Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Tony Anthony Complete EA Investigation and Report

Thread: Purgatory: Tony Anthony Complete EA Investigation and Report Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001323

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Is now online for your perusal and discussion if you are interested.

http://docdro.id/KALs35J

[ 05. December 2016, 00:50: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

What is there to discuss? I can't make head-nor-tail of this without context.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Here is the context.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Sorry I should have posted some context ^^thanks.

Given that TA is still an evangelist and still peddling the same 3 times world champion bodyguard yarn has the christian community done enough to dissuade and deal with this kind of behaviour?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

I thought they hadn't got permission to release that?

To answer the question in the OP. Probably not. It's hard for some Christians to accept that there are people who are just in it for the money, the power etc. And when they are caught, some who believe that it shouldn't be reported as it makes us all look bad. Other varients to this include forgiving them whole heartedly because Christ forgave us; not taking legal action because suing a brother or sister in Christ is not on etc.

Tubbs

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

From memory the solicitors of Avanti prevented the EA from releasing it.

Avanti no longer exist.

The report has leaked.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Would agree with what Tubbs said above. I think there is a general tendancy to trust people within an in group - which has wider implications when considering extended faith communities in which trust is often granted on the basis of easily faked behaviours (assuming a certain language, for example)

Then again someone living a series of falsehoods has their own coping mechanisms, from various forms of justification all the way up to believing parts of their own fabricated story (and they don't necessarily have some form of illness in order to do so).

And then there is outright fakery of the sort that the first tendancy allows.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Would agree with what Tubbs said above. I think there is a general tendancy to trust people within an in group - which has wider implications when considering extended faith communities in which trust is often granted on the basis of easily faked behaviours (assuming a certain language, for example)

Then again someone living a series of falsehoods has their own coping mechanisms, from various forms of justification all the way up to believing parts of their own fabricated story (and they don't necessarily have some form of illness in order to do so).

And then there is outright fakery of the sort that the first tendancy allows.

Then there's the tendency to dismiss out of hand hard evidence of wrong doing because the individual has a "mighty ministry" that might damaged by such small inconviences as being prosecuted or having attention drawn to it. (See here for another example).

I lost count of the number of posts I saw on social media that it was a shame that the Christian press was reporting this because of the potential negative impact on persecuted Christians. When this came up at our place, we just quietly suggested that if people wanted to help, they donated their money to similar causes.

Tubbs

[ 02. August 2016, 14:29: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I posted this on the Ship back in 2013:

Some years ago a group of church leaders from Our Town - myself included - went to meet Tony Anthony in his office. I had never heard of the guy and was decidedly suspicious (for the same reasons as ExclamationMark - i.e. a distrust of "Christian celebrity"). Everyone else came out of the meeting raving about him and saying, "We must get him to do a mission here" - which he did.

I am not claiming any "gift of discernment" but I just didn't like the guy! There was some sort of apparent over-confidence about him which immediately turned me off him. That isn't to say I thought he was a rogue - I didn't. But I was not at all convinced by his story and I felt that there was some kind of innate aggression about him which I found disquieting.

All very subjective impressions, I know; and little more than a mismatch of personality types. I am sad to discover that my "hunches" were actually based on something more substantial.

Looking at the report I can now see that the leadership of the Baptist Church attended by Tony had become very concerned about him and did all they could to find out the truth, however Tony was highly defensive and confrontational. (The Minister at the church is someone that I know and respect). The report itself is also remarkably generous in suggesting that Tony may have been genuinely deluded when talking about his childhood.

[ 02. August 2016, 12:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

You certainly were not alone.
In the report their is the transcript of the interview the EA did with the Prison Chaplain who was working at HMP Bullingdon during TA's stay there.

His first impression was that TA was a con man and he went on to comment that he never attended church or asked for a bible whilst in prison.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hosts and Admin are watching this thread very closely because of the legal risks to the Ship. We appreciate there is now information in the public domain and scope for fair comment but that can slide into libel, or the risk of the Ship being accused of allowing libellous utterances. We don't have the funds to fight off such accusations. The risks are being discussed at the present time.

So meanwhile have a care please. We may have to delete this thread.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
See here for another example.

I found that horrifying. And as you say some of the lines of defence elsewhere on the internet are equally horrifying where they focus on the way the victim dressed and refer to "Jezebel". I'm shocked that for such a high profile organisation there hasn't been more discussion and reporting of this in Christian circles. This is the Evangelical version of Kid's Company with the exception that we seem to be back to business as usual rather than a select committee.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I found that horrifying. And as you say some of the lines of defence elsewhere on the internet are equally horrifying where they focus on the way the victim dressed and refer to "Jezebel". I'm shocked that for such a high profile organisation there hasn't been more discussion and reporting of this in Christian circles. This is the Evangelical version of Kid's Company with the exception that we seem to be back to business as usual rather than a select committee.

Probably worth putting the official Barnabus Fund response here too.
"Hard Pressed on Every Side" pdf from January 2016

I'm out of words for the Barnabus Fund and their erstwhile founder.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I met Patrick 2005+ and subscribed to Barnabas. I wish I hadn't. I was party to unbelievably disturbing accounts, not of impropriety. That itself and the premiss of Open Doors and all the others I suspect are weak. Even if Patrick is pure as the driven, the 'ministry' is dark.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I found that horrifying. And as you say some of the lines of defence elsewhere on the internet are equally horrifying where they focus on the way the victim dressed and refer to "Jezebel". I'm shocked that for such a high profile organisation there hasn't been more discussion and reporting of this in Christian circles. This is the Evangelical version of Kid's Company with the exception that we seem to be back to business as usual rather than a select committee.
Probably worth putting the official Barnabus Fund response here too.
"Hard Pressed on Every Side" pdf from January 2016

I'm out of words for the Barnabus Fund and their erstwhile founder.

Wow ... Just wow ... [Eek!]

It's amazing the way they just explain it all away. It is possible for someone to be mightily gifted in one area and completed flawed in others. And for those flaws to mean that they shouldn't be allowed in positions of trust.

Tubbs

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's amazing the way they just explain it all away.

I was particularly amazed by the way they handwave the sexual touching case by saying that according to the Bible there weren't enough witnesses for the accusation to be made.

Note that that's not a denial that the touching happened.

One can only conclude that their "Christian" morality basically boils down to "if no-one sees you do it, it's fine". [Disappointed]

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

I was listening to a podcast earlier and they were talking about a guy that made a documentary about an "end of the world cult" who were going to some place at some time to wait for a mothership to collect them when the world blew up.
The documentary was more the study of what happened afterwards , how they behaved when the world didnt explode and the mothership never arrived.
To his surprise instead of rejecting what they had been taught they doubled down and started to reject the facts and create more theories to explain what happened and started to be even more active to recruit more people into their cult.

When I look at TA's new ministry and the people who have backed it and the story behind their original encounters with TA I see a very similar mentality.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hosts and Admin are watching this thread very closely because of the legal risks to the Ship. We appreciate there is now information in the public domain and scope for fair comment but that can slide into libel, or the risk of the Ship being accused of allowing libellous utterances. We don't have the funds to fight off such accusations. The risks are being discussed at the present time.

So meanwhile have a care please. We may have to delete this thread.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Just some advise from somebody who has dealt with many legal threats and con men .

You are absolutely right to protect this site by deleting this thread if a legal threat is made or if it is considered that one may come.
But I will say that posting this warning was a bad idea because if TA is reading this he will now know that a simple email threatening to sue will result in this thread being deleted.

I know that TA will NEVER take anybody to court because that would basically involve him paying for the privilege of getting his arse handed to him in court and made to look even worse than he does already.
He would be forcing the person he sues to demonstrate:
1)What was said was fair comment given the information available to the public
2)What was said was true
3)What was said was done so in the interest of the public.

That would be extremely easy and he knows it and so does whoever he pays for legal advise.

I am still amazed that the EA did not rebuff his threats but generally speaking they appeared lacking the testicular fortitude at several junctures in this episode so it was hardly surprising I guess. (I can substantiate that with a number of items of correspondence and write it because I believe it is in the interests of the people on this site reading it who make likely encounter the EA or people working with them )

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
Instead of rejecting what they had been taught they doubled down and started to reject the facts and create more theories to explain what happened and started to be even more active to recruit more people into their cult.

But this always happens. It happened in the Seventh Day Adventists when Christ's Return failed to materialise in 1844 and 1845. And it happened with many of the Charismatic "prophets" of the 1980s. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened to the C19 Catholic Apostolics as well - and in many other groups.

Dare one say that one even sees a hint of it in the New Testament where Peter explains away the apparent tardiness of Jesus' return by saying that God operates outside our human timescale?

(Of course, I'm purely speaking theologically here: I'm not suggesting any moral decline or failure in any of these groups. But I'm sure there have been many discredited Christian leaders whose followers refused to accept, or explained away, solid evidence against them. It's what happens when you've invested a lot of time and money into them).

[ 03. August 2016, 15:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's amazing the way they just explain it all away.
I was particularly amazed by the way they handwave the sexual touching case by saying that according to the Bible there weren't enough witnesses for the accusation to be made.

Note that that's not a denial that the touching happened.

One can only conclude that their "Christian" morality basically boils down to "if no-one sees you do it, it's fine".

Far king hail. There was clearly enough evidence for a jury to convict him. Result: he's now a convicted sex offender - fact - so why the actual fuck is the Barnabas Trust seeking to defend him. 'Allegations' my arse!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Probably worth putting the official Barnabus Fund response here too.
"Hard Pressed on Every Side" pdf from January 2016

Our church once sent a donation to the Fund (I wish we hadn't now). As a result we kept on receiving their magazines and were sent a copy of this document. I read it at the time without having any idea what it was about, so had to do quite a bit of internet digging to find a wider context.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PDA

A note for the future. Hostly posts can be questioned in the Styx but not in the thread where they are made.

