'imprint' of the apostle is down to the respect he commands as an individual rather than as a bearer of a title or office.

Certainly that's my current experience. To give an example, our 'apostle' visited the church once last year, and explained the relationship in the latter, more relational, terms. In particular he said "I am not [name of elders]'s line manager." No question of a rank to pull here. In addition I know of churches that have 'changed' apostles (they choose who they want to relate to apostolically).

Is this how it works throughout NF? I can't say because I don't know enough leaders. But the kind of relationship I've described certainly seems to be the direction of travel. 

And if it appears to be going otherwise, you won't see me for dust.

[ 07. January 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'll have to get back to you later about the other points you raise, Ramarius, but I need to correct this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
(One point of detail. You said appointment of elders was "clearly an apostolic initiative." Actually PJ doesn't say that.)

---

quote:

---

The appointment of elders is clearly an apostolic initiative

---

He then goes on to say that the role of the church is one of "affirming" the appointment. Better get your Nikes laced up...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not saying this is true of NFI, but at a Covenant Ministries leadership conference once, Bryn Jones notoriously said that the church is there to 'serve the apostle' and not the other way around ... apparently he used some verse or other from 2 Corinithians to back this up ...

I've heard that there were eyebrows raised and looks exchanged across the room but I'm not sure anyone dared to question it at the time ...

Please don't me wrong, I'm not demonising any of these people. I don't know enough about NFI to comment but I did take a peek at it back in 2000 and my wife and I decided that it was too close to where we'd been (Covenant Ministries) for comfort ... even though the presentation was slightly different we both felt it was the same product with a different label.

At that time, I probably would have been happier than she was to stick it out and give it a go ... but we showed it a clean pair of heels and I've no regrets on that score. I don't wish any of them any ill-will ... but there was a lot of omelette about ...
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
The problem I have with NF is that they weren't actually restoring the New Testament church at all. Everything St Paul wrote about authority and Eldership was in the context of small groups of Christians in house churches, where all could participate in services. They were not dominated by one paid 'priest' and a laity in a special church building. Paul wrote about a totally different church structure where there was no chief apostle, and St Paul was unpaid by the church.

My experience in NF was that the congregation could not choose who was trained for eldership, and could not prevent appointments. At one 'family' meeting which spent an hour discussing a proposed elder who had been objected to, not a single member was allowed to speak other than the two pastors. Apparently it was a 'theocracy' and if they got it wrong they would answer to God. No need for us to have an opinion.

This is a system that is wide open for abuse and not one I could support. I had no say in the pastor's pay, what he spent his time doing, who was appointed elder, who was trained, what projects were taken on, who was employed in them, how money was spent or how anyone in leadership could be held accountable for anything. Our 'Apostle' was 3,000 miles away, I'd never met him and yet he had a say in who was our elder and we didn't.

The most damaging thing about NF is that they attempt to use scripture to support a hierarchy that is almost unaccountable to their congregations. This is spiritual abuse IMO, because it uses scripture aimed at a house church model to attempt to justify hierarchical authority in an entirely different model of church. If people can be forced to believe that challenging the structure is equivalent to challenging 'God's way of doing it', then they can be shut up or made to feel guilty for doing so.

NF needs reform to allow the congregation to have a formal say in how their churches are run. Without this they are wide open to Narcissistic individual's who are too controlling and effectively unaccountable dominating because they enjoy power over other believers. Church history shows that this sort of model eventually leads to a lot of problems.

Its a real shame because I love the people, the worship and the informality - but I couldn't endorse something so fundamentally messed up.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
In NF there's a very strong 'beyond church' emphasis. An example is
this. . We also have a senior leader who is the Uk 'social action' champion, who encourages churches to consider how to engage with their communities. He has the same status in the movement as the 'church planting' champion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Smyth describes the role of the church in this process as "affirming the appointment" of elders. He goes on to discuss the relationship between apostles and elders:

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.

---

---

quote:

---

When I was appointed an elder I had a 20 minute conversation with my 'apostle' and got the green light from him after the first question he asked me. (If you want to know how I managed that you will have to PM me (!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Smyth describes the role of the church in this process as "affirming the appointment" of elders. He goes on to discuss the relationship between apostles and elders:

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.

---

---

That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.

---

quote:

---

The RC parallel has certainly been used by critics of restorationism, Eutychus ... I've read some very frothing-at-the-mouth reformed/conservative evangelical critiques of New Frontiers, for instance, where they see it as yet another thinly disguised attempt by the Evil One to lure us all back to ... (cue creepy horror-film music) DANG-DAN-DARRRRNNN!!! ... ROME!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
I can affirm all of PJ's quote and say it's consistent with my experience.

---

quote:

---

Elders should understand their autonomy within the context of their apostolic covering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
having tried and failed to create a chosen people, they are now busy trying to create a holy nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see, the alternative scenario is that beliefs have changed for the better (i.e. have become less authoritarian) - but that nobody in authority will admit to things ever having been any other way. That seems even more ghastly to me.

---

I can see why that might sound ghastly after what you've been through, but I suspect you may have to be willing to put up with that possibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Meanwhile, and I'm conscious that Polly might take this the wrong way, I'd also suggest that restorationist settings were overly obsessed with internal 'church' issues rather than involvement with wider issues/wider society. This isn't confined to restorationism, of course, I sometimes think the same applies to some evangelical Anglican parishes.

I put it to you, Polly ( ) that there's a residual element of this in your comment about people dashing from work to the 'church meeting' without praying intensely first. People have to work, for goodness sake. They have LIVES outside of church. That was something that never seemed to occur to restorationists at all ...

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chris stiles:
having tried and failed to create a chosen people, they are now busy trying to create a holy nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That neatly, if incisively, summarises my problem with this. I think the very way engaging with society betrays an ongoing restorationist mindset; the kingdom, including society at large, will be restored through the church.

The contary view, which I think Gamaliel is trying to communicate to Polly above, is the idea that christians are engaged in promoting the Kingdom of God in society simply by virtue of being alive and going to work, the shops, school and so on. This everyday behaviour doesn't have to be somehow appropriated, hyped up and made an extension of the church's ministry to be endowed with the fragrance of Christ. It's the difference between trying to set up a christian political party or lobby and being a christian engaged in (secular) politics.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken:
That is almost scarily like what some Roman Catholics say when they are talking about the Papacy as a gift of God to the churches and try to persuade the rest of us to put ourselves under the Pope's authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I think it is. I think restorationists really are like Catholics in that respect.

Having emerged from a meeting yesterday to prepare some events in the ecumenical week of prayer coming up [and notwithstanding what Twangist has just posted while I've been writing this], I can report similarly glazed looks when one tries to engage them (at least in France) about christianity outside their particular mindset. They sort of know it's there and are on the whole well-disposed to it, but they just can't engage with it except as a sort of captive project of their own Church.

The similarity, Twangist, is the hierarchical authority structure. Take that away and I still think there is no distinctive feature of restorationism at all.

---

quote:

---

Both models have their Biblical Mandate and when they work well then thats great but both have been open to abuse.

---

Hi Polly, considering your personal journey (to coin a phrase) is there some kind of Via Media that you can see would combine the best of both models?
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Gamaliel - I'm sorry but I didn't reply to your 1st point in my post above.

Actually I would agree with your observations that NF is more inward looking than on external social action issues.

I'll explain so Ramaris doen't feel I've gone against him!!

NF have always done social action but it was always considered 2nd place behind evangelism and the local church.

Their theology didn't allow for Social Action to be seen as an important part of the churches ministry although many churches did run some kind of social projects.

If the issue had political implications ( eg Drop the Debt, MPh) generally this was kept at arms length.

Things have been changing especially since Simon Petit a much loved Apostle prophecied that NF "...must not forget the poor..."

Ramarius - not sure if you'll agree with this but I have visited different NF churches in recent years and during services have never heard prayer being led for world events etc.

My friends in NF say consistantly this is one area they want to see improve.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I might be being niave but I've always taken things like the "everything conferance", the HTB "God at work" course or regular preaching that covers this type of thing as being an example of the later.....

---

quote:

---

the apostolic strategy of the New Testament was obviously one of vigorous church-based mission, rooted in the local church... with all the safeguards and strengths provided by God-ordained eldership... if we... want to reach businesses, let local churches do so from their church base, using their church people.

---

quote:

---

I would submit that it's not just RC's and restorationists who develop "glazed looks when one tries to engage them about christianity outside their particular mindset"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus
No, but once again, the stakes are higher if the belief is that restorationism isn't just a better or alternative way of organising church (which is what we are hearing from Polly about baptists' organisation) but the definitive way of organising church with which all will ultimately comply. In much the same way that the RCs (as an institution) still believe the rest of us are "estranged brethren" (frères égloignés). [/QB]

---

quote:

---

If HTB is restorationist then we need to hear about it on this thread!

---

quote:

---

I think the bottom line here is whether people are being genuinely encouraged to get engaged in things that are completely independent from the (restorationist) church with the church making no attempt to benefit from their inroads or position.

---

quote:

---

In No Well-Worn Paths, Terry Virgo has a chapter entitled "Turning up the contrast" in which he seeks to dispel the notion that he is, in the words of Renewal magazine, "the acceptable face of Restorationism" by highlighting some of his particularities as a Restorationist. He has this to say about reaching the world:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the apostolic strategy of the New Testament was obviously one of vigorous church-based mission, rooted in the local church... with all the safeguards and strengths provided by God-ordained eldership... if we... want to reach businesses, let local churches do so from their church base, using their church people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
No I've never said Restorationist Churches model a better way of being and doing church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
how do you accurateley define completely independant (sacred/secular divide - I thought the Bible was a bit more holistic)?

There are lots of areas of social involvement where the church can't make any attempt to benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
No I've never said Restorationist Churches model a better way of being and doing church.

---

My apologies, that isn't what I meant to imply.

I meant that you are presenting congregationalism as a model whereas Restorationists present their model as the model. You are demonstrating a degree of open-mindedness (admitting the possibility of more than one model of church government) that restorationist thinking doesn't allow for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
how do you accurateley define completely independant (sacred/secular divide - I thought the Bible was a bit more holistic)?

There are lots of areas of social involvement where the church can't make any attempt to benefit.

---

What I'm getting at (and failing to get across, it seems) is the sense in which I think restorationism as a movement attempts to appropriate christians' engagement in the world and harness this to its eschatalogical agenda.

During my time in NF I remember somebody being presented to us at a leaders' prayer & fasting gathering because they had just taken the top job at some major christian charity or other. The message was very much 'this is a good thing because now we have one of our people who will be in and out of 10 Downing Street, have the ear of government, etc.' The idea being, I think, that this would expose the top levels of government to people representing Ephesians 4 ministries and the 'apostolic' way of doing things.

(By contrast, I think I've mentioned before here a friend who stood as an MP in the UK. He's not unknown in christian circles, his christian convictions certainly informed his decision to stand, and I'm sure that had he won he would have had an effective testimony in his role as an MP. But he was standing as a representative of his political party, not with some ulterior motive of a kind of "Christian special agent" becoming 'strategically embedded' in some exciting and far-flung sphere of The World™ to further the cause of his church movement. I'm not sure I'm getting this difference across adequately, but I think it's an important one and it's reminding me of the debates on the "cultural transformation" threads).

To me, the quote from "No well-worn paths" points the same way. Yes, the context is parachurch ministries, but the criticism made is that these do not extend "from the apostolic".

Personally I think parachurch ministries are just as wrong-headed when they attempt to "capture" a particular field of action and behave as if they have the only valid approach to it (I have the national director of one in my church, a long-standing friend, so I know what I'm talking about here too!). But at least they are not trying to back up their claim by appealing to a "God-ordained" foundation as Terry does in that quote.

In Restorationist thinking, the vehicle for the "Restoration of all things" - including all matters secular and private - is the church and only the church. Ultimately, this restoration is to come under the aegis of its authority structures. It's why Walker talks about a theocracy.

---

Many 'closed' groups have Restorationist characteristics. The Militant Tendency had an 'entryist' policy with the Labour party and other like minded organisations.

Fundamentally the reasons restorationism faded was:

i. it was basically a flawed theology resting on very wobbly theology

ii. it didn't appeal to many British Christians who saw it's exclusivity, privilege and elitism writ large and saw through it's New testament speak waffle.

iii. It wasn't based on ideas of correct eschatology, was elitist and exclusivist as a result. People were wary of cultic tendencies post Guyana (Bob Jones) and latterly Waco Texas, where 'inspired' charismatic type leaders took congregations on a ride to hell.

Saul
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd agree with that, Saul - but it doesn't strike me that British people are signing up in any great numbers for ANY form of church involvement at the moment ... so if the average Briton would be wary of restorationism, it would also be true that the average Briton might equally be wary of the local RC priest, local vicar, local Baptist or Methodist minister ...

On the social action thing ... an Orthodox priest friend (known to some here) once observed to me that he felt that the charismatic movement (including restorationism) would ultimately go the way of the Quakers and become a broader, more socially engaged movement with a smattering of vatic and supernatural beliefs. He pointed out that it only took a few generations for the Society of Friends to morph from a highly charged, pneumatic movement into a rather Quietist one with a refreshingly radical social agenda when it came to things like slavery and prison reform etc.

I wasn't convinced at the time he said that and I'm still not fully convinced, but I do wonder whether there's some truth in it. As soon as groups like this DO start to engage with society/social action (even if they BEGIN with the kind of attitude and agenda that Eutychus has identified) then before long they start to develop (by necessity) a more nuanced and less dogmatic approach.

Pragmatism kicks in. In the same way that some nuns and priests in parts of sub-Saharan Africa have distributed condoms to combat Aids despite the official teachings of the RC Church.

I'd be interested to see how 'restorationist' some of the social action projects will appear in 10 or 15 years time. Not very, would be my suspicion.

Every now and then restorationism would draw in its horns like a snail ... but then would slip them back out so it could squirm along looking for its next meal ...

That kind of retreat/advance approach isn't uncommon and can be seen in other settings and traditions. Indeed, the old Catholic thing of retreats and pilgrimages punctuating every day action is pertinent to much of this.

@Polly - I'm not saying that congregational patterns are necessarily 'better' than what you see as the benefits of the restorationist model - but what I am saying is that they are less prone to the kind of top-down abuse that we have ALL seen within restorationism. I'm sorry, but I still think you're starry-eyed about the whole thing ...

And all that 'listening to the Spirit' business still sounds very omelette-ish to me ... you seem to be over-spiritualising the 'church meeting' in the same way as you may have over-spiritualised the governmental aspects of NFI.

I say 'may' ...

I know what you're getting at and I'm not trying to squeeze the pneumatic out of the equation ... but there's an overly pietistic impression I'm picking up here. I know you appreciate that people have to work, commute etc etc ... but as I've often said, and will say again, "it doesn't matter how 'anointed' or whoopy the conference/convention/service - delete as appropriate - was, you still have to get up and go to work, you still have to wash your socks and when you've been to the lavatory you still have to wipe your arse."
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomsk:
So, Eutychus, is Philippa Stroud, who is or was involved with Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice seen as some kind of fifth columnist for NF/the next Apostle, capturing it?

---

I was still in NF when Philippa Stroud was first given a major platform at Stoneleigh, at which time her ambition of seeing UK abortion laws change.

I'm not in a position to assess her own motivations and contribution, and many people speak highly of her, but there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that she was - and perhaps is still - championed by NF as a kind of trophy or mascot for their values within the realm of politics. It's a classic case of being "appropriated" by a movement.

More generally, I think there's a lot of naivety by christians when they think they are gaining entry into the corridors of political power to further "christian" ends.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This happens in all traditions. I've known Orthodox who crowed when Peter France (?) a former BBC religious correspondent became Orthodox and was baptised in an oil drum in Greece.

Evangelicals have always crowed about Cliff Richard (Rich Clifford) and various footballers and token celebrities.

The RCs had Dana and The Singing Nun ...

But you're right. I well remember the Covenant Ministries guys getting all excited because they'd been given something of a hearing (allegedly) by David Mellor. Then the Chelsea shirt thing came along ...


 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Eutychus posted:

What I'm getting at (and failing to get across, it seems) is the sense in which I think restorationism as a movement attempts to appropriate christians' engagement in the world and harness this to its eschatalogical agenda.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel

I'd agree with that, Saul - but it doesn't strike me that British people are signing up in any great numbers for ANY form of church involvement at the moment ... so if the average Briton would be wary of restorationism, it would also be true that the average Briton might equally be wary of the local RC priest, local vicar, local Baptist or Methodist minister ...

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted:
@Polly - I'm not saying that congregational patterns are necessarily 'better' than what you see as the benefits of the restorationist model - but what I am saying is that they are less prone to the kind of top-down abuse that we have ALL seen within restorationism. I'm sorry, but I still think you're starry-eyed about the whole thing ...

And all that 'listening to the Spirit' business still sounds very omelette-ish to me ... you seem to be over-spiritualising the 'church meeting' in the same way as you may have over-spiritualised the governmental aspects of NFI.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Gamaliel

I'd agree with that, Saul - but it doesn't strike me that British people are signing up in any great numbers for ANY form of church involvement at the moment ... so if the average Briton would be wary of restorationism, it would also be true that the average Briton might equally be wary of the local RC priest, local vicar, local Baptist or Methodist minister ...
Apart from NF is one of the few church groups that are experiencing growth today. Surely this is to be welcomed??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I'm not disagreeing that Apostolic Oversight is open to abuse but to suggest it is more open than any other forms of church government is at the very best naive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I'm not disagreeing that Apostolic Oversight is open to abuse but to suggest it is more open than any other forms of church government is at the very best naive.

---

I think it's perfectly fair to say that any form of top down leadership is more open to certain forms of abuse than some alternatives. I mean, a congregational meeting is not likely to end with everyone voting to drink poisoned koolaid - and I say that as someone who would find this description of church meetings to be somewhat accurate:

http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/B/bizmtg.html

---

I think this is where we disagree. The point of Koolaid is I suspect a horrible but unique one just like people in a church mtg with congregational govnmt voting against a perspective pastor because they are black or a women. In fact I think this happens more commonly.

I speak of someone with plenty of experience in NF and subsequently in various Baptist Churches.

Both models have scope for different reasons to go pear shaped in a bad way. I simply wouldn't want to go through another bad experience in either model again.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Polly: on prayer, is it a Roman Catholic concept which teaches about 'Practising the presence of Christ' and I think there is something akin in Quakerism. It is the idea that people should lead a life 24 hours in the conscience presence of Christ, in other words, prayer. Prayer is not simply going to the upper room after work / meal and before going to a meeting.

Gamaliel: there is an interesting sociological argument that anticipates that, inevitably, 'sects' become 'denominations' become 'churches' (I think I've got that right, but the point is, sects (restorationism at the start) become something else and move towards institutionalisation, a point I made higher up the thread).

Saul: another sociological insight / finding is to do with 'Circulation of the Saints' - very, very true in the early days of the new churches.

edited to add: I guess that restorationism is within the middle phase now - and that's quick!

[ 08. January 2012, 14:32: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well, sociologist Max Weber is famous for saying that a church is a sect that has succeeded, so...
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Polly: on prayer, is it a Roman Catholic concept which teaches about 'Practising the presence of Christ' and I think there is something akin in Quakerism. It is the idea that people should lead a life 24 hours in the conscience presence of Christ, in other words, prayer. Prayer is not simply going to the upper room after work / meal and before going to a meeting.

---

I'm aware of the concept. I never said how a person should pray and the subject is far wider than anyone's understanding.

For me the model of congregational government requires church members to be more intentional about prayer. However we understand this we are being asked to discern the will of God regarding serious and important matters concerning the life of the Body of Christ.

The model of Congregational Government requires and expects so much and the reality of what is given is so often woefully short. I know this is where Grace stands in the place of our indquacies but it is not an excuse for church members to put to one side their individual responsibilities. I know and appreciate there's a tension here with the reality of life.
Then I think there is a question to be asked about why we require people to make promises about these things when they become church members?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Polly, engage with what I'm saying and not with what you THINK I'm saying.

At no point have I been starry-eyed about congregational forms of church government. What I DID say is that they are less prone to 'top-down' (notice the phrase) abuse. That doesn't mean that they can't be prone to other forms of abuse. There can be bottom-up abuse too.

For you information, I was a member of a Baptist church for six years and although I found the 'church meeting' business frustrating at times it was a zillion times more acceptable than the kind of heavy-handed, top-down nonsense I'd encountered in restorationism.

Prior to my involvement with restorationism, though, I'd seen damaging and toxic examples of the congregational model among Baptist churches in South Wales - and I suppose this is one of the things that made me more open to restorationism in the first place.