You can take it that I saw the possible downside of my post. Feel free to take any further discussion about the Ship's policy re potential libel to the Styx.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ETA. For all Shipmates. Recognising the potential for confusion over my Ship's name, I can confirm that I have never had anything to do with the Barnabas Fund.]

[ 03. August 2016, 15:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Quite genuinely, the thought never entered my head! Nor, I suspect, the heads of other Shippies.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This man is the genuine article.

I've been present at his testimony twice, got the book, read it in one sitting.

And no, I don't believe the claims for a moment, I believe THE MAN.

[ 03. August 2016, 16:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy:
Probably worth putting the official Barnabus Fund response here too.

"Hard Pressed on Every Side" pdf from January 2016

I'm out of words for the Barnabus Fund and their erstwhile founder.

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wow ... Just wow ...

It's amazing the way they just explain it all away. It is possible for someone to be mightily gifted in one area and completed flawed in others. And for those flaws to mean that they shouldn't be allowed in positions of trust.

It opens with a screed of various character assassinations before it even attempts to point out what the case is about. Notice that the trustees include Sookdheo's wife. The document reads as the most dreadful unclear ranting, without any real attempt to clarify or set facts out in a balanced way. Even without the other documentation, just reading this I would conclude that I was dealing with a toxic organization that was intent on self-justification at any cost.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This man is the genuine article.

I've been present at his testimony twice, got the book, read it in one sitting.

And no, I don't believe the claims for a moment, I believe THE MAN.

I dont know much about this fella other than watching the first few minutes of that video but I can say this .
He looks and sounds legit.
I know allot of people still doing what he claims to have done and he looks and sounds like them.
There are others like John Lawson for example who do not.
That is not to say he is not 100% legit he was certainly a door man but I dont know about the rest and at this moment in time am not interested but its just that he doesnt look or sound like somebody who has lived that life from my experience.
From what I have seen first hand from people who have lived that life and converted is that God does not remove who you are he removes who you were not.
This leaves allot of characteristics intact and those people still have the same presence and swagger for want of a better term but now their heart shines through a rough exterior.
Thats one of the reasons why guys like TA get ridiculed heavily from people within the industries he claimed to be a part of because he is not that kind of guy and does not have that about him in the slightest.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

One of the reasons I totally believe IN Swanny is that we have a mutual friend who knew him professionally for years who would knock him down on his arse just to say hello and start a friendly conversation.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Wait...there's an evangelical alliance?

Oh you crazy UK people trying to herd cats.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think that boat sails as soon as you mention the word "church".

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
One of the reasons I totally believe IN Swanny is that we have a mutual friend who knew him professionally for years who would knock him down on his arse just to say hello and start a friendly conversation.

Based on a quick look on Amazon I'd agree. Rooted in a local community, involved in a church with apparent accountability and claims that could be varied from other sources if you felt the need. Plus, endorsements from reputable sources.

(I'm a researcher, I look for this stuff and consider it to be important)

Tubbs

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

This is all so familiar. About ten years ago the anglican church I was involved in at the time invited an Indian evangelist, one of a number who describe themselves as 'the Billy Graham of India', to speak. I was given copies of his 'millions selling' book and urged to hand them out amongst the congregation, which I did.

I then sat down to read the great man's 'fantastic testimony'. It certainly was fantastic in the sense of being obvious self serving fantasy. More worrying was the 'orphanage' he ran, the most superficial enquiry about which raised a number of concerns about the treatment of children and potentially child trafficking.

I tried to raise concerns with the Church leadership but no matter what information I put forward about obvious lies, confirmed by his own mutually conflicting accounts, it was dismissed. I was misunderstanding Indian culture which has a different attitude to 'truth'. The Rector had discerned that he had a good spirit, and the inconsistencies were information planted by 'the enemy'. The Vicar who had invited him accused me of doing Satan's work by spreading gossip when I challenged the wisdom of being involved with this man.

Many people found his story encouraging, I was told, and to challenge his testimony might cause them to stumble. What did it matter if he exaggerated, embellished or made up stories if people found them encouraging? I was accused of being obsessed with proving falsehood where none existed and it would endanger my future in the church if I continued. Despite the claims that he was such a powerful evangelist he was the subject of recent assassination attempts it was deemed wise to send a party of young people to stay with him in India and more people became involved in financially supporting his organisation.

It was several years before a national newspaper exposed the child trafficking and I was then told that there had always been suspicions about him but people were encouraged and to do anything would have damaged the reputation of the priest who invited him in the first place so it had been allowed to continue.

I won't name the individual as he has since died but reading the report into TA I certainly agree with the comment that more needs to be done to address the whole issue of verification of Christian testimony. Unfortunately I doubt there is a will within any church institution to do that.

[ 07. August 2016, 10:21: Message edited by: guthrum ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

guthrum, this angers and saddens me, I don't know which more. NOTHING angers me like this deception which is RIFE in the Anglican church. From the VERY top (NOT Her Majesty!) to bottom. No conversation can be had with this EVIL. Soon after I started attending the church generally, as a born again Evangelical in 2005, I specifically attended and was confirmed at 51 in the church of my infant baptism, I loved it and tried to embrace the magical thinking.

I was traumatized by being party to atrocities through Barnabas after meeting Patrick Sookhdeo in person, which IS part of the fabric here. At least the vicar apologized publically for Patrick, whose presentation did NOT include the atrocities but was multiply disturbing enough in medium as well as message the week after.

I'm highly extroverted and therefore repressed myself except initially in Alpha, but certainly did in home group in all fellowship with regard to the disconnect which I was trying to make work anyway. My struggles were very much internal due to my alienated self, I didn't have a problem with others. If there was a problem, if I felt uncomfortable I assumed it was me and did everything I could to fit in.

But then I began to encounter bleeding edge damnationism. And realised that behind the edge is a very broad sword indeed. And that sword is obscured by the emperor's cloak of magical, Charismatic unreason.

Two guys engaged me in conversation and pushed damnationism at NO instigation from me whatsoever. I NEVER instigate. I felt really bad with one, a twenty something vicar's son as I actually gave an answer according to faith and it disturbed him so much he said he would have to take it, ME up with the vicar. I most politely encouraged him to do so. Of course he daren't.

Another chap was a health professional, a geriatric nurse I think, hopefully not a doctor, although his people carrier was a good one, who, apropos of NOTHING but the sermon said to me that he was so sad as he watched his infidel charges slip of to Hell with their dying breath.

I couldn't speak for horror and would not have done if I could. But I made the mistake of showing my shock by dropping my jaw and shooting up my brows AND shaking my head.

He POINTED at me and said, 'Heresy!'. Five hundred years ago I'd have been executed for that. The words of Sir John Harington, for whom we have to thank for the flush toilet, came to mind and mouth, as they did on reading your account of church Stalinism: 'Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.'.

Lonely are the brave guthrum.

[ 07. August 2016, 11:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But the difference is that nowadays, these are all voluntary associations. No one is obliged to attend any of these churches, or accept the theological accusations of any Christian. And an accusation of heresy makes no sense in a denomination that claims to be a broad church.

Going back to the OP, I suppose it's inevitable that once people make a name for themselves and develop a fan base claims of dishonesty take longer to stick. Jesus himself knew that religion offered opportunities for fraudsters and egoists to achieve prestigious positions. Showbusiness and politics are also full of people who present one image but turn out to be something quite different.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

SvitlanaV2 there are hundreds of people at a time caught up in these large congregations of mass brainwashing, of deceit. I don't have to go?! These are NORMAL, urban Anglican congregations. The village one was bliss by comparison. I had a great laugh with my last vicar when he said that my then previous church had said of his that the latter were liberal for being just Evangelical. The laugh came when I said 'Ah but David, they're CHARISMATIC Evangelical.'.

We're back in the city now. In the catchment of a plant of our last but one Charismatic Anglican church, where I've been tolerated throughout as a volunteer with the dispossessed.

ALL the rest are WORSE.

I'm going to have to give a local Baptist-Methodist combo a try as they actually look pretty open in every sense and if they want to try brainwashing my 86 year old Mum on a Tuesday afternoon they're welcome to try.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Yes, I suppose the size of these congregations is an attraction. Plus the fact that they specifically go out of their way to draw people in, which other churches do less directly.

But what counts as 'normal'? Most CofE congregations aren't like the ones you describe, although that's no consolation if it's the only sort of church in your vicinity. You'd need to be willing to drive to another area.

Try the 'Baptist-Methodist combo'. The congregation will be much smaller, and the ministry more low key. Some of the Baptists might have heard of Tony Anthony, but the Methodists probably won't!

Be aware that it's no easier to invigorate a reserved, tolerant church than it is to make a vigorous church more liberal.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I have known three large Anglican congregations in three counties where the vicars were all mates and all did, allowed, encouraged, facilitated magical thinking affecting a couple of thousand people.

The Baptist-Methodist combo doesn't look small. I met a great emergent Baptist minister last year and a great emergent United Reformed one a few years back. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If you're only looking at really large congregations, then yes, I can understand.

But most CofE congregations only contain about 60-odd people.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

(While Baptists ones have about 60 odd people???)

Gamaliel, we have need of you on this thread!

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

This sad story echoes that of another influential Christian - well, he influenced me - with a complex back story and what seems to have been a complicated relationship with the truth. This is the first of a set of You Tube interviews which add up to something rather long; they are cut from a public domain film so do not threaten the ship.

When did we start saying 'if a lie comes out, it reflects badly on Jesus - let's lie some more!'.

God save us from our pride and vanity.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(While Baptists ones have about 60 odd people???)

Sorry?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

60 "odd people", as opposed to "60-odd" people.

It was meant to be a joke!

Posted by Ambivalence (# 16165) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
I was listening to a podcast earlier and they were talking about a guy that made a documentary about an "end of the world cult" who were going to some place at some time to wait for a mothership to collect them when the world blew up.
The documentary was more the study of what happened afterwards , how they behaved when the world didnt explode and the mothership never arrived.
To his surprise instead of rejecting what they had been taught they doubled down and started to reject the facts and create more theories to explain what happened and started to be even more active to recruit more people into their cult.

I suspect that'd be "When Prophecy Fails"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails), it's well worth a read.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
60 "odd people", as opposed to "60-odd" people.

It was meant to be a joke!

Oh, I see.

Mind you, I was referring to the CofE, not the Baptists.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
60 "odd people", as opposed to "60-odd" people.

It was meant to be a joke!
Oh, I see.

Mind you, I was referring to the CofE, not the Baptists.

But that was the joke he was making (at his own denomination's expense) - you said most C of E congregations have about '60-odd' people, so he retorted (as an aside) that Baptist ones, by contrast, might have 60 'odd people'.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Precisely. (Phew!)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Serves me right for not paying enough attention!

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

SvitlanaV2, Martin. My experience was in what is pretty much a middle of the road, rural,group of Anglican churches with very much sub 60 congregations. Interesting in the context of Martin's comments that the leadership at the time were very supportive of Sookhdo's Barnabas and the senior member of the team was trying (with little success) to nudge people in a Charismatic direction. The visiting 'evangelist' was part of that and supported by a small number of people who I think felt that their spirituality was being marginalised by the majority who were/are not of that ilk. That did seem to lead to a sense of 'persecution' and a linking of that to any challenge to the group's activities.

What surprised me at the time was how quickly people I considered sensible cast all normal logical thought aside. Any evidence that the so called Evangelist was telling lies was interpreted as a sign of how good he must be for Satan to be attacking him. The stronger the proof the more evidence it was of the effectiveness of the evil one. Rather like the TA case, inconsistencies in the story were dismissed as rnames, places and events being changed to protect the man from the attempts on his life by opponents from other faiths.

In retrospect many of the tactics that were used against me and others who questioned what was being done had cult like features. We would be isolated. 'Meetings' were arranged at which we would be alone with a pair of clergy who would speak of their concern for our spiritual and psychological well being because of the obsession with 'attacking' this good man. I was prayed over and hints made at pseudo exorcism type procedures to free me from a 'sprit of disagreement'! I don't think this sort of behaviour was planned to intimidate or that there was some deliberate conspiracy, rather it emerged from a situation that became highly charged in which everything was interpreted as a spiritual sign or challenge.

Because I am quite persistent and not one to back down for the easy life when faced with opposition, this all made me more determined. I probably did become somewhat obsessed and reading the work of the 'research group' into TA had a familiar feel. I am sure that as well as seeing many things that really were wrong, I also began to see quite innocent material in an over suspicious light which did not help matters. This went on for a few years off and on, and over that time it is all too easy to get sucked into becoming a mirror image of those on 'the other side'.

What remains troubling is the lack of mechanisms within churches for people to raise concerns like this so that they can be looked at by someone outside the local church/congregation. I tried to seek advice from a senior diocesan clergyperson who I thought could be trusted, but the promised confidentiality was broken and the conversation reported back to the Rector immediately. I was then told that the evangelist had been approved by the diocese, although that was later proved to be a lie.

In a sense this is all rather trivial compared to other issues that the church faces due to failings in dealing with more serious wrongdoing. I have learned a lot about how difficult it is to challenge clergy behaviour and how the 'professionals' close ranks against the laity. That has given me a very different perspective on how other damaging activities continued for so long.

Personally I am left with little faith in the Anglican Church but largely I think the people who buy into this style of 'evangelism' are willingly deceived and happy to move on to the next thing if and when the facade crumbles. That is what happened hereabouts and I am sure that if this report leads to the end of TA's activities there are plenty of others waiting to fill the gap.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

guthrum, how dark this is and you had to go through years of it. We are a very benighted monkey indeed. Milgram's and Zimbardo's experiments come to mind: We are such frail creatures in our strength. You identify the greatest risk: our becoming like that which we oppose. How we find the third way, the orthogonal way to this body of death, Jesus knows!

Have you documented all of this for all concerned, up to the bishop and beyond? If you have the strength, please do. This massive abuse need exposing to the full light of day.

I think this is MORE fundamental than the acute and chronic sexual predation.

SvitlanV2 said that the church is a free association, one can take it or leave it? How can one take or leave the body of Christ? How can we forsake her as we see the day approaching? I used to take that so seriously, for decades, right up to now. Rotted in guilt when I didn't for seven years. Now I despair. Except when spending £200 to go to Steve Chalke's Oasis once a year, which I'll never be able to again.

Your conclusion is devastating because I believe that even full truth and reconciliation will change nothing, people desperately want to be deceived, they have ears itching for magic words.

Where IS the body of Christ? Where is the Church? His radical, purified bride?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:

What remains troubling is the lack of mechanisms within churches for people to raise concerns like this so that they can be looked at by someone outside the local church/congregation.

Personally I am left with little faith in the Anglican Church but largely I think the people who buy into this style of 'evangelism' are willingly deceived and happy to move on to the next thing if and when the facade crumbles.

In general - having been in both Anglican and non-Anglican settings, and experienced similar situations I have slightly more faith in the Anglican church because at least there is nominally someone higher up the chain who can be consulted who has a clear responsibility, and secondly cleaning up the mess afterwards is somewhat easier. Whereas in the non-Anglican/congregationalist settings the collapse and disillusionment associated with one failing movement was exactly what was used to foster the rise of the next movement.

Of course the person higher up the chain could decide to punt, but at least it was slightly more obvious that they were doing so at least in later cleanup. In a 'non-hierarchical' setting the situation was far more likely to develop along the lines outlined in Eutychus' blog.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

Between the covert and extensive extramarital activities of "broeder Ben", the erstwhile front man for Stichting Opwekking here in the Netherlands, the perverse private life of the founder of the Legion of Christ, father Marcial Maciel Degollado, and the fanciful half-truths and lies of Mattheus van der Steen of TRIN-fame, nothing surprises me anymore.
I suspect I own a few dozen books with the usual stories of conversions, revivals, miracles etc. that are exactly the same kind of sham as the book(s) by mr. Anthony.
It seems that people with a message too often think that the end justifies the means.

My rule of thumb has become:

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

If it sounds too good to be true - it is always too good top be true.

If it doesn't sound too good to be true, treat it with scepticism.

The big quetion for me is this: "Why do we need these stories of (so called) celebrity conversions?"

Isn't God working in the lives of people around you in your church enough?

It all demonstrates that the church has generally brought into the cult of celebrity and marketing. Believing and living out the gospel is enough and perfectly adequate.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

People are flawed and will always let you down eventually. God on the hand, not so much.

Remembering some of the TA stuff that I saw kicking around, it was all very focused on TA, there were no third party collaboration etc; he didn’t like being questioned and God seemed to be more a sideshow than the main event.

I’ve heard others with similar ministries talk and they shift the focus away from themselves onto God, their claims can be supported from external sources and they’re happy to take and answer questions.

I know that God working in my life and those around me should be enough … There is a 95 year old lady at our church who has been there since the current premises were built who is simply amazing! She’s still open to whatever work God wants her to do. And she makes the best cake … But like others, I like a bit of inspiration and sometimes celebs are better for that. I’m shallow.

Tubbs

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it sounds too good to be true - it is always too good to be true.

If it doesn't sound too good to be true, treat it with scepticism.

The big question for me is this: "Why do we need these stories of (so called) celebrity conversions?"

Isn't God working in the lives of people around you in your church enough?

It all demonstrates that the church has generally brought into the cult of celebrity and marketing. Believing and living out the gospel is enough and perfectly adequate.

I couldn't agree more. Just one tiny caveat in the above: I would use the word "caution" instead of "scepticism". The first suggests that one is assessing whether to believe the stories, the second that one has already assumed a default position of not believing them.

I am always extremely wary - to the extent of being a wet blanket! - when someone comes and excitedly tells me a story of a great thing that God is alleged to have done. They expect me to say, "Praise the Lord", but I am unlikely to do so.

The danger of celebrity - and it happened in the days of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and Wesley, I'm sure - is that people lose their critical faculties and simply lap up the words of "the Lord's anointed" as if it is all Gospel truth.

I am extremely sceptical as soon as money is involved.

[ 08. August 2016, 13:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it sounds too good to be true - it is always too good to be true.

If it doesn't sound too good to be true, treat it with scepticism.

The big question for me is this: "Why do we need these stories of (so called) celebrity conversions?"

Isn't God working in the lives of people around you in your church enough?

It all demonstrates that the church has generally brought into the cult of celebrity and marketing. Believing and living out the gospel is enough and perfectly adequate.
I couldn't agree more. Just one tiny caveat in the above: I would use the word "caution" instead of "scepticism". The first suggests that one is assessing whether to believe the stories, the second that one has already assumed a default position of not believing them.

I am always extremely wary - to the extent of being a wet blanket! - when someone comes and excitedly tells me a story of a great thing that God is alleged to have done. They expect me to say, "Praise the Lord", but I am unlikely to do so.

The danger of celebrity - and it happened in the days of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and Wesley, I'm sure - is that people lose their critical faculties and simply lap up the words of "the Lord's anointed" as if it is all Gospel truth.

I am extremely sceptical as soon as money is involved.

Thanks BT. I used "scepticism" with good reason although I can see that it does seem somewhat ungracious. I tend to err or the side of "who does this (ministry) all point to?"

Perhaps I worked far too long in the Corporate World - there you learned not to trust too many people, especially where money, ambition and recognition were concerned. Trust had to be earned. Sadly the church is little different whatever the denomination.

Wouldn't it be great if anyone was as good as their word and "what you see is what you get" in character? Sadly that's not the case and I've learned to be wary, having had my trust abused. I struggle to see why church hes need to use celebs with stories to get bums on seats and decisions in the book. I am perhaps on the rebellious end of the conevo/ charismatic constituency.