So, now, I'm not being as binary as you think I'm being. That's YOUR department ...

For the record, I'm now involved with an Anglican parish. I'd level similar criticisms at the Anglican renewal thing as I would at restorationism. They're both over-realised.

As for new people joining NF and that being a 'good thing' ... yes, of course it is. Providing that there's scope there for these people to mature and grow and not end up as stunted bonsai trees in a heavy-handed top-down system.

I'm not saying that's going to happen to them ... but it is a possibility.

As for the sect/church thing ... yes, I think people in the older denominations can look back on the new church denominations ... sorry, 'streams' ... and see their own past. Mudfrog has already done this to some extent - although I'd agree with Eutychus that what he described could more properly be labelled revivalism rather than restorationism (although I'd suggest there were some restorationist elements there).

The Methodists and Baptists could do the same ... I'm sure both of them were pretty heavy-handed in their formative years. Some independent Methodist and Baptist outfits undoubtedly still are. I've seen heavy-handed top-down government, nepotism and a whole load of other things happening in independent Baptist churches where friends of mine have been involved for a time.

Listen, no one here is singling out the restorationists for exclusive censure. I'm certainly not doing that. There is much there to admire ... both in terms of getting stuff done and the sheer quality and commitment of many of the people involved.

It would be as wrong to become jaundiced about the whole scene as it would to be all starry-eyed about it. I don't believe I'm either.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Polly (with apologies )

The model of apostolic government requires and expects so much and the reality of what is given is so often woefully short. I know this is where Grace stands in the place of our indquacies but it is not an excuse for so-called apostles to lord it over people nor for church members to put to one side their individual responsibilities. I know and appreciate there's a tension here with the reality of life.

Then I think there is a question to be asked about why we require people to make promises about these things when they become leaders or church members?
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Polly, engage with what I'm saying and not with what you THINK I'm saying.


.

---

quote:

---

Listen, no one here is singling out the restorationists for exclusive censure. I'm certainly not doing that. There is much there to admire ... both in terms of getting stuff done and the sheer quality and commitment of many of the people involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At no point have I been starry-eyed about congregational forms of church government. What I DID say is that they are less prone to 'top-down' (notice the phrase) abuse. That doesn't mean that they can't be prone to other forms of abuse. There can be bottom-up abuse too.

---

quote:

---

What I'm getting at (and failing to get across, it seems) is the sense in which I think restorationism as a movement attempts to appropriate christians' engagement in the world and harness this to its eschatalogical agenda.

---

quote:

---

To me, the quote from "No well-worn paths" points the same way. Yes, the context is parachurch ministries, but the criticism made is that these do not extend "from the apostolic".

---

quote:

---

i. it was basically a flawed theology resting on very wobbly theology

---

Are those technical terms ?? (I've just checked that you didn't post that very late at night)
Try posting that on a thread about a differant set of churches and see what type of response you get!!

quote:

---

iii. It wasn't based on ideas of correct eschatology, was elitist and exclusivist as a result.

---

quote:

---

People were wary of cultic tendencies post Guyana (Bob Jones) and latterly Waco Texas, where 'inspired' charismatic type leaders took congregations on a ride to hell.

---

quote:

---

On the social action thing ... an Orthodox priest friend (known to some here) once observed to me that he felt that the charismatic movement (including restorationism) would ultimately go the way of the Quakers and become a broader, more socially engaged movement with a smattering of vatic and supernatural beliefs. He pointed out that it only took a few generations for the Society of Friends to morph from a highly charged, pneumatic movement into a rather Quietist one with a refreshingly radical social agenda when it came to things like slavery and prison reform etc

---

quote:

---

Providing that there's scope there for these people to mature and grow and not end up as stunted bonsai trees in a heavy-handed top-down system.

---

quote:

---

What I understand 'Practising the Presence of Christ' to mean is that there is no need to do that, this form of prayer life ensures that one is always within the will of GOD (yeh, I know, .... I'm only stating the ideal - which seems a lot more ideal that 'prayer meetings').

Sorry if I have got you wrong.

To bring it back on topic: is this concept of prayer present in restorationism today? Or do congregations have an expectation that folk turn out for prayer meetings, particularly when some big issue arises. This is how I seem to remember new churches in the 80's

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I don't think that the tokenist or entryist approach is a restorationist distictive - It seems to be how the religous right have operated in the states for years.

---

quote:

---

The word "apostolic" is used only the once, in the part you cited, and is clearly refering to NT practice.

---

quote:

---

Anecdotally - our church is doing both - growing through Xtians moving geographically and ecclesiasticaly and through non-Xtians becoming Xtians. Many of my Xtian mates are what I'd call 1st generation Xtians.

---

Again to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if your anecdotal evidence proves true of a broader trend. I think the acid test is whether these people stick over 5, 10, 20 years... a lifetime. Hopefully they won't imbibe too many old-school restorationist views and move on in due course to sensible, balanced churches... like mine

[ETA Twangist, with my translator hat on, I've just noticed the use of the word "distinctive" as a noun above. I could be wrong, but post-NFI I've noticed that this seems to be an exclusively NFI use of language. The word in the rest of the world is "particularity"!]

[ 08. January 2012, 18:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Twangist said:

quote:

---

@Saul

quote:
i. it was basically a flawed theology resting on very wobbly theology
Are those technical terms ?? (I've just checked that you didn't post that very late at night)
Try posting that on a thread about a differant set of churches and see what type of response you get!!

quote:
iii. It wasn't based on ideas of correct eschatology, was elitist and exclusivist as a result.
Do you have a book of non-elitist correct eschatology you could recommend? (Diagrams would be appreaciated)

quote:
People were wary of cultic tendencies post Guyana (Bob Jones) and latterly Waco Texas, where 'inspired' charismatic type leaders took congregations on a ride to hell.
Phew ... I'm glad we missed "Mad Terry and the Brighton Bloodbath"

---

''Wobbly theology'' I'll have you know, is a very specific term; usually takes places after a few pints when you're talking theology down at the pub


Now 'mad Terry and the Brighton bloodbath' well errr, we're talking eschatology here be warned so it's not times past or present, but travails to come......you have been warned....there could be severe problems with the Kool Aid at NF churches

That DID make me laugh I must admit indeed I can honestly say: LOL

Saul the observant Apostle
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
The thought of NF trying to extend its tentacles (oops sorry 'influence') beyond its already spiritually abusive remit is truly scary.

As an example my church life booklet implies that not giving to God may put you under a curse, implies that your NF church is the local storeroom talked about by Malachi, and that you should tithe to them. Of course you can't challenge the flawed theology of this as I found out.

My wife knew someone that ended up with virtually nothing to eat as on a low income she was scared not to give to the church. Its easy to blame these individuals for being naive, but NF lends itself to spiritual abuse. They attempt to tell you how to think. They discourage independent thought. They have no means of members having any real say in how their church is run, because it isn't the members church. It is for the 'spiritually superior' to tell others how to behave, how to think, how to give and how to submit.

This is mind control dressed up in religious self justification for financial gain. It is wrong, it is sin, and it needs corporate repentance.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

''Wobbly theology'' I'll have you know, is a very specific term; usually takes places after a few pints when you're talking theology down at the pub

---

quote:

---

If you are interested I think I could send you a short bibliography.

---

quote:

---

I think the acid test is whether these people stick over 5, 10, 20 years... a lifetime.

---

I'm sure that's what people used to say about kids converted at Crusaders
Clearly!! In terms of close friends many are stacking up 10-20 years now

quote:

---

[ETA Twangist, with my translator hat on, I've just noticed the use of the word "distinctive" as a noun above. I could be wrong, but post-NFI I've noticed that this seems to be an exclusively NFI use of language. The word in the rest of the world is "particularity"!]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA Twangist, with my translator hat on, I've just noticed the use of the word "distinctive" as a noun above. I could be wrong, but post-NFI I've noticed that this seems to be an exclusively NFI use of language. The word in the rest of the world is "particularity"!]

---

I don't know about now, but certainly in my Ichthus days (1990s and early 2000s - I left in 2003, just before the split) "Ichthus distinctives" was a phrase in regular use. Though (before you ask) I can't remember what they were, particularly!

As another post-charismatic type (albeit not from the restorationist side of things) I've been following this thread with interest, thanks guys for some fascinating discussion.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

If you are interested I think I could send you a short bibliography.

---

Go for it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Polly, apologies for jumping in but this is Gamaliel's point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At no point have I been starry-eyed about congregational forms of church government. What I DID say is that they are less prone to 'top-down' (notice the phrase) abuse. That doesn't mean that they can't be prone to other forms of abuse. There can be bottom-up abuse too.

---

He's focusing on what he calls 'top-down' abuse and is claiming that this particular form of abuse is more common in churches / movements with an apostolic style of governance.

There may well be other types of abuse that are more common in congregational-type churches / movements, and one or two have been mentioned up-thread. But that's not really the point of what Gamaliel is saying here in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I'm sure that's what people used to say about kids converted at Crusaders

---

quote:

---

Arrggg - the brain washing has stuck!!! Any other NFisms I can avoid?
at least you spelled it rite!!

---

"Suck it and see" was one of Dave Holden's! As part of my "therapy", when translating I sometimes slip a few of the old NF stock phrases into the translation, provided they are actually part of the English language, but I'm not getting you all googling by telling you any of them!

Jack The Lass, it's true that Roger's a notorious practitioner of verbing nouns ("churching it") and other neologisms, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if NF nicked it from him.

Mark Wuntoo, for my money, post the bibliography here. I took the time to post all the links to Irving on the other thread because I think it makes for a useful resource that anyone can find online for posterity.
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 

quote:

---

Arminian posted:
They have no means of members having any real say in how their church is run, because it isn't the members church. It is for the 'spiritually superior' to tell others how to behave, how to think, how to give and how to submit.

---

quote:

---

Mark Wuntoo posted:
Sorry if I have got you wrong and are reading something into my posts that simply isn't there.

---

quote:

---

.... suggests to me that you do see prayer in terms of speaking / listening to GOD at specific times and in specific places.

What I understand 'Practising the Presence of Christ' to mean is that there is no need to do that, this form of prayer life ensures that one is always within the will of GOD (yeh, I know, .... I'm only stating the ideal - which seems a lot more ideal that 'prayer meetings').

---

I have never suggested that prayer has to be done in a specific way.

Your example of 'Practising the Presence of Christ' is great and very helpful but it cannot be the only model used by individuals or churches.