Tubbs - your 95 y/o sounds great. One lady I take great inspiration from is a lady who was trafficked to the Uk but has now blossomed after getting residency with her daughter. She won a prize awarded by the local council for her work in retraining as a carer. She asked me to the awards ceremony as she wanted to thank the church fore all they'd dome for her. Her full story is amazing but she is so humble - most of the evidence of her witness comes from others not herself.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I am perhaps on the rebellious end of the conevo/ charismatic constituency.

And long may you remain there! [Smile]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it sounds too good to be true - it is always too good to be true.

If it doesn't sound too good to be true, treat it with scepticism.

The big question for me is this: "Why do we need these stories of (so called) celebrity conversions?"

Isn't God working in the lives of people around you in your church enough?

It all demonstrates that the church has generally brought into the cult of celebrity and marketing. Believing and living out the gospel is enough and perfectly adequate.
I couldn't agree more. Just one tiny caveat in the above: I would use the word "caution" instead of "scepticism". The first suggests that one is assessing whether to believe the stories, the second that one has already assumed a default position of not believing them.

I am always extremely wary - to the extent of being a wet blanket! - when someone comes and excitedly tells me a story of a great thing that God is alleged to have done. They expect me to say, "Praise the Lord", but I am unlikely to do so.

The danger of celebrity - and it happened in the days of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and Wesley, I'm sure - is that people lose their critical faculties and simply lap up the words of "the Lord's anointed" as if it is all Gospel truth.

I am extremely sceptical as soon as money is involved.

Melon - who sadly doesn't post often any more - has a hilarious story of being the main speaker at a conference and being treated like a Famous Christian. There were people falling over themselves to fulfil his every wish and women flirting with him. His wife and kids were there as well and found the whole thing extremely entertaining.

Melon acknowledged that without the muffled laughter of his nearest and dearest to keep him down to earth, it would have been easy to get caught up in it all.

Tubbs

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Then I recommend Rob Bell and Pete Rollins Tubbs, on tour at the moment, at Steve Chalke's Oasis this weekend. Sold out, although I have two tickets and can't go!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
SvitlanaV2, Martin. My experience was in what is pretty much a middle of the road, rural,group of Anglican churches with very much sub 60 congregations. Interesting in the context of Martin's comments that the leadership at the time were very supportive of Sookhdo's Barnabas and the senior member of the team was trying (with little success) to nudge people in a Charismatic direction.

Ok. I'll have to admit that the 'MOTR' under discussion here seems to be of the specifically CofE variety (and probably CofE in particular regions of the country).

I've spent most of my life in Methodist churches, and the idea that charismatic evangelicalism would be pushed on the average MORT Methodist congregation from above is highly unlikely. The circuit system and the reliance on large numbers of lay preachers would make it very difficult. There are evangelical Methodist congregations (probably in evangelical circuits), but I suspect they've been that way for a long time. They wouldn't have headed in that direction as a result of some recent project involving 'visiting evangelists'.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

SvitlanaV2 said that the church is a free association, one can take it or leave it? How can one take or leave the body of Christ? How can we forsake her as we see the day approaching? I used to take that so seriously, for decades, right up to now.

But people walk away from churches all the time, 'body of Christ' notwithstanding....

We're obviously talking about utterly different social contexts and church cultures here. In your case, the problem is that if you're utterly wedded to the theology presented to you by your church but also unhappy about that very same theology then you're obviously caught in a very awkward place. You feel you can't abandon the 'truth', but OTOH you don't really think what these people are telling you is the truth. An ironic situation!

The ministers and congregations I've been involved with have been far less prescriptive, so the situation you mention is unlikely to arise. The problem we have is that when churches are less wedded to a theology of urgency and severity, there's far less anxiety about leaving, whatever the reasons may be. So you may end up with relatively tolerant but often relatively weak churches.

Still, if you live in areas where most of the churches are quite strong, it should be possible to stick with 'the body of Christ' while avoiding the kind of theology of which you disapprove.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Er, that ain't my problem. I'm not wedded to any of the theology of any of my local churches beyond the creedal. We'll see how the Baptist-Methodist combo shapes up tomorrow. I do not want to forsake assembling, so I work with the dispossessed on a Friday night as only urban evangelical churches facilitate that. I have to swim in their waters of mandatory magical thinking and pre-modern theology (you know, damnationism, penal substitutionary atonement, proof texting) ALONE, without creating waves and whilst being true to faith. Completely alone. Poor me. God sure does have a funny sense of humour.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I got the impression from what you said earlier that the situation could be a 'problem', or at least a challenge, for people who share the same kind of church background as yourself. But if you've overcome those challenges, that's great.

Maybe at some point you could set up a ministry at the Baptist-Methodist LEP. ISTM that you'd ideally be part of something in a church that's totally supportive, and on the same page as you. This would also be a good witness to the dispossessed people you're working with. (Not necessarily an evangelistic witness, but a sign of unity.)

Anyway, I hope it all works out for the best. You obviously have a strong awareness of your calling, and that's a blessing, certainly not a 'problem'. I wish mine were half as strong!

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

I met a girl about 4 years ago who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome.

She met some charismatic Christians who taught her about spiritual attacks.

She then suffered from ALLOT of those too.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I got the impression from what you said earlier that the situation could be a 'problem', or at least a challenge, for people who share the same kind of church background as yourself. But if you've overcome those challenges, that's great.

Maybe at some point you could set up a ministry at the Baptist-Methodist LEP. ISTM that you'd ideally be part of something in a church that's totally supportive, and on the same page as you. This would also be a good witness to the dispossessed people you're working with. (Not necessarily an evangelistic witness, but a sign of unity.)

Anyway, I hope it all works out for the best. You obviously have a strong awareness of your calling, and that's a blessing, certainly not a 'problem'. I wish mine were half as strong!

I mean DAMN SvitlanaV2, I REALLY like you a lot and I'm a ratbag to you, but that ain't how the galaxy rotates. I ain't overcome nuthin', I just internalize it; I have a howling wilderness inside. I won't give anyone a problem if it can be helped, apart from the two guys 11 years ago ... and the damnationist Islamophobic (as in, 'ALL MUSLIMS GO TO HELL' declared to the homeless guys one Sunday afternoon, in church) guy and his magic thinking wife who ran the outreach to the homeless 6 years ago (I'd had it by then and let him have it, both barrels, at a meeting with the assistant vicar ... been a good boy since and always hug him. Even after I took over.).

The ONLY show in town for the homeless on a Friday night is the Charismatic Evangelical Anglican church that I am now utterly post.

I gotta keep going and watch my mouth for the guys. I helplessly love them. I miss them. I worry about them. I'm addicted to addicts. And I'm crap with certain types of helpless guy. Well just one. Who loves me, but he's such a relentlessly unhelpable pain to EVERYBODY. I go all minimal on him now.

There is NO church for 125 miles that is on the same page as me.

Ah well.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I got the impression from what you said earlier that the situation could be a 'problem', or at least a challenge, for people who share the same kind of church background as yourself. But if you've overcome those challenges, that's great.

Maybe at some point you could set up a ministry at the Baptist-Methodist LEP. ISTM that you'd ideally be part of something in a church that's totally supportive, and on the same page as you. This would also be a good witness to the dispossessed people you're working with. (Not necessarily an evangelistic witness, but a sign of unity.)

Anyway, I hope it all works out for the best. You obviously have a strong awareness of your calling, and that's a blessing, certainly not a 'problem'. I wish mine were half as strong!
There is NO church for 125 miles that is on the same page as me.

Without becoming too hellish about it, Martin, that's just not true especially if you refer to real care for real people.

To look at it in another way, ever thought of why you're in a minority of one (at lest in your own eyes)?

[ 10. August 2016, 11:12: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then I recommend Rob Bell and Pete Rollins Tubbs, on tour at the moment, at Steve Chalke's Oasis this weekend. Sold out, although I have two tickets and can't go!

Two guys who aren't sure what faith really is? I'm not sure that their "uncertainty" takes people all that far. Trying to get Bell to admit what he really believes is like trying to teach a pig to sing or nailing jelly to a wall.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's their saving grace EM. They care. The fact that their theology is away with the fairies is the cross I have to bear.

As for Rob and Brian, their beliefs are perfectly clear to me. Not a fairy in sight.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then I recommend Rob Bell and Pete Rollins Tubbs, on tour at the moment, at Steve Chalke's Oasis this weekend. Sold out, although I have two tickets and can't go!

Sold out? That celebrity train is going quite well then. [Biased]

Progressive/emergent leaders have their fans and acolytes just like every other 'celebrity' person in evangelical Christendom does. No difference. Same phenomenon. Emergent sub-culture is as much an echo chamber as anything in evangelical sub-culture. I know that Bell is famous, having appeared on Oprah, but who outside the Christian bubble has HEARD of these people?

You should check out the Stuff Christian Culture Likes site, particularly on Facebook. They target conservative Christian culture - particularly in the US - but they don't spare the white, middle-class males who head up the 'emergent' stuff either.

I prefer simplicity these days: people who aren't famous, who don't have a platform and who don't care about not having a platform.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It seems unlikely, Martin, that there are no liberal Christians who care enough to match your standards and that there are no evangelical Christians who are broad-minded enough to match your standards.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

You should check out the Stuff Christian Culture Likes site, particularly on Facebook. They target conservative Christian culture - particularly in the US - but they don't spare the white, middle-class males who head up the 'emergent' stuff either.

I prefer simplicity these days: people who aren't famous, who don't have a platform and who don't care about not having a platform.

One interesting question is, why do the leaders of these movements have to be 'white, middle-class males'? Where are all the women who want to be church leaders? Where are the contemporary female post-evangelical 'emergents' who could be founding their own congregations and writing influential books? You don't need permission to do these things, and modern women have more advantages than their great-grandmothers.

This all brings us back to Tony Anthony. I don't suppose he claimed to be 'emergent' but at least broke the mould in terms of ethnicity. Perhaps that was part of the problem. Did he exaggerate his 'exotic' roots and upbringing in order to boost his profile?

[ 10. August 2016, 12:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One interesting question is, why do the leaders of these movements have to be 'white, middle-class males'? Where are all the women who want to be church leaders?

Joyce Meyer?

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One interesting question is, why do the leaders of these movements have to be 'white, middle-class males'? Where are all the women who want to be church leaders?
Joyce Meyer?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Nadia Boltz-doodah seems to be making an international-ministry-thing out of all that stuff. I like her, but...she has a platform alright.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

The talk of "too good to be true" makes me think that this kind of thing isn’t restricted to Christianity. The first person I thought of, reading these words, was Lance Armstrong.

A cyclist who has never been in the top flight gets cancer. He gets over, comes back it, and "turns into bloody Superman", in the words of the one solitary journalist who looked at him and thought "too good to be true". It took more than ten years of bloody-minded effort to prove that the erstwhile Mr. Armstrong was a fraud. People didn’t want to believe it. It was such an inspiring story and he did such wonderful work for charity after all.

I think there are parallels. People like redemption stories and fairy-tale endings.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Joyce Meyer?

Joyce Meyer is emergent? [Eek!]

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One interesting question is, why do the leaders of these movements have to be 'white, middle-class males'? Where are all the women who want to be church leaders? Where are the contemporary female post-evangelical 'emergents' who could be founding their own congregations and writing influential books? You don't need permission to do these things, and modern women have more advantages than their great-grandmothers.

Natalie Collins is an upcoming voice. She's on Twitter as godloveswomen. She's a survivor of domestic abuse, a very fiery feminist (often hilariously so), campaigns fiercely against abuse (including abuse in the church) and a very good preacher. She was on Radio 4's Sunday morning service a few weeks ago, preached on Hagar. Excellent stuff. [Smile]

She doesn't identify as emergent, but that's to her credit, IMO, because she doesn't seem interested in trendy labels.

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Nadia Boltz-doodah seems to be making an international-ministry-thing out of all that stuff. I like her, but...she has a platform alright.

Indeed. I like her too, or at least I like her sermons. She and Rachel Held Evans started out as radical, but I get the impression that they've both become more ... corporate. I think that's a trap people fall into when they acquire a big following.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems unlikely, Martin, that there are no liberal Christians who care enough to match your standards and that there are no evangelical Christians who are broad-minded enough to match your standards.

mdijon, in 11 years in 5 congregations, just 2 guys, with whom it is impossible to fellowship. Our home group at our most recent church were lovely and we miss them. The men's group too. Blokes. I miss them very much. But no one one could have a conversation with like here. All trapped in magical thinking. Open to liberal ideas to one degree or another, but at the end of the day ALL, without exception, dependent on the promise of miracles. On magic. Invoking it and seeing it everywhere.

The megachurch I never left is much, MUCH worse, from the top down. That's where the rot starts, as in fish.

Met a perfect post-Baptist Baptist minister last year and his wife, in Cenarth. Like Oasis, it's a long way to go.

I speak in respect of want: for I have learned to aspire to learn, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

So if you know anywhere where it's possible to have a conversation within a half hour walk from the middle of Leicester, of 300,000 people, let me know mate.

[ 10. August 2016, 13:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Well from 125 miles to half an hours walk is quite a swish of goal-posts. That aside, can you account for why it might be so very rare to find exactly what you want?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Natalie Collins is an upcoming voice. She's on Twitter as godloveswomen. She's a survivor of domestic abuse, a very fiery feminist (often hilariously so), campaigns fiercely against abuse (including abuse in the church) and a very good preacher. She was on Radio 4's Sunday morning service a few weeks ago, preached on Hagar. Excellent stuff.

She doesn't identify as emergent, but that's to her credit, IMO, because she doesn't seem interested in trendy labels.

Sounds interesting.

I think it's impossible to avoid labels, though. 'Fiery feminist' is definitely a label. It suggests that she's at the more liberal end of things, even if she attends a more or less evangelical church - simply because a lot of this lay-led church stuff is coming out of the evangelical churches these days.

If 'emergent' is an undesirable term that's just because it's less well known than 'evangelical', even though evangelical itself means all things to all men. 'Liberal' doesn't seem to have much grass-roots traction at all, although it's a meaningful term to the clergy and to academics.

All other church identities (and even post-church thinking) seem to measure themselves against evangelicalism these days, which is a surprising turn of events. It's probably a sign of secularisation.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems unlikely, Martin, that there are no liberal Christians who care enough to match your standards and that there are no evangelical Christians who are broad-minded enough to match your standards.
mdijon, in 11 years in 5 congregations, just 2 guys, with whom it is impossible to fellowship. Our home group at our most recent church were lovely and we miss them. The men's group too. Blokes. I miss them very much. But no one one could have a conversation with like here. All trapped in magical thinking. Open to liberal ideas to one degree or another, but at the end of the day ALL, without exception, dependent on the promise of miracles. On magic. Invoking it and seeing it everywhere.

The megachurch I never left is much, MUCH worse, from the top down. That's where the rot starts, as in fish.

Met a perfect post-Baptist Baptist minister last year and his wife, in Cenarth. Like Oasis, it's a long way to go.

I speak in respect of want: for I have learned to aspire to learn, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

So if you know anywhere where it's possible to have a conversation within a half hour walk from the middle of Leicester, of 300,000 people, let me know mate.

Martin, I'm less than 125 miles from you SSW and you will find that kind of conversation in our church, although many would see us as con evo with charismatic overtones.

Certainly there's some "magic" as you call it - there has to be if the Spirit is involved - but it isn't something which suspends credibility. It isn't freaky and jump about stuff, just a readiness to listen to God.

We do care ....

This morning for example I have followed up on
- installing curtain rails for a lady in a new house (Trafficked to the uk with her daughter)

- 2 people home from hospital

- 1 couple with the husband admitted ditto

- arrange a meeting with someone to reflect on their experience at a conferenece

- put together a paper to our church leaders to discuss how we support families abandoned by the government as the children's centre closed. Answer - we will let the groups have our premises for free

- discuss how CAP can work across churches to meet the needs of the 15% in this town who are struggling (20% of working people here are on living wage) etc etc

- arranged a visit this pm to see someone in a secure unit

So it goes on and that's only a flavour of 3 hours work this morning. We are not anything special nor are we unique. Like most churches we are trying to build bridges by loving. The fact that some dislike our theology ain't my problem.

You can find plenty of conversations in Leicester, Martin. My daughter lives there.

I'm getting a very uncomfortable feeling that the conversation will only take place if it meets all the criteria you want from it. Do we have the old combative Martin back with us?

[ 11. August 2016, 10:34: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Natalie Collins is an upcoming voice. She's on Twitter as godloveswomen. She's a survivor of domestic abuse, a very fiery feminist (often hilariously so), campaigns fiercely against abuse (including abuse in the church) and a very good preacher. She was on Radio 4's Sunday morning service a few weeks ago, preached on Hagar. Excellent stuff.

She doesn't identify as emergent, but that's to her credit, IMO, because she doesn't seem interested in trendy labels.

Sounds interesting.

I think it's impossible to avoid labels, though. 'Fiery feminist' is definitely a label. It suggests that she's at the more liberal end of things, even if she attends a more or less evangelical church - simply because a lot of this lay-led church stuff is coming out of the evangelical churches these days.

If 'emergent' is an undesirable term that's just because it's less well known than 'evangelical', even though evangelical itself means all things to all men. 'Liberal' doesn't seem to have much grass-roots traction at all, although it's a meaningful term to the clergy and to academics.

All other church identities (and even post-church thinking) seem to measure themselves against evangelicalism these days, which is a surprising turn of events. It's probably a sign of secularisation.

Emergent means all things to all people too. What's it emerging into and what's it emerging from?

Most emerging theology is old liberalism repackaged - what was once called the social gospel, this time with a dash of liberation theology and a trace of mysticism.

I'm rather jaundiced about emergent and "new" churches - as in this back yard they seem to be as self absorbed as anyone else. A major social upheaval has taken place here and the emergent groups for all their posturing on justice have done precisely nothing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That doesn't surprise me, EM but would you have had them do?

I'm not sure any churches I know are geared up to deal with major social upheavals, at least not alone. You need a multi-agency approach to social upheavals. Any one individual church - or any other organisation for that matter - can't tackle a wider issue of that kind on their own.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't surprise me, EM but would you have had them do?

I'm not sure any churches I know are geared up to deal with major social upheavals, at least not alone. You need a multi-agency approach to social upheavals. Any one individual church - or any other organisation for that matter - can't tackle a wider issue of that kind on their own.

At least they could have worked with some of the other churches who firstly lobbied against the cuts and then have provided facilities for the groups to meet post cuts.

Mind you they are not alone. Other churches in the town who profess a commitment to social justice - and who are quick enough to complain about international and national issues - are strangely silent when it comes to their own back yards. The Quakers seem to be the worst of the lot.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Exclamation Mark wrote:

quote:
Mind you they are not alone. Other churches in the town who profess a commitment to social justice - and who are quick enough to complain about international and national issues - are strangely silent when it comes to their own back yards. The Quakers seem to be the worst of the lot.

Can you provide some examples of this Quaker hypocrisy? Not that I'm doubting you, just curious.

[ 11. August 2016, 12:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

More generally, as clearly I can't speak about EM's locality as I'm largely unfamiliar with it, my impression of the Quakers is that they're stronger on bigger-picture issues - globalisation, peace, equality issues etc - than they are on parish-pump or back-yard ones. But the mileage may vary.