My argument has never been an either/or scenario but an and/both situation.

There is immense value in the form of prayer life you mention but Jesus frequently spent time on his own away from distractions seeking God's will in prayer. The suggestion is that this is a good discipline for his disciples to example regularly (whatever we understand the term 'regular' to be).

I would be little worried if anyone said that this model of prayer is no longer required. But I may have misread your posts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Apologies, my research only quoted these two articles:

BIBBY.R. & BRINKERHOFF.M. 'The Circulation of the Saints: A study of people who join conservative churches'. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1973. Vol 12 pp 273-283

BRINKERHOFF.M & BIBBY.R. 'Circulation of the Saints in South America: A comparative study'. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1985. Vol 24 pp 39-55.

I seem to remember that one or other of these people published an article entitled 'Circulation of the saints revisited'.

I'm sure there is more.

Googling 'Circulation of the Saints' appears to produce some interesting stuff.

I also came across this that might interest some here:

TURNER.Max. 'Ecclesiology in the major 'Apostolic' Restorationist churches in the United Kingdom'. Vox Evangelica XIX (1989)pp 83-108
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
within NF the way of being church and the governance of it is not the same in every local church. In practice there is no one standard operating system. The amount of consensus and say church members have in what the church does varies. See my earlier posts for examples.

---

On this we agree, but to me the crucial difference is what the theology says and what is extant on this issue.

In baptist circles (for instance) you have various bodies, authorities, and tomes and tomes of writings about church government which can be used to counter abusive leadership practices. There's a body of resources you can appeal to to whistleblow.

Within NF, you and those currently in NF on this thread have often repeated "well in this or that NF church it doesn't seem to work that way", but none of you have been able to point to any sort of authority or ecclesiology in NF supporting these practices. It all points the other way.

I think the pieces of restorationist literature I've quoted, specifically Terry Virgo and PJ Smyth, are quite unequivocal in how the authority of apostles over elders and of elders over congregations is structured in restorationist thinking. You all keep saying "it wasn't like that where I was" or "it's changed now" but no restorationist leaders seem to have gone into print with such a view.

That's why I contend the good things you or I may have taken from our time in restorationism are in spite of its ecclesiology and not because of it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Polly: I would be little worried if anyone said that this model of prayer is no longer required. But I may have misread your posts.

That's exactly what I think (but wasn't intending to say!) .....

.... which is very naughty. But you should take into account that after 60 years a Christian I rejected the lot, the idea of GOD 'n all.

Just out of interest, I do remember a period in my early life (I may well have been a teenager at a particularly formative time) when I had an overwhelming experience which I understood as 'Practising the Presence'. It never returned, perhaps sadly.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Polly said:

quote:

---

Ok I'll concede then that from the a specific 'Top Down' relationship fro Apostles to Local Church Elders and the local church then yes there is more likeliness abuse can happen.

Apologies to all I have mis-understood.

But I cannot agree that 'top down' abuse only happens in Restorationist churches. There's plenty of examples I could give of Baptists, Anglican and Methodist church leaders telling people in their church we are doing this the way I say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
TURNER.Max. 'Ecclesiology in the major 'Apostolic' Restorationist churches in the United Kingdom'. Vox Evangelica XIX (1989)pp 83-108

---

quote:

---

Tony Ling is mentioned in Andrew Walker's book as being mooted as a potential future apostle (in the mid-1980s), so yes, it's probably relevant! What we need to find out is where these guys are now...

---

I'd been thinking the same. If I get time I will see if I can do some research.

I have a vague memory (it was a long time ago!) that I found this guy a bit 'wet' but I didn't know he was thought to be destined for higher things. Wish I hadn't sent all my books to the great library in the sky.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok ... South Coast Kevin presented my views more clearly than I did myself, Polly.

And I'd agree with Saul that just as over-eating is more prevelant in Western societies then it is axiomatic that top-down forms of abuse are going to be more common in models of church government which stress the heirarchical aspect. They won't be confined to those groups, of course, but they will be systemic. I would argue that they were, or have been systemic in restorationism - in ALL restorationist streams but in some more than others.

@Twangist - on the bonsai tree analogy. Is that how I felt in CMI? Yes, undoubtedly. Sure, there were many good things in it but the whole thing was ultimately very constraining. I don't want to over-labour any points or draw any rash conclusions here but I find it interesting that the development of my poetical interests (to give just one example) took off AFTER my time in CMI. It's not that anyone in CMI was stood there with a big stick restricting my interest in anything else, but the whole thing was very 'closed' and claustrophobic. It was something of a spiritual straitjacket.

I'd also agree with Saul that the theology was wobbly and that most of these guys weren't that well educated theologically. Those that were didn't stick around too long or were elbowed out.

That's not restricted to restorationist circles either ... but it was certainly an issue.

As for what some of these guys are doing now ...

Well, Tony Ling is still working with Keri Jones and is part of Keri's Ministries Without Borders set-up. Keri's based in South Wales now but has a few churches scattered about the UK - including Manchester, I believe - and still has links with Norway and some of the other countries where Covenant Ministries had significant connections. I don't know a great deal about it but rumour has it that is very 'heavy' indeed and retains the authoritarian flavour of yesteryear.

Alan Scotland is the lead guy in an outfit called Life Link which has links with the US, India and South Africa (I think). They still seem very restorationist but I get the impression they apply a lighter touch. I have friends connected with this stream/network.

As for the rest of what was Covenant Ministries ... some (like Abundant Life in Bradford and Destiny in Glasgow) went down the US megachurch/health-wealth route and no longer espouse any distinctively restorationist theology/praxis. There was also a group in Cambridge which went down this kind of route too but I don't recall the name.

To all intents and purposes, as Andrew Walker indicated, NFI emerged as the single, leading, serious representative of UK restorationism. The rest of the R1 axis has effectively disintegrated with one or two tiny groups continuing in a similar vein.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I remember the 'Stay or Move' article and it wrankled with me back then. Goodness knows how I'd react if I re-read it now.

One of the ironies, I think, is that at one of the Bible Weeks Bryn and Keri welcomed some of the guys from the Apostolic Church to the platform - you know, the old-time Pentecostal denomination with its HQ/convention down at Penygroes. I'd heard that there was a bit of gloating going on - look, this is how it should be done. Call yourselves apostolic ... ?

Fast-forward a few years and the Apostolic Church (which many of us were expecting to fold) is apparently still going and the bulk of the R1 outfits (apart from NFi) have effectively fizzled out, morphed or solidified into mini-versions of what they once were ...

Plus ca change ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Although I remember the name of Tony Ling I know nothing about him or his "Stay or Move" article.

But of course this theme was central to Arthur Wallis' thinking. There may also have been some (I suspect unconscious) fallout from the big "Stay or Move" debate which John Stott and Martyn Llloyd-Jones had had at the British Evangelical Council in 1967.

This issue was by no means confined to Restorationists although the rationale was slightly different. For the Evangelicals in mainstream denominations the issue was "they have become so liberal and drifted so far away from the Bible that you have no hope of reforming them and ought to join churches true to God's Word". For the Restorationists the theme was "God has finished with the old denominations so you must join one of the new churches where his Spirit is active and his Kingdom is being restored".

As far as I remember the Restorationists wouldn't even have much truck with charismatic Baptists or Anglicans (etc) as they were still compromised, in their eyes, by staying "in" what God was abandoning.

[ 09. January 2012, 10:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's about the top and bottom of it, although the restorationist attitude was an amalgamation of the two separatist viewpoints - the evangelical one and the more charismatic one.

There was a sliding scale, of course. Baptists were seen as less compromised than Anglicans on account of their credo-baptist position. There was certainly a lot of individual respect for key figures in the Anglican renewal movement - such as David Watson - and in the early days of the Dales Bible Week they even had an RC speaker ... something that wouldn't have happened just a year or so later ...

My mother-in-law has old copies of Renewal magazine going back to the mid-1960s and you can see the divergence happening in the letters pages ... increasingly strident letters by people who would become restorationist pastors and leaders calling for withdrawal from the compromised mainstream denominations etc.

I don't think there was ever any straight, formal, easily dateable cut-off point ... but by the time I came onto the scene in the early '80s, people like Michael Harper and so on were certainly seen as yesterday's men ...

There was a time - from about 1982 until the late 1980s when the Harvestime/CMI end of things tended not to support some of the wider renewalist events - but they always supported big evangelistic rallies such as the 1984 Billy Graham crusade and the earlier Luis Palau events in Leeds and Cardiff. You would always see individuals from the restorationist ambit at interchurch charismatic events - such as the 'Let God Speak' tour with David Pawson, Graham Kendrick, Ishmael and all.

You wouldn't find many restorationists at Spring Harvest after about 1982/3 but they were certainly involved - with some caveats - in the Wimber visits of the mid-1980s. By about 1994 with the Toronto stuff, the exclusivism had lessened ... mainly for pragmatic reasons as, to all intents and purposes, the wider charismatic renewal had stolen a certain amount of their thunder.

Spring Harvest and so on had shown by then that it was possible to continue to have an evangelical/charismatic approach to things without submitting oneself to a restorationist apostle - and that without the sky falling in.

The similarities to the RC approach has been noted. I'd also suggest that we can detect an echo of the Orthodox approach too ... with the Orthodox insistence that one must be linked to an Orthodox bishop in order to remain kosher.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Someone's mentioned the marginalisation of the restorationists by the established churches - thereby leading to their ostracism and recourse to their DIY approach.

I wasn't on the scene in the 1970s but my impression has always been that the separatist tendencies came more from the restorationist side than anywhere else. It might have been different in Baptist circles, but my impression has always been that renewalist Anglicans wanted to maintain links with charismatics in the free church and new church settings ... even if they raised eyebrows at the Fountain Trust by continuing to have the eucharist with all the trimmings in a way that didn't go down very well with the former Baptists and Brethren.

I well remember Bryn making a big issue about the organisers of the Billy Graham crusade returning a cheque that Harvestime had sent them on the grounds that they could not accept a donation from an outfit that was so divisive and critical of fellow believers in the denominations etc etc. There was a big fuss and a song-and-dance made of this at a regional rally with the whipping up of righteous indignation and the determination to keep on track ...

Only later, I discovered that the cheque had been for £250 ... not an enormous sum even back then. Judging by the fuss that was made I'd assumed it was for thousands of pounds.