More generally, EM's hitting on an area that interests me insofar as I'm struggling to see how any of the churches - at least where I am - can do much more than the food-bank or street-pastor type initiatives that seem to be de rigeur these days.

Sure, there are people from local churches involved in local politics - across all major political parties ... but that's an individual thing, of course, rather than a corporate/congregational one.

I'm not sure what we're expecting to see, particularly given that most churches seem to have all on to keep themselves going and to sort out the worship and pastoral aspects - let alone get involved with anything else.

It shouldn't be like that, of course, but I'm struggling to think of how things could be configured otherwise.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I boarded this thread before I spotted Baptist Trainfan's earlier appeal for me to do so.

I'm puzzled as to the grounds on which this appeal was made. My oddity?

[Biased]

Given that there was the exchange about 60-odd or '60 odd' ...

Perhaps, though, it was because I've been involved with both Baptist and Anglican congregations - as well as the 'new church' scene at one time ...

Not sure how that qualifies me over and against anyone else here to comment on these things.

I think, as several posters have indicated, that these sort of things are worth watching out for and guarding against in all manner of settings - not just charismatic evangelical ones - and not just in churches either - as La Vie en Rouge's very good point about Lance Armstrong demonstrates.

But I do think, as guthrum's story indicates, that charismatic evangelicals are particularly prone to switch off their critical faculties to a certain extent - but for all that, I can cite instances where charismatic evangelical church leaders have exercised considerable discernment and stepped in to protect their congregations from odd-balls and 'wrong uns'.

The problem is that some of the whackier stuff comes in from sources which they respect or are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not advocating church leaders becoming paranoid or going around stomping on everything that comes from outside or which bubbles up within their own setting - but a healthy dose of scepticism and common sense doesn't go amiss.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Exclamation Mark wrote:

quote:
Mind you they are not alone. Other churches in the town who profess a commitment to social justice - and who are quick enough to complain about international and national issues - are strangely silent when it comes to their own back yards. The Quakers seem to be the worst of the lot.
Can you provide some examples of this Quaker hypocrisy? Not that I'm doubting you, just curious.

Yep. Raising questions of military training of boys at public schools (none in our backyard), support for national initiatives against benefit reforms - whilst not supporting the social justice issues on their doorstep. Nice people I agree but as soon as it gets personal - like attempting to work together to support struggling families - things fall apart. We'e all as guilty as not putting our money, time and care where we are

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The problem is that some of the whackier stuff comes in from sources which they respect or are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not advocating church leaders becoming paranoid or going around stomping on everything that comes from outside or which bubbles up within their own setting - but a healthy dose of scepticism and common sense doesn't go amiss.

Yep, I'm with you there Gam. Why do I need to go to Lakeland/Reading/Cwmbran? God is working in the lives of ordinary people in the town around me - I don't need a "celebrity" to endorse the love I see going on from churches in my town.

I'll repeat what I said earlier - much of the church is as guilty as the outside world is in following "celebrities" It doesn't matter whether you are con evo, fundamentalist, pentecostalist, liberal, angle catholic - every tribe has its celebrity shamen.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I boarded this thread before I spotted Baptist Trainfan's earlier appeal for me to do so.

I'm puzzled as to the grounds on which this appeal was made. My oddity?

No - for (as you mention) your experience in, and wisdom about, the charismatic world.

[ 11. August 2016, 18:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

It's not just military training in public schools (as in private, for those confused by our nomenclature), but its extension into state schools, and the bright idea of getting the ex-military in as not-trained-like-the-existing- teachers teaching staff, which looked odd. Along with visits from the military to show off their gear, Armed Forces Day and so on. Antennae were twitching - maybe mistakenly. We've had a long time without seeing much military presence away from places like Catterick and Camberley.

However, the Meetings I know about are involved in local issues - but bear in mind that some are very small, and don't have many bodies to spread tasks among. There is involvement with local foodbanks, for example. (Not sure if support for refugees in the local area counts as local, though.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks - and I agree with EM about the celebrity thing not being restricted to any one tradition. I suppose there's always been an element of it and the whole Saint thing is connected to all that to some extent - although at least they're dead first ...

To an extent, I think we can't avoid it. The issue is how we handle it.

There are parallel issues in any form of human activity - from sport to horticulture. I

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It doesn't matter whether you are con evo, fundamentalist, pentecostalist, liberal, angle catholic - every tribe has its celebrity shamen.

As an example of wackiness from Catholic realms, I offer Vassula Ryden who appears to have enraptured several otherwise wise Catholics (and Angle [sic, love it!] Catholics).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why do I need to go to Lakeland/Reading/Cwmbran? God is working in the lives of ordinary people in the town around me - I don't need a "celebrity" to endorse the love I see going on from churches in my town.

I'll repeat what I said earlier - much of the church is as guilty as the outside world is in following "celebrities" It doesn't matter whether you are con evo, fundamentalist, pentecostalist, liberal, angle catholic - every tribe has its celebrity shamen.

FWIW, my experience of MOTR churches doesn't indicate that there's an endless, exaggerated interested in celebrities there. At least, not so much at the grass-roots level. Among the intellectuals and the clergy there's certainly some interest in fairly liberal theologians and commentators.

In the cities there may some be engagement with urban and black theologians - and some of these people should possibly be more rather than less 'celebrated' than they are in the congregations.

Anyway, on a more frivolous note, MOTR church worship is defined by its low-key traditionalism, so why shouldn't it be livened up by a moderately famous 'celebrity' sometimes? IMO there's little likelihood of MOTR churchgoers being led astray by these contacts. Or not to any greater extent than they might be led astray by their own in-house theology....

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Originally posted by EM: Martin, I'm less than 125 miles from you SSW and you will find that kind of conversation in our church, although many would see us as con evo with charismatic overtones.

Martin: EM, you CANNOT here. At all. You CANNOT in Warwickshire, Northamptonshire or Leicestershire. Not with ANYONE like-minded. And I can't see how one could in yours. One can in Waterloo.

Certainly there's some "magic" as you call it - there has to be if the Spirit is involved - but it isn't something which suspends credibility. It isn't freaky and jump about stuff, just a readiness to listen to God.

ANY claim of magic suspends credibility. By definition. Lack of magic, or at the very least open acceptance of challenge to it, facilitates the Spirit of truth. I ACCEPT that belief in magic goes hand in hand with CARE in a tiny minority, that the two are inextricably linked in most socially active, serving Christians. I see that all the time. Whilst seeing no magic at all. Magic is in the bias of the beholder. I tolerate invisible, unfelt, indetectable magic all around me for the privilege of serving, swimming in a tiny shoal calved off from a massive one awash with magic that has no social impact whatsoever, beyond people being marginally 'transformed' be their Jesus narrative. Magic comes with a MASSIVE opportunity cost that 99% prevents the church serving any others apart from itself.

We do care ....

Aye. 1%. Me too. Not that I AM the 1%. I care 1% by quantifying my time. YOU obviously fare MUCH better. As a professional? Or are you a tentmaker?

This morning for example I have followed up on
- installing curtain rails for a lady in a new house (Trafficked to the uk with her daughter)

- 2 people home from hospital

- 1 couple with the husband admitted ditto

- arrange a meeting with someone to reflect on their experience at a conferenece

- put together a paper to our church leaders to discuss how we support families abandoned by the government as the children's centre closed. Answer - we will let the groups have our premises for free

Spot on.

- discuss how CAP can work across churches to meet the needs of the 15% in this town who are struggling (20% of working people here are on living wage) etc etc

That's a start.

- arranged a visit this pm to see someone in a secure unit

I've done a couple of those. And many more psychiatric unit visits. Well done.

So it goes on and that's only a flavour of 3 hours work this morning. We are not anything special nor are we unique. Like most churches we are trying to build bridges by loving. The fact that some dislike our theology ain't my problem.

Exactly, beliefs are two a penny and the gospel is preached by action, not words. How much were you paid for that?

You can find plenty of conversations in Leicester, Martin. My daughter lives there.

What church? What church fellowship?

I'm getting a very uncomfortable feeling that the conversation will only take place if it meets all the criteria you want from it. Do we have the old combative Martin back with us?

He never went away mate. The only criteria I have for conversation is that there can be one. There CANNOT be with anyone like minded or any AT ALL in any of the fellowships I have experienced in the past 11 years except in our little, backward village church home and men's groups.

I LOVE our Friday night outreach to the dispossessed. I love the self-sacrificial young woman who runs it. ENTIRELY paternally-fraternally I assure you. She, literally, trusts me with her life. We took 9 of the guys abseiling, walking and canoeing in Derbyshire in June. I'm HORRIFIED at her theology - full monte PSA - and its actual sharp end impact. And I NEVER say a word. I was stricken by her trying to "evangelize" a broken Muslim guy (of which we get a constant stream) by telling him it had to be Jesus only NOW and Muhammad was nothing. Funnily enough he's not been back.

...
Emergent means all things to all people too. What's it emerging into and what's it emerging from?

Postmodernism. Modernism. And medievalism. And fundamentalism. And Tradition. And magical thinking. And patriachy. And imperialism. And castration. Babylon.

Most emerging theology is old liberalism repackaged - what was once called the social gospel, this time with a dash of liberation theology and a trace of mysticism.

You can't keep a great combination down. Especially when it comes from conservatives.

I'm rather jaundiced about emergent and "new" churches - as in this back yard they seem to be as self absorbed as anyone else. A major social upheaval has taken place here and the emergent groups for all their posturing on justice have done precisely nothing.

NOW you're talking! Say it brother, say it. Seriously. Although you have a massive blindspot to what Steve Chalke is doing just down the road from Banbury or up the road from Swindon.

And, of course, the peerless achievements of Saint Martin Luther, Dr. King, who stood on the shoulders of the social gospel giants of early C20th N. America.

He was worth his salt and then some.