The thing was, the restorationists used to get very, very touchy indeed when they were accused of separatist tendencies or a sour and judgemental attitude towards the established churches and denominations. The irony was that THEY were generally the ones pointing the finger and dissing what else was going on. The mileage varied, of course. On the ground there was often a far more eirenic attitude than was apparent from the platform pronouncements ... but even there the mileage varied.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There may also have been some (I suspect unconscious) fallout from the big "Stay or Move" debate which John Stott and Martyn Llloyd-Jones had had at the British Evangelical Council in 1967.

---

quote:

---

Martyn Llloyd-Jones's views were a big deal among evangelicals in the early 1970s (I wasn't one in the 1960s so don't remember that far back).

---

quote:

---

The thread has legs!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Walker was good on this one too - as on much else. There were a lot of 'directive' thinkers in restorationism ... doctors, nurses, engineers ...

Less in evidence were 'discursive' thinkers - poets, philosophers etc.

As someone very definitely in the latter camp I wasn't going to fit in that well ...

---

quote:

---

doctors, nurses, engineers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
within NF the way of being church and the governance of it is not the same in every local church. In practice there is no one standard operating system. The amount of consensus and say church members have in what the church does varies. See my earlier posts for examples.

---

On this we agree, but to me the crucial difference is what the theology says and what is extant on this issue.

In baptist circles (for instance) you have various bodies, authorities, and tomes and tomes of writings about church government which can be used to counter abusive leadership practices. There's a body of resources you can appeal to to whistleblow.

Within NF, you and those currently in NF on this thread have often repeated "well in this or that NF church it doesn't seem to work that way", but none of you have been able to point to any sort of authority or ecclesiology in NF supporting these practices. It all points the other way.

I think the pieces of restorationist literature I've quoted, specifically Terry Virgo and PJ Smyth, are quite unequivocal in how the authority of apostles over elders and of elders over congregations is structured in restorationist thinking. You all keep saying "it wasn't like that where I was" or "it's changed now" but no restorationist leaders seem to have gone into print with such a view.

That's why I contend the good things you or I may have taken from our time in restorationism are in spite of its ecclesiology and not because of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gamaliel

I'm sure you'll recall the Gerald Coates "bon mot" about this. Gerald is not exactly one of my favourite leaders in the new church movement, but I (vaguely) remember him describing a certain type of church within which "everything was forbidden, unless it was compulsory". I think it might have been the Brethren (probably the more Exclusive assemblies).

Or maybe it was Adrian Plass who said it? Or even both? Memory plays tricks after a while.

Either way, the phrase "forbidden, if not compulsory" has stuck with me. In quantum mechanics it's called the Totalitiarian principle. Which seems very appropriate to me. Such tendencies tend to turn me into a "naughty boy, definitely not the Messiah", whenever I come across them.

And I'm sure you're right, that such independent-minded stroppiness is not just to be found in the nonconformists, nor is it to be found so much amongst us self-proclaimed noncos as I'd like. Rebels with causes, that's what we are. You don't want us too much in evidence at church meetings, unless you want a good old barney. But if the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, you need a few of us around being vigilant, even if sometimes we get paranoid about exploitative possibilities. Our awkwardness can be very useful at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think it's possible for changes relating directly to the top-down nature of the authority which has historically bound a movement together (and which still seems to, see the PJ Smyth quote...) to be passed back "up" the hierarchy without the movement shedding its distinctive identity and ecclesiology all together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think there was ever any straight, formal, easily dateable cut-off point ... but by the time I came onto the scene in the early '80s, people like Michael Harper and so on were certainly seen as yesterday's men ...

---

quote:

---

Paraphrasing Ramarius:
what restorationism may try and do is keep its apostolic language and terminology whilst subtly changing the dynamic.

---

quote:

---

How would you characterise the various 'morphed' forms of Restorationism? If I didn't know what I was looking for, how would I identify it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If one takes away the underlying authority structure, is there a dynamic that could enable restorationism to continue as a distinct movement? What might it be? How might restorationism be, um, renewed?

---

I rather suspect that like a lot of other movements Restorationism as a distinct subgroup is likely to be largely generational.

One of the problems that beset movements which make a huge virtue out of informality is that they tend not to have too much institutional memory (which is in short supply these days anyway).

So 'long term future' is likely to mean the next ten to fifteen years, by which time I expect a small rump of hard core restorationists, a bunch of generic charismatics, and a bunch of health and wealth types.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Chris, I think we won't have to wait 15 years. The situation you describe with a rump of hardcore restorationists, a bunch of general charismatic renewalists from a restorationist background and a bunch of health-and-wealthers is here and NOW.

That is EXACTLY what has happened to what was Harvestime/Covenant Ministries.

I'd give it less than five years before New Frontiers goes a similar way - although they're likely to have slightly different subdivisions ... a rump of hardcore restorationists, a rump of general independent charismatics (some with Bethel tendencies) and a rump of others who seek to recapture elements of the more Reformed strand of their spiritual DNA - rather like Sovereign Grace in the US before its recent leadership issues.

As for the social class thing - well Harvestime/Covenant Ministries always had more working class elements than the 'southern' strands of restorationism - hence it played well in Yorkshire and in South Wales. A good friend from my northern days observed that one of the problems the set-up had was precisely because it fused a South Walian rugby-field PE ethos with a stubborn Yorkshire sensibility. A toxic mix ...

That didn't mean that it didn't attract a smattering of Bash camp types. It most certainly did. Particularly the progeny of missionaries who'd sent their offspring back for a private English education. At its best, this could provide an interesting social mix ...

On the whole, though, it was largely lower middle class with a layer of professional people on top ... literally in some cases.

The worship and the oomph struck a chord with students though, so there was an increasing number of graduates around - although there was a certain amount of prejudice against arts and humanities graduates.

In terms of the people we picked up from scratch, as it were - the new converts rather than the transfers - these were often either students or people new to the area and looking for some kind of community or else fairly vulnerable people of one kind or other. We did pick up some suburbanite and established families ... but not very many. Like the Pentecostals, we tended to do well on council estates, although the attrition rate was very high. As time went on, I'd suggest that some Harvestime/Covenant Ministries churches became more working class in tone ... many of the better heeled or 'better' educated tended to move on after a while.

@Mark Wuntoo - I'm certainly not dissing doctors, nurses or engineers nor discounting the form of university education they received in favour of the kind experienced by poets and philosophers. I was just making a general observation ... poets and philosophers don't generally get things done, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers - and care assistants of course - generally do. If you're in a setting which values spiritual entrepreneurship (within certain limits - as in Barnabus's 'compulsory' anecdote) then greater credence and value is going to go to those who get up and 'do'.

I did fit in to some extent. I've got a big gob on me and so, after a while, was up for testifying and prophesying (although this wasn't 'thus saith the Lord' but more a form of exhortation with some spiritual analogies or piquant/pertinent scriptural verses or illustrations) praying extemporaneously and generally displaying some 'hwyl' - as we'd call it in South Wales.

I was also seen as a 'man of the Word' and scriptural knowledge was valued highly - except when it led you to question what was going on ( ).
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the social class thing - well Harvestime/Covenant Ministries always had more working class elements than the 'southern' strands of restorationism - hence it played well in Yorkshire and in South Wales. A good friend from my northern days observed that one of the problems the set-up had was precisely because it fused a South Walian rugby-field PE ethos with a stubborn Yorkshire sensibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, my guess would be that the social make-up of current NFI leaders wouldn't be that of HTB/New Wine type Anglicans and Baptists at the Mainstream end of things. Is Mainstream still going?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I was also seen as a 'man of the Word' and scriptural knowledge was valued highly - except when it led you to question what was going on ( ).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, my guess would be that the social make-up of current NFI leaders wouldn't be that of HTB/New Wine type Anglicans and Baptists at the Mainstream end of things. Is Mainstream still going?

---

Yes but it's morphed.

---

quote:

---

I'm certainly not dissing doctors, nurses or engineers nor discounting the form of university education they received in favour of the kind experienced by poets and philosophers. I was just making a general observation ... poets and philosophers don't generally get things done, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers - and care assistants of course - generally do. If you're in a setting which values spiritual entrepreneurship (within certain limits - as in Barnabus's 'compulsory' anecdote) then greater credence and value is going to go to those who get up and 'do'.

---

I certainly did not intend to suggest that you were. Just my observation that, by and large, the new churches I researched (visited about 50 different, some over a long period) were white, middle-class, and heterosexual and their leaders were middle-aged and male, too. (You know the stereotype: white, middle-class, middle-aged, heterosexual males).)

I was interested that Harvestime was more working class in the north (my illustration was taken from the north!).

Is it any different today? And I realise this is no different to the majority of churches.

Ah, Eutychus, 'there's a river' - just as I was getting out of contact it was the song going the rounds - so catchy, the latest fad at that time.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, the restorationists would see Fresh Streams as simply catching up with them, of course ...

In terms of how restorationist churches are made-up socially now ... that's difficult to assess, Mark Wuntoo. Anecdotally, the particular congregation I belonged to in a northern city now seems largely made up of students, asylum seekers and economic migrants of one form or other all held together (insofar as it does) by a core of original personnel who have stuck with it (and all respect to them for doing so) through thick and thin.

Numbers are way, way down on what they used to be. I remember when it peaked at around 400 (before the first of several splits). Now, from what I'm told, there are no more than about 40 regular adults plus kids and occasional visitors.

@Barnabas, well yes ... the whole apostle thing, though, was meant to stem the fissiparity and draw things together - 'until we all attain the unity of the faith' - Ephesians 4:13.

Of course, it didn't do that any more effectively than anything else. Arguably, it was even more divisive ...

@Mark Wuntoo. I'm intrigued as to which churches you looked at and which one had the poor people in it ... PM me ... I'd be interested.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Barnabas, well yes ... the whole apostle thing, though, was meant to stem the fissiparity and draw things together - 'until we all attain the unity of the faith' - Ephesians 4:13.

Of course, it didn't do that any more effectively than anything else. Arguably, it was even more divisive ...

---

quote:

---

Ephesians 4:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

---

quote:

---

"There is a toughness about this style of leadership that is unlikely to be distracted by opposition. The disadvantage is that this style of leadership can leave some individuals hurt and marginalised for what is seen by the leadership as the overall benefit to the organisation."

[Source: Francis, Leslie J., Gubb, Sean and Robbins, Mandy (2009). "Psychological type profile of Lead Elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom", Journal of Beliefs & Values]

---

 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
What an excellent quote. I wonder who could have dug it up and added it to the Wikipedia article?

[ 10. January 2012, 11:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ho ho ...

Yes, Barnabas. I think thee and me are on similar pages most of the time ...

Darn it! There's some irritating unity creeping in here ... better do something non-conformist to hack Barnabas off ...


 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Gamaliel - I would if I could (it's in my computer ready) but YOUR MAILBOX IS FULL, I am told!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"There is a toughness about this style of leadership that is unlikely to be distracted by opposition. The disadvantage is that this style of leadership can leave some individuals hurt and marginalised for what is seen by the leadership as the overall benefit to the organisation."

[Source: Francis, Leslie J., Gubb, Sean and Robbins, Mandy (2009). "Psychological type profile of Lead Elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom", Journal of Beliefs & Values]

---

quote:

---

For what it's worth, some early leaders dropped out of Restorationism as it developed - were they people of a different "type" I wonder? If so, it was to the movement's loss.

---

Couldn't agree more. But, as I'm sure you realise, the number of groups that will welcome diversity in this way are few and far between.

I do think the personality issue is so important and wish I knew more and could do some detailed research.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To what extent has "ecclesiology" been formatted - however unwittingly - to justify the modus operandi of leadership as performed by certain personality types?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Darn it! There's some irritating unity creeping in here ... better do something non-conformist to hack Barnabas off ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ouch. It used to be online for free!

---

Which I now see I made the most of at the time. PM me with an e-mail address if you're interested!
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I was also seen as a 'man of the Word' and scriptural knowledge was valued highly - except when it led you to question what was going on ( ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You, too? Might have guessed! My life teaches me that such "man of the Word" flattery is best avoided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
My wife and I know of several people damaged by NF. There are likely many across the country. It does seem to attract dominating white male leaders who think servant leadership is about them leading and you serving.

My wife and I were watching Father Ted re-runs and both identified the same leader in NF as a likely candidate for a 'kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse' photo dare !

Perhaps its just as well I left when I did ...

---

Your point about NF leaders being white and male is a valid one, a concern I share too.

I also know people who have left NF under less than happy circumstances but don't agree this is any less or any more than in other church circles.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry ... the PM box is clear now, Mark Wuntoo.

I'm still trying to think of a way to hack Barnabas off. He's so nice. It's soooooo tempting ...

Now, what kind of personality type is that?


 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Now, what kind of personality type is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Now, what kind of personality type is that?

---

Nonconforming nonconformist. Or in Myers Briggs snake-oil speak, EPNS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Now, what kind of personality type is that?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonconforming nonconformist. Or in Myers Briggs snake-oil speak, EPNS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't that make you a conformist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see the specifics of the restorationist 'vision' to be very much in evidence these days, but I do see echoes of it - generally in anything that's over-egged (sorry Eutychus ) or more full of a sense of its own significance than it ought ...

I've often felt that convert Orthodoxy (as opposed to cradle Orthodoxy) is a form of parallel universe restorationism in reverse ...

@Tomsk ... it's too early to say whether there's been any major restoration of charismatic gifts, healings and all? Really? These things have been allegedly going on for over a century now - how much longer do we need before forming an opinion?

My own? These things can happen.

Are they happening more regularly than heretofore?

I doubt it.

But their exponents claim they are and they often aren't in the best position to judge for reasons I've outlined in the 'discernment' thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich Clifford:
but traditions should not be re-examined and if need be discarded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What an excellent quote. I wonder who could have dug it up and added it to the Wikipedia article?

---

Just saw this: you're lucky it's still there! My addition to TV's wiki page didn't last long, even though I had a cited a source.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I thought I'd dig a little and see what newfrontiers is about.

New Frontiers Together Website

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

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

Interesting times.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I thought I'd dig a little and see what newfrontiers is about.

New Frontiers Together Website

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

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

Interesting times.

Saul

---

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

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

---

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


[edited quoted long URL]

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

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
NFI website quote:

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
I must be talking about a different NF to Saul and Arminian because I simply don't recognise the extreme fundamentalist attitude they are explaining. Some of your points I would agree are valid (about leadership only being young and male) but IMHO you are greatly exaggerating.

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Really big apologies as I hadn't realised Mrs Tubbs was using my machine last and hadn't logged out.

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

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Agreeing with Polly, and referring back to previous comments, there is a lot to be happy about in NF. Drew's specific challenges are around attitude to scripture, challenges to leadership when theory and practice diverge, and a cavalier attitude towards other churches when it comes to church planting.

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

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

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

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
Agreeing with Polly, and referring back to previous comments, there is a lot to be happy about in NF. Drew's specific challenges are around attitude to scripture, challenges to leadership when theory and practice diverge, and a cavalier attitude towards other churches when it comes to church planting.

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

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

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

---

Ramarius,

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

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

Saul
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
With all due respect to Tubbs, and please correct me if I'm wrong ... but were you actually around on the scene when the restorationists got underway?

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

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

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

And why should they have done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Tubbs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Au contraire.

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

Don't get me started ...
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I suspect another issue is the lack of self-analysis and honest intern debate. Here's a brief exchange between myself and Twangist from another thread.
I referred Twangist to Paul's comment in Romans 15:20, that he hd made it his ambition not to preach the Gospel where a church was already in existence. I made the following point:

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

Twangist's response is:

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
There's no question that when NF plant in town centres it's partly because we want to poach people from other churches. I've heard this taken as a given.

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

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

I am not sure who is around to comment?
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Oops that should have read "church planting methods and not church panting..."
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF

---

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@Saul. Quite happy with straight talking old boy. I'll push back if I'm unconvinced .Your posts help me to think, which is the main reason I come on these discussion boards.

Regards,

R
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

---

quote:

---

or fails to exegete culture correctly (which is simply another form of misreading).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

---

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.

quote:

---

or fails to exegete culture correctly (which is simply another form of misreading).

---

Looking back on my experience, I think that the hard-core restorationist elements were wrapped in a whole raft of other values which I somehow assumed were outworkings of the former.

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Many many parallels - I think you're on the right track with that work.

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

But I could be wrong, of course.

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

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

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - @Polly - sorry, I hadn't realised that the comments were yours rather than Tubbs's.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

---

quote:

---

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

---

This psycho-religio babble speak of the worst kind In my humble opinion of course

Saul the confused Apostle
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Church planting was always a restorationist hot-potato. In the early days no-one had any qualms about it as they felt that the established denominations were dead or dying and that 'God was doing a new thing.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
I posted this as a reply to question on another thread. But it seems relevant.

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

There's never really been anything documented about NF church panting methods especially non NF folk.

---

Dave Strouds book and this website probably fit the bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
[qb]To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

---

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted:

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
To that extent; Restorationism always runs aground because it either misreads human nature

---

Yes, I think it fails to provide for ongoing sinfulness of Christians.

---

This sounds as if you are saying only Restorationist churches suffered this failure in the entire history of the church?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
Like yourself I've read TV's books and heard his sermons and nowhere does he state that Christians can attain "sinless perfection".

---

quote:

---

We must line up our thinking correctly and eagerly adopt our new relationship with sin, namely, dead to it. (...) to call myself essentially a sinner actually dishonours the wonder of the gospel. We won the battle! [note the tense] We triumphed! It was a victory!... Sadly, [I sin] in this age of conflict with the world, the flesh and the devil

---

quote:

---

"If only I could stop that," you say. God replies "you can. Stop it!" "But I'm only human," you protest. "Well," says God, "if you're "only human" you must be born again. If you're born-again you're not "only human". You have the divine nature and can live victoriously from it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
I couldn't disagree more that TV thinks Christians can attain "sinless perfection".

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I posted this as a reply to question on another thread. But it seems relevant.

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested in hearing what the smallest town is to have a New Frontiers church ... I'd guess they tend to concentrate on towns of about 15,000 - 20,000 upwards.

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Newfrontiers USA is planting churches in the 100 largest cities in the nation, and is now working in fifteen states in four main regions: the Midwest, the Northwest, the Northeast and the Southeast.

---

quote:

---

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

(...)

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The emphasis on social action is, I think, more of a response to challenges from other churches than adopting a business worldview. I think this is the other way around - business being influenced by faith groups.

---

You could well be right there. But I'm sure corporations aren't doing it without a smidgen of self-interest, which has to make you wonder about the people whose examples they're following... ("we need your prison ministry", remember?).

But to qualify, as Gamaliel says, good folks and good hearts were not absent either. I was there for Simon Pettit's "Remember the poor" message at Brighton (in fact I think I was interpreting for the French crew), was affected by it, also had the opportunity to visit Simon and Lindsey in Cape Town, and generally felt he really meant it. But of course he's gone now.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Ah - Eutychus, I cross posted

@Mark Wuntoo - on Groundlevel. The network is just that - a network - rather than the more formalised relationships of say Newfrontiers. Its relationship to restorationism is that Stuart Bell is on the round table of new church leaders including people from NF, Pioneer, Ichthus and others. The relationship with denominations is positively supportive - you'll find Stuart is one of the people who endorses Fresh Expressions training .

Make of that what you will
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
The emphasis on social action is, I think, more of a response to challenges from other churches than adopting a business worldview. I think this is the other way around - business being influenced by faith groups.

---

You could well be right there. But I'm sure corporations aren't doing it without a smidgen of self-interest, which has to make you wonder about the people whose examples they're following... ("we need your prison ministry", remember?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
CSo I'm with Eutychus on some of the specifics (I've seen it too). Having said that, Twangist, I endorse your general point that the church is bound to adopt some of the practices of the culture in which it lives. Scripture knows no sacred/secular divide. The divide is between what's holy and unholy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Both church and business practices are likely to reflect the values of wider culture. Importing a brand new practice into the church is ripe for importing in a bunch of unspoken assumptions though, and the church should at least partly be about challenging the assumptions of culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It just wasn't good enough. It just wasn't grand enough. It just wasn't over-cooked enough.
...
It's certainly the case that the restorationists did grow for a while and did bring previously unchurched people into the Kingdom, although in nowhere near as large numbers as was actually claimed. Most of the growth was transfer growth but there were genuine converts in and amongst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My denomination is called "The New Church" so I keep thinking this thread is something it's not. We have nothing to do with restorationsim,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My denomination is called "The New Church" so I keep thinking this thread is something it's not. We have nothing to do with restorationsim,

---

May I ask, why The New Church as opposed to a new church??

It does rather suggest that your church is the only new church - and even that it has replaced the old ones.