[ 11. August 2016, 21:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Originally posted by EM: Martin, I'm less than 125 miles from you SSW and you will find that kind of conversation in our church, although many would see us as con evo with charismatic overtones.

Martin: EM, you CANNOT here. At all. You CANNOT in Warwickshire, Northamptonshire or Leicestershire. Not with ANYONE like-minded. And I can't see how one could in yours. One can in Waterloo.

Certainly there's some "magic" as you call it - there has to be if the Spirit is involved - but it isn't something which suspends credibility. It isn't freaky and jump about stuff, just a readiness to listen to God.

ANY claim of magic suspends credibility. By definition. Lack of magic, or at the very least open acceptance of challenge to it, facilitates the Spirit of truth. I ACCEPT that belief in magic goes hand in hand with CARE in a tiny minority, that the two are inextricably linked in most socially active, serving Christians. I see that all the time. Whilst seeing no magic at all. Magic is in the bias of the beholder. I tolerate invisible, unfelt, indetectable magic all around me for the privilege of serving, swimming in a tiny shoal calved off from a massive one awash with magic that has no social impact whatsoever, beyond people being marginally 'transformed' be their Jesus narrative. Magic comes with a MASSIVE opportunity cost that 99% prevents the church serving any others apart from itself.

We do care ....

Aye. 1%. Me too. Not that I AM the 1%. I care 1% by quantifying my time. YOU obviously fare MUCH better. As a professional? Or are you a tentmaker?

This morning for example I have followed up on
- installing curtain rails for a lady in a new house (Trafficked to the uk with her daughter)

- 2 people home from hospital

- 1 couple with the husband admitted ditto

- arrange a meeting with someone to reflect on their experience at a conferenece

- put together a paper to our church leaders to discuss how we support families abandoned by the government as the children's centre closed. Answer - we will let the groups have our premises for free

Spot on.

- discuss how CAP can work across churches to meet the needs of the 15% in this town who are struggling (20% of working people here are on living wage) etc etc

That's a start.

- arranged a visit this pm to see someone in a secure unit

I've done a couple of those. And many more psychiatric unit visits. Well done.

So it goes on and that's only a flavour of 3 hours work this morning. We are not anything special nor are we unique. Like most churches we are trying to build bridges by loving. The fact that some dislike our theology ain't my problem.

Exactly, beliefs are two a penny and the gospel is preached by action, not words. How much were you paid for that?

You can find plenty of conversations in Leicester, Martin. My daughter lives there.

What church? What church fellowship?

I'm getting a very uncomfortable feeling that the conversation will only take place if it meets all the criteria you want from it. Do we have the old combative Martin back with us?

He never went away mate. The only criteria I have for conversation is that there can be one. There CANNOT be with anyone like minded or any AT ALL in any of the fellowships I have experienced in the past 11 years except in our little, backward village church home and men's groups.

I LOVE our Friday night outreach to the dispossessed. I love the self-sacrificial young woman who runs it. ENTIRELY paternally-fraternally I assure you. She, literally, trusts me with her life. We took 9 of the guys abseiling, walking and canoeing in Derbyshire in June. I'm HORRIFIED at her theology - full monte PSA - and its actual sharp end impact. And I NEVER say a word. I was stricken by her trying to "evangelize" a broken Muslim guy (of which we get a constant stream) by telling him it had to be Jesus only NOW and Muhammad was nothing. Funnily enough he's not been back.

...
Emergent means all things to all people too. What's it emerging into and what's it emerging from?

Postmodernism. Modernism. And medievalism. And fundamentalism. And Tradition. And magical thinking. And patriachy. And imperialism. And castration. Babylon.

Most emerging theology is old liberalism repackaged - what was once called the social gospel, this time with a dash of liberation theology and a trace of mysticism.

You can't keep a great combination down. Especially when it comes from conservatives.

I'm rather jaundiced about emergent and "new" churches - as in this back yard they seem to be as self absorbed as anyone else. A major social upheaval has taken place here and the emergent groups for all their posturing on justice have done precisely nothing.

NOW you're talking! Say it brother, say it. Seriously. Although you have a massive blindspot to what Steve Chalke is doing just down the road from Banbury or up the road from Swindon.

And, of course, the peerless achievements of Saint Martin Luther, Dr. King, who stood on the shoulders of the social gospel giants of early C20th N. America.

He was worth his salt and then some.

A lot to reply to but here's a few

1. My daughter doesn't attend a church. That doesn't stop her being involved in the conversations you mention with people who are church goers and who do have the conversations and do the walk. She works in a pretty challenging environment where questions of life and death and suffering are hourly issues.

2. I know Northamptonshire pretty well. There are several churches to my personal knowledge across number of denominations where the things you mention are happening even as we speak.

3. I also know Banbury (sort of) and Swindon (passing acquaintance with Christian friends there). I've not heard of Steve Chalke in those parts - whats he doing there according to what you know? Yep irl I don't happen to see well at all, but spiritually I think I'd have heard from my mates or at first hand what Chalke doing around Banbury and/or Swindon. Please enlighten me - I am actually interested to know.

Again even in London or elsewhere what Steve Chalke is doing is not unique only in the combination he does it in.

4. The only magic is what the Spirit does. It isn't magic it is trusting God. No wacky ideas, prophecies or celebrities here - just opening the bible and linking our faith and our walking (living) by discussing and exploring together. Martin, I feel you are deliberately playing on this one. Do you honestly believe that there's no transcendence at all? How do you then explain the work of the slum anglo catholic parishes?

5. I'm not a tentmaker. I happen to be a recognised minister - although I believe we're all that and I just happen to be paid to serve 24/7 through the church. I'd be interested for your view on what denomination and/or group you think I'm part of.

I happen to have done a few other things in life - I'm probably one of the few ministers who came from a council estate and worked as a labourer. I have university level qualifications - pretty unusual for people from my background - and spent 17 years as a Building Society employee. So yes, I've seen a bit of life from a number of perspectives - but in each time/place I've looked to be more than 1% for God and others. What i do now is only a continuation of what I've always done and I find it thoroughly compatible with a con - evo - charis framework: that is the essence of seeking his Kingdom (work) and his righteousness (actions).

6. I'm not 1% now either. IME in this neck of the woods the commitment is much greater ... and this is allegedly a problem town.

7. As regards the payment for the first 3 hours of the day it would work out below minimum wage if you divide income by hours. I do, though, get the feeling that your comment was a sarcastic one - you do know better than that.

8. There's nothing new in emergent which makes it a very hypocritical movement in some ways as it always seeks to claim to be "a new thing." It's far from that. Some of us have memories!

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks - and I agree with EM about the celebrity thing not being restricted to any one tradition. I suppose there's always been an element of it and the whole Saint thing is connected to all that to some extent - although at least they're dead first ...

To an extent, I think we can't avoid it. The issue is how we handle it.

There are parallel issues in any form of human activity - from sport to horticulture. I

I agree completely Gamaliel. My experience was certainly not of one tradition, Charismatic or otherwise, being solely responsible. Indeed there were older and wiser heads from that tradition who had seen it all before. Unfortunately they tended just to shrug their shoulders and watch from the sidelines.

The key issues in handling things badly, it seems me, included; sub groups within the church, be that clergy or those of similar spirituality, closing ranks when faced with questions about the integrity of the evangelist concerned. And those groups being very heavily invested in the success of the event by claiming it as a sign of revival in the area well before it happened. The latter led to otherwise sensible, straightforward, people being prepared to engage in outright deception. I recall witnessing a rehearsal at which various 'spontaneous' acts were practised. Those who would respond to an altar call knew where to sit to distribute them amongst the anticipated crowd', the group who would begin singing in tongues were placed at the front, etc etc. This was all reinterpreted after the event as simply making those the spirit moved feel more comfortable responding.

I think that once people had been involved in the deception in some small way then it was much harder for them to see some of the other stuff as anything other than hyperbole or showmanship which was justified in the course of saving souls. Add a sprinkling of spiritual warfare and it was very easy to portray those questioning what went on as working for the other side, albeit as innocent dupes.

As to how to deal with it, then this is where I hoped that being part of a larger body would provide some oversight or at least some means of expressing concerns when things couldn't be resolved locally. Unfortunately in my particular Anglican context there did not seem to be any functioning oversight. I was quite hearted to find that the EA had commissioned a report/investigation in the case of TA. Perhaps there is a need for some kind of ongoing group to monitor this sort of thing generally, at least to act as a collecting point for concerns. A very difficult task I am sure.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
I recall witnessing a rehearsal at which various 'spontaneous' acts were practised. Those who would respond to an altar call knew where to sit to distribute them amongst the anticipated crowd', the group who would begin singing in tongues were placed at the front, etc etc. This was all reinterpreted after the event as simply making those the spirit moved feel more comfortable responding.

I had heard anecdotally of that kind of thing going on (and seen it played out in Steve Martin's film "Leap of Faith"). But I had never heard from anyone who'd seen it first hand, such as yourself, so thank you. There is no excuse whatsoever for that kind of thing and the deception dishonours God.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair, in the whole time I was involved with the charismatic scene I never (consciously) came across anything that I would describe as cynically planned manipulation of that kind - planting people in the crowd and so on ...

I'd suggest, from my own experience over several decades, that such things are comparatively rare - but I don't doubt your account for one minute.

More typically, it was a case of over-egged expectations and a level of emotional investment that makes it difficult - but not impossible - for people to acknowledge and admit they got it wrong.

We used to joke that we needed very short memories to remain involved for any considerable period of time ... [Biased]

That said, I did see some seriously manipulative practices at times - particularly around fund-raising techniques - 'heap offerings' and the like.

In fairness, I also saw some of these practices addressed and rectified to some extent too.

I was involved with the Toronto thing when it first 'broke out' and soon realised how easy it was to create a sense of expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy as it were when people were expectant and susceptible.

I quickly backed away from the whole thing when I realised how easily I could induce particular reactions or ride the wave as it were ...

I later read accounts by Baptist and other ministers who'd felt the same and who'd recognised the dangers before things got out of hand.

I wasn't in leadership but I can imagine how the temptations to milk these things could easily creep in - initially in very subtle ways.

The problems really start, I think, when a whole 'ministry' or approach is predicated on these things.

I don't know EM, other than through his posts here, but my impression would be that in his particular charismatic evangelical setting things are more 'holistic' if you like and they have other and wider concerns - so the chances of EM's congregation going overboard on the latest charismatic fad and so on would, I think, be fairly remote.

One of the disappointing things, I think, about Anglican charismatic evangelicals - and I'm speaking very bluntly and frankly here - is that whilst they certainly do have a degree of discernment, they are so desperate for 'results' - because of the national picture of overall decline - that they allow themselves to overlook or disregard certain harmful influences and practices that have percolated in from the wider charismatic scene.

I was aghast when I first encountered hints of prosperity-gospel or even 'faith' teaching among evangelical charismatic Anglicans. I'd assumed - incorrectly - that denominational and 'traditional' filters were in place to weed out that kind of crap before it actually arrived in the pews.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to exaggerate or become paranoid but there is something rotten in the state of charismaticdom and we are wise if we exercise vigilance at all times.

There's a pong beneath the pews. The sewers are overflowing. Someone needs to sweep the shit from the Augean Stables.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the disappointing things, I think, about Anglican charismatic evangelicals - and I'm speaking very bluntly and frankly here - is that whilst they certainly do have a degree of discernment, they are so desperate for 'results' - because of the national picture of overall decline - that they allow themselves to overlook or disregard certain harmful influences and practices that have percolated in from the wider charismatic scene.

I am intrigued that you think that this is a particularly Anglican failing ... could you "unpack" your thinking a bit more, please?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know EM, other than through his posts here, but my impression would be that in his particular charismatic evangelical setting things are more 'holistic' if you like and they have other and wider concerns - so the chances of EM's congregation going overboard on the latest charismatic fad and so on would, I think, be fairly remote.

One of the disappointing things, I think, about Anglican charismatic evangelicals - and I'm speaking very bluntly and frankly here - is that whilst they certainly do have a degree of discernment, they are so desperate for 'results' - because of the national picture of overall decline - that they allow themselves to overlook or disregard certain harmful influences and practices that have percolated in from the wider charismatic scene.

Those are very kind remarks Gam! Thank you. Working with other churches and having a broader community spectrum does tend to move the focus away from congregational navel gazing .... plus we are quite a traditional church is terms of our governance. the checks and balances are held through our gathering together as members and as a whole community. It might help that I'm a trifle cynical about all sorts of claims - a background in the Finance world (with a secondment in marketing to project manage a very well known financial product), tends to bring tht sort of attitude to the table.

God does work - and in ways we don't anticipate - but my main prep for all that is consistent bible teaching, pastoral support and listening. There isn't any rocket science.

I know what you mean by some of the Anglican excesses. A few months ago, 5 of us from our place attended a "Praying for Healing" day course run at a local church by New Wine. All the excesses were there - stories of past healings, raised expectations, demonology etc etc. All 5 of us would be seen as mildly/mainstream charismatic but all of us came away disturbed. If that is the normal fare then Houston we have a big, big problem. [That concern apart Mrs Mark - a palliative care/elderly care nurse of some 37 experience was horrified at the cavalier medical knowledge. Some statements were blatantly wrong and if action followed the course advised that would make thing wworse not better]. We met after to talk it through as I did with a local Vicar who was similarly concerned - she too is charismatic.

It's part of the celebrity thing, I think. In this case not a person as such but the attendant results/fruit from that person. It's a numbers/healing game. I don't see many churches holding together a theology of suffering alongside a theology of healing: we do - I'd encourage others to explore it too. We find cause for celebration not in celebrity but in (say) a house for a trafficked lady whose daughter aged 11 now has her own bedroom for the first time ever. Just watch that smile! That's real healing.

It isn't confined to Anglicans. I notice a tendency in some of the baptist churches, especially those with BME congregations to follow some of the God Channel techniques and personnel. One church used to have a sign outside it listing the regular meetings -- one meeting was billed as "Deliverance Ministry" by appointment on Tuesday Evening. I've always wondered what the demons got up to the rest of the time.

Id

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

If 'emergent' is an undesirable term that's just because it's less well known than 'evangelical', even though evangelical itself means all things to all men.
Emergent means all things to all people too. What's it emerging into and what's it emerging from?

Most emerging theology is old liberalism repackaged - what was once called the social gospel, this time with a dash of liberation theology and a trace of mysticism.

But 'old liberalism repackaged' seems to be what a number of people, on the Ship and elsewhere, want. They want churches that are as energetic and appealing as the more familiar evangelical ones, while being more liberal regarding personal morality and probably also less strident on certain contentious doctrinal issues. (And as interested in 'celebrities' as your average URC member, too.)

quote:

I'm rather jaundiced about emergent and "new" churches - as in this back yard they seem to be as self absorbed as anyone else. A major social upheaval has taken place here and the emergent groups for all their posturing on justice have done precisely nothing.

Churches are socially conservative institutions largely patronised by amateurs and volunteers, so it's obviously going to take time to work out how to respond to 'major social upheavals'. Hopefully the new church movements will find their own way of getting involved eventually.

It's also the case, I think, that each kind of church will, or perhaps should, have its own strengths, just as each tends to attract a particular kind of demographic. Churches that don't have the right gifts, training or courage to do long-term work with refugees or the homeless, for example, might still be able to offer help with fundraising, perhaps. If there are good ecumenical links there should be something that the newer groups can be encouraged to contribute.

[ 13. August 2016, 14:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

If 'emergent' is an undesirable term that's just because it's less well known than 'evangelical', even though evangelical itself means all things to all men.
Emergent means all things to all people too. What's it emerging into and what's it emerging from?

Most emerging theology is old liberalism repackaged - what was once called the social gospel, this time with a dash of liberation theology and a trace of mysticism.
But 'old liberalism repackaged' seems to be what a number of people, on the Ship and elsewhere, want. They want churches that are as energetic and appealing as the more familiar evangelical ones, while being more liberal regarding personal morality and probably also less strident on certain contentious doctrinal issues.

quote:

I'm rather jaundiced about emergent and "new" churches - as in this back yard they seem to be as self absorbed as anyone else. A major social upheaval has taken place here and the emergent groups for all their posturing on justice have done precisely nothing.
Churches are socially conservative institutions largely patronised by amateurs and volunteers, so it's obviously going to take time to work out how to respond to 'major social upheavals'. Hopefully the new church movements will find their own way of getting involved eventually.

It's also the case, I think, that each kind of church will, or perhaps should, have its own strengths, just as each tends to attract a particular kind of demographic. Churches that don't have the right gifts, training or courage to do long-term work with refugees or the homeless, for example, might still be able to offer help with fundraising, perhaps. If there are good ecumenical links there should be something that the newer groups can be encouraged to contribute.

It may be what we want - but is it where God is? I'm not convinced. To me, the emergent church (perhaps the church in general), is now very good at conversation, dialogue and reconstruction - it's not that good at constructive, united life changing action undergirded by a radical faith biblically founded. We want our cake and eat it too.

All the "issues" under debate at the current time are a superficial expression of the deeper question - how do we, how might we, how can e interpret the bible today? How do we express hope unless it is in the language of the cross, the crown and the kingdom?

Each church should be what it is. We aren't clones but we can express common truths (the creeds) in a multiplicity of ways. Some will resource, some will do. It's when the common truths and goals are missing, that the church misses the mark. I think that for lots of churches that's exactly where we are - too bothered about conversation to get down and get our hands dirty.

I don't know why, for example, our church is growing except that God is ding it. There's no program - hopefully just love and a commitment to grow and learn together.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't see many churches holding together a theology of suffering alongside a theology of healing: we do - I'd encourage others to explore it too. We find cause for celebration not in celebrity but in (say) a house for a trafficked lady whose daughter aged 11 now has her own bedroom for the first time ever. Just watch that smile! That's real healing.

Brilliant! "But what's that got to do with the Gospel?", some will say. Aaargh!

quote:
One church used to have a sign outside it listing the regular meetings -- one meeting was billed as "Deliverance Ministry" by appointment on Tuesday Evening. I've always wondered what the demons got up to the rest of the time.

Love it!!

[ 13. August 2016, 14:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
I recall witnessing a rehearsal at which various 'spontaneous' acts were practised. Those who would respond to an altar call knew where to sit to distribute them amongst the anticipated crowd', the group who would begin singing in tongues were placed at the front, etc etc. This was all reinterpreted after the event as simply making those the spirit moved feel more comfortable responding.
I had heard anecdotally of that kind of thing going on (and seen it played out in Steve Martin's film "Leap of Faith"). But I had never heard from anyone who'd seen it first hand, such as yourself, so thank you. There is no excuse whatsoever for that kind of thing and the deception dishonours God.

Took me right back to the 50's and Billy Graham. Councellors placed strategically so that when the 'appeal' was made they began walking forward, thus encouraging others to follow - thousands responding to Christ, or so it seemed. I acknowledge that there were good results. But it was manipulative.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

I don't know why, for example, our church is growing except that God is doing it. There's no program - hopefully just love and a commitment to grow and learn together.

It might be a good idea (in your own time, not necessarily here) to try to identify how and why it's growing, so that you can give tangible advice to other interested church leaders; you imply that the other churches in the area are having problems, so I'd expect them to be interested in your experience if you can explain it. Also, if you have some awareness of the factors involved you might be able to tackle the changes if the growth ever slows down or reverses.

For example, most churches (in your area too) would claim to be about 'love and a commitment to grow and learn together' so