---

Naughty, naughty!

You mean like THE Methodist Church, THE Roman Catholic Church, THE Anglican Church?



 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My denomination is called "The New Church" so I keep thinking this thread is something it's not. We have nothing to do with restorationsim,

---

May I ask, why The New Church as opposed to a new church??

It does rather suggest that your church is the only new church - and even that it has replaced the old ones.

---

Naughty, naughty!

You mean like THE Methodist Church, THE Roman Catholic Church, THE Anglican Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Hmm. One might similarly argue that there is only one army through which salvation may be procured...

---

No, we mightn't. we might call ourselves an army but we are part of the church that already exists. we are not a new Church
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
*sigh* I think you are nit-picking with regard to names.

Freddy came on here to commment that to him, "New Church" referred to his own denomination, not what UK house churches rebranded themselves as (I was trying to make a distinction in the thread title from US meanings of the term. My attempt at clarification merely resulted in more confusion for him. Wry grins may ensue).

Your objection is that his denomination's name, "The New Church" is exclusivist, in a way that "The Anglican Church" isn't, because "New Church" could be seen as encompassing the whole of the Church and thus dismissing everybody else.

You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...), except that by now this "New Church" is so old that nobody is going to make that mistake, and the same criticism could be applied to your own organisation, which is called The Salvation Army: by your own reasoning, this could by taken to imply that salvation is available only through this army.

Either way, this thread is not about Swedenborgianism, TSA, or why some denomination names are silly, especially old ones viewed with contemporary eyes... This thread is about UK "new church" restorationism theology and what might become of it. Thank you for your cooperation
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
But it might be relevant in that these 'new' or different titles seem to spring from a common attitude: We have something the rest of you don't.'

As I mentioned a while back, there was a 'restorationist' flavour to The Salvation Army in the nineteenth century (that admittedly didn't last long) but the title of our movement wasn't intended to reflect our belioef that God was using us to bring salvation to the world - that's another story, and the title was actually an accident!.

Anyway, my point is this - there is an attitude in The Restoration movement and in any group that has 'restorationist' tendencies, that suggests that

1. They have received a new message from God/Christ that 'the others' have not been given.

2. They have rediscovered a belief / a fervour / a blessing that the 'old' group used to have but has no longer.

3. And most significantly, they believe that God himself is no longer in those old expressions, having left them and having poured all his grace and power into the new expression.


This was said to me by a Salvation Army officer who, having resigned his commission, said 'The Salvation Army is no longer in God's plan for the church.'

This attitude was further illustrated when a friend, training to be a salvation Army officer and posted temporarily in Wales, returned to his casr to find a flyer placed under the windscreen wiper by a local Restorationist church, entitled: '10 reasons Why The Salvation Army is Not of God.'


Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.

---

But here, we are talking about a stricter definition of restorationism under consideration as it existed in the UK in the 70s onwards (see, for instance, here).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you've got a point, Mudfrog.

That said, I don't think that even the most ardent restorationists of my acquaintance (and I was on the scene for 18 years) would have argued that there was insufficient grace left over for the Salvation Army or anyone else. Heck, not even the RCs and the Orthodox who claim the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM title would assert that there is insufficient grace left over for any other grouping, church (small 'c') or 'ecclesial body' (to use an RC expression ).

Mind you, there might be an unintentional irony in the resigning Captain's assertion that 'the Salvation Army was no longer part of God's plan for his Church' insofar as the Salvation Army was never part of The Church(TM) in the first place in RC or Orthodox terms!

But I know what you mean, and I know what you're getting at. There were a number of former Salvationists in the strand of restorationism that I was involved with. Generally, the Salvation Army was regarded with a great deal of respect - I certainly never came across anyone who'd dream of producing a flyer suggesting that they were defunct and should close down. That said, there was an expectation that the legacy/'anointing' of the Salvation Army would be subsumed into the restorationist ambit. The Sally Army, like the Brethren and various 'enthusiastic' and revivalist groupings and movements from the past, were seen as antecedents and trail-blazers and that we were somehow picking up from where they left off ... although why we weren't as engaged in soup-kitchens, rescue missions and so on as the Army was remained a mystery to me ...

That said, we did do soup-runs and so on, but never on the kind of scale that the Salvation Army did.

It was just another instance of the rhetoric running further than the reality ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Any group that believes it alone has a new and unique truth and that God is somehow pouring his favour upon them to the exclusion of others is, in my book, restorationist - capital R or not.

---

But here, we are talking about a stricter definition of restorationism under consideration as it existed in the UK in the 70s onwards (see, for instance, here).

---

quote:

---

What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What were the distinctive features of restorationism (UK 70s-90s new church kind)? Has it been discarded? Or is it alive and well - and possibly living in another part of the ecclesiosphere?

---

quote:

---

any claim to superior interpretation of the NT or recovery of 'NT principles'

---

quote:

---

In the Restoration Movement, it's apostolic authority that has been recovered, alongside the spiritual vitality and Holy Spirit dynamism that, again, is 'missing' from the 'unrestored' churches.

---

Is this your opinion or Restorationism's. I'm not clear. I suspect the latter but stand by for trouble if it is the former.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Mudfrog

quote:

---

In the Restoration Movement, it's apostolic authority that has been recovered, alongside the spiritual vitality and Holy Spirit dynamism that, again, is 'missing' from the 'unrestored' churches.

---

Is this your opinion or Restorationism's. I'm not clear. I suspect the latter but stand by for trouble if it is the former.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Chris Stiles -

There was rather more to it than simply the attempt to restore a 'mythical past.' I can't speak for New Frontiers, but for a while in Harvestime/Covenant Ministries there was this odd idea that we weren't simply going to 'restore' NT power and practice but go BEYOND it.

When we read our New Testaments we saw problems and struggles, people doing naughty things they shouldn't have been doing with close relatives (1 Corinthians), people falling out with each other etc etc.

Surely, the argument then ran, this could not have been God's intention. The NT generation had somehow blown it. God was waiting for a generation that would bring things back on track, that would not only be able to perform the miracles we read about in Acts but would sort out all issues that caused divisions and arguments and produce churches so full of life, purity and vitality that Christ would have no option but to return to claim his wonderful Bride ...

Given that this was so over-realised (and dare I say over-e .....) it's hardly surprising that when it came to issues like individual sanctification then restorationists were prone to overdo things there too ... hence Terry Virgo's dissatisfaction with the traditional Reformed 'take' on these things.

It just wasn't good enough. It just wasn't grand enough. It just wasn't over-cooked enough.

I think that once we appreciate just how over-realised virtually everything the restorationists were about actually was then there ain't a great deal else to say about it.

Ok, it could be the case that the elastic band had to be stretched too far in one direction in order to spring back and assume a shape that was recognisable, but slightly more elongated, than its original form ... but I'm not so sure.

It's certainly the case that the restorationists did grow for a while and did bring previously unchurched people into the Kingdom, although in nowhere near as large numbers as was actually claimed. Most of the growth was transfer growth but there were genuine converts in and amongst.

As Saul says, there was a divine spark there, and I certainly wouldn't write it all off ... but I would observe that we'd probably find the divine spark everywhere and anywhere - at a Trappist retreat, in the Quaker silence, in an RC High Mass or an Orthodox Liturgy, at a Methodist Covenant service and many other places beside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might have a point (leaving aside that "The Church of England" sounds pretty exclusivist to me...)

---

Which it does to this communicant member of same, which is why I try to use the phrase "English Anglican" to refer to myself here.

It's not necessarily arrogance to claim your body is the true or most authentic one going.

After all, if you didn't think it was the best one to join, you wouldn't join it, would you?

---

...reminds me of a conversation I had with a Uni lecturer. I was in a free church, he was high Anglican. He asked me if I thought my 'way was the best way.' An an idealistic 20 something I said I thought it was. "Good" he replied "That's the way it should be". In other words let's both think we're the best. How delightfully eirenic

[ 16. January 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
An RC priest of my acquaintance once observed that the shelf-life of religious orders - the Dominicans, Franciscans etc - could generally be numbered in hundreds of years

---

I think he's unthinkingly being slightly biased in his own favour. We're only conscious of the medieval orders that have survived. They have survived for several hundred years. The others haven't, but we've forgotten about them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you've broadly got the thrust of the thing right, Mudfrog, but as someone who was involved with it for 18 years I think that you've put it more starkly than many of us on the inside would have done ...

Confusing, I know, but there it is ...

On an individual level I maintained a very eirenic stance towards the wider Christian scene, and I wasn't alone in that respect. I probably went further than most, though, as I would hob-nob with RCs and Orthodox (towards the end of my time within restorationism) as well as with evangelicals of every conceivable stripe.

Even David Matthew, the author of 'Church Adrift' would now admit to a moderate stance these days - and even at the time he wrote it he was on good terms with some RC priests of his acquaintance and with various evangelicals across the piece.

I'm still in touch with him occasionally online and whilst he still holds to a recognisably restorationist agenda he'd by no means claim that God has 'finished' with anything that didn't fit that template.

I agree with Eutychus that once you take the apostolic thing away (and what about 'prophets' while we're at it? What kind of role did they play?) then restorationism becomes just another form of charismatic revivalism. And I'd also agree that The Salvation Army, despite some rhetoric that approached the restorationist at times, was never really restorationist in the sense we're talking about here. As Mudfrog says, it would never have sought to become an arm of the CofE at one point otherwise!

I would take issue with the good Major's contention that restorationism would consider the truths, identity, values etc that it claimed to have rediscovered were 'denied to the other groups.' They would say, rather, that these either weren't emphasised or recognised enough. Some of the restorationists were more than willing to consider past heroes - such as Wesley, Whitefield, Hudson Taylor, Watchman Nee etc - as 'apostles' and some would even, at a stretch, have been prepared to apply that to other, contemporary figures who wouldn't have claimed the role/position for themselves.

But as Saul says, it was all very messy and despite some very powerful things I can remember (and still wouldn't write off entirely) for the most part, when I look back, I look back with some considerable bemusement. Although I think I can safely say that some of the whackier things we got up to weren't any more or any less whacky than anything you'd find across the renewal movement as a whole. Andrew Walker made that observation and I'd agree with him.

Sure, the whole thing was flawed but we didn't get into wierd and whacky 'deliverance' sessions or odd views on things like 'inner-healing' and so on.

I'd also take issue with you on your assertion that restorationism claimed separation 'from the catholic Church globally'(which you are asserting here in Protestant terms, of course). No restorationist I ever came across would have claimed separation from the 'catholic' Church (as understood as the sum total of believers worldwide) any more than The Salvation Army would. The Salvation Army claims to be part of the Church Universal in the same way that the restorationists did/still do.

Other than that, you're broadly on the money.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.

I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).

[ 16. January 2012, 16:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
How do you know he wasn't patronising you, Ramarius?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think we can all find examples of that kind of tendency, Eutychus, but I would agree that it tends to be more pronounced among restorationists than others - and it's part and parcel of the ecclesiology.

With the odd caveat, I go along with the broad thrust of Mudfrog's argument as it's axiomatic that the more moderate you are or the looser you hold to a restorationist ecclesiology the more likely you are to abandon it.

I've always been struck by how many former restorationists end up in post-church highly perfectionist groups (and there are plenty lurking in cyberspace) which don't really ally themselves to anyone but seem to huddle among themselves denouncing each and every church you can think of for worldliness and compromise.

At one time there were unofficial, ex-restorationist groups all over the place, often meeting for informal prayer meetings in one another's houses and spending their time talking about what might have been and where it all went wrong.

Some found their way back into the various denominations - there are plenty of ex-restorationists among the Baptists, for instance. The late Baptist renewalist Douglas McBain identified the Baptists as an obvious 're-entry point' for disaffected restorationists.

That there are still restorationists around at all suggests to me that they have either:

- Learned to modify/re-evaluate to a certain extent.
- Become entrenched and closed their minds even further.

But that might be a bit stark. There are probably shades between the two positions.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How do you know he wasn't patronising you, Ramarius?

---

...because he patronised me on a stack of other issues (not least that he taught history and I was srudying theology) and I got to know the difference.

 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.

I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).

---

Indeed. I remember TV, at a certain large gathering for prayer, telling us about a conversation he had had with the same Rev G. "I told him he was doing a great job" (some grunts of approval). "He told me he thought we were doing a great job too" (some hoots of derisive laughter. As if a mere Anglican could venture an opinion on New Frontiers. I was not impressed.....).

Quite why TV was pally with Rev G is another story for another thread.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I could suggest a few reasons, Ramarius ...

- He genuinely liked and respected Gumbel.
- He had an eye to the main chance and wanted to nobble/adopt or adapt the Alpha franchise for his own chain of outlets.

A combination of the two ...



Actually, and seriously, I don't see why it should be odd for people with different ecclesiologies to be pals. It happens all the time.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I could suggest a few reasons, Ramarius ...

- He genuinely liked and respected Gumbel.
- He had an eye to the main chance and wanted to nobble/adopt or adapt the Alpha franchise for his own chain of outlets.

A combination of the two ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
[in response to Ramarius] I still think that one's ecclesiology affects the degree to which one can be truly eirenic. And one of my beefs with restorationism is that it gives the appearance of being eirenic, but can't be without breaking its ecclesiology.

I was once sitting in the second row of a restorationists' leaders' conference (you can guess where...) at which Nicky Gumbel had just given a talk plugging Alpha. How eirenic you might think. Amid the applause as he left the stage, I overheard the conference host, sitting immediately in front of me, say to his neighbour "it's such a shame he gets them all to go to Anglican churches..." (I can't remember the exact words but that was most definitely the sentiment).

---

Most churches that put on an Alpha, especially if run by professional clergy, hope Alpha converts will come to their church - it's human nature I guess.

The restorationist gig is all mainly about the primacy or singularity of their particular gig. This means that there is an inbuilt superiority and this is (IMHO) why the whole rotten edifice has by and large crumbled.

A lot of it appeared to be about strong willed (often working class and uneducated) men who were so far from a servant heart that they shared more with US hard sell guru techniques. Similar to Gamaliel it would be churlish to suggest that there was no divine aspect to these pyramid style churches. But they had an inbuilt self destruct mechanism within and I thank God they've declined and pretty much dissapeared from the scene.

Saul

[ 17. January 2012, 06:06: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@ Ramarius

You wrote: 'All true Gamaliel. And there was something else. But that's for another time.'

I'm intrigued. Don't tell me ... they were having an affair?

We've all got our preferences and foibles, but I submit that it shows how narrow the whole thing is if it can only pick up on the Gumboid aspects of Anglicanism when there is rather a lot more to the Anglican tradition than that. Sure, one doesn't expect them to invite someone from Mirfield onto the platform nor Don Cupitt to address one of their conventions, but even so ...
 

---

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
@Eutychus

For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.

Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.

I have reflected upon this time quite a lot and although being amongst it was fun and it encouraged passion for the faith and stirred hearts it was ultimately unhelpful.

Some peoples faith became built on this hope and then when it didn't happen became disillusioned.

Another issue for me was that in Restorationism (a feature in the 70's and 80's particularly) life issues were black and white. I think this one was true in most evangelical circles and not distinctive to Restorationism though.

In hindsight the new church movement wasn't that new, stylistically yes, but its theology and grasp of life was no different from church attitudes of old.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
I’ve been following this thread with interest, and (like venbede) with appreciation of the civil manner of the discussion.

One point that struck me as a distinctive feature of restorationism was the belief, noted by Gamaliel near the top of this page:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
and produce churches so full of life, purity and vitality that Christ would have no option but to return to claim his wonderful Bride ...

---

This belief sets off all the warning lights on my ‘Dodgy theology detector’ (TM). If it doesn’t take the thread off on too much of a tangent, where did this belief come from? The idea seems pretty dubious to me that mere humans could influence the sovereign decision of God the Father on the timing of Jesus’s return to earth in manifest glory.

If this belief was a major motivation for the creation of the restorationist movement, then the entire movement seems to me to have been built on sand. If, as has been discussed, the restorationist movement continues in one form or another, does this belief continue also, in spite of evidence that it, er, shall we say, ‘awaits validation’?

Angus
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
A.Pilgrim: I can't find that reference but it sounds typical new church rhetoric to me.
Many of us here will remember the outrageous Gerald Coates! (And enjoyed listening to (being entertained by) him on occasions.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.

Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@ Ramarius

You wrote: 'All true Gamaliel. And there was something else. But that's for another time.'

I'm intrigued. Don't tell me ... they were having an affair?
..

---

Youz a na'ty na'ty Welshman Gamaliel!

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A.Pilgrim

Well, the proof-text for that one was 1 Peter 3:12

'as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.'

This was taken to mean that our actions hear on earth could hasten the return of Christ.

We tied it in with Ephesians 4:13 which we held to be a future event that we could also hasten, 'until we all reach unity in the faith ... attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.'

We also put a lot of stress on Revelation 21:2 which speaks of the new Jerusalem 'prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.'

So we could get ourselves ready by sufficient sanctity and power to hasten the return of Christ - although we wouldn't have dared put a date on it. Some of the leading guys, at least for a time, used to claim that it would happen in their life-times but they weren't dogmatic about that.

What it all displays, of course, is an over-realised eschatology and an over-realised approach in everything you might care to mention.

@Polly - yes, in terms of the style and delivery it could be new and fresh ... but looking back, not as innovative as we liked to claim. I remember reading Arthur Wallis's 'The Radical Christian' with some disappointment as I wanted it to set forth some kind of radical, Anabaptist style social agenda. I was a bit of a leftie and into things like 'Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger' ... but was disappointed to find less emphasis on this and more on what I even thought of at the time as a somewhat quirky take on what the NT church was supposed to have been like and how we were somehow going to restore its faith and power and go beyond its achievements.

How Wallis imagined the first-century church in Corinth or Ephesus was a kind of Bradford (or Clarendon) church in togas.

There was a social dimension and Bryn and the boys were quite outspoken about apartheid etc on their visits to South Africa when many Pentecostals and charismatics were either quiescent or supportive of the regime. However, as I've said either upthread or elsewhere, the social aspect was only surprising in the context of pietistic Pentecostalism and Brethrenism. The same things were being said and preached work by week in Methodist, Baptist and URC churches without anyone batting an eye-lid.

Context is all.

Restorationism had its own internal logic that sort of made sense on its own terms. But then, so does Calvinism and any other 'ism' we could mention.

@ Polly too ... the revivalism thing kicked in more fully in the 1990s and some of the older school restorationists later felt that this had taken the edge of things, subsumed the movement into wider revivalist charismaticdom and removing the 'prophetic edge.'

In the end, the revivalist imperative proved stronger (I would suggest) than the restorationist one. I would agree that its effects were transitory.

Interestingly, whereas Watchman Nee was seen as an inspirational figure and an antecedent to some extent of a restorationist approach, for some reason everyone over looked his very telling account of a similar revivalist season in the Shanghai of the 1930s (or thereabouts).

I can look up the direct quote if you like, but Nee said something along the lines that much had actually been 'lost' rather than gained during this period of revivalist excitement.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the proof-text for that one was 1 Peter 3:12

'as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
For me the 1990's in Restorationism included a lot about revival. We had it in our hymns, preaching and loads of books and prayer meetings heavily focussed on this issue.

Revival was coming and we needed to prepare ourselves or so we were told.

---

Though this was a characteristic - in various forms - of all charismatic movements from the Charismatic Renewal onwards. The idea was always that revival was just around the corner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...
Some of the leading guys, at least for a time, used to claim that it would happen in their life-times but they weren't dogmatic about that.

What it all displays, of course, is an over-realised eschatology and an over-realised approach in everything you might care to mention.
...

---

Yes, I guess that if the leaders of a movement over-egg their over-realised eggschatology, and it fails to happen, then they’re liable to be left with egg on their faces...

(OK, I’ll get my coat.....)
Angus
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I meant 2 Peter ...

I don't think that verse was taken in isolation, in fairness there were attempts to build a cohesive restorationist theology rather than relying on isolated proof-texts but it always struck me as odd that no 'recognised' theologian with a wider remit had picked up on any of this. We had a downer on academic theologians of course - and even when Andrew Walker came around doing his research there were rumblings that because this guy was Russian Orthodox he 'might not even be born again.'

When we heard he had a Pentecostal background this sort of made it ok, although we couldn't understand why he'd ended up where he did.

Some of us did wonder why serious evangelical theologians respected across the spectrum hadn't picked up on the restorationist thing. I'm not really sure what we thought ... that they'd come round to it in time?

Looking back, I think that some of us were hoping for the best and waiting to see how it'd all pan out. The more committedly restorationist you were you either ended up in denial or else ditching the whole thing entirely.

And yes, we all ended up with egg on our faces.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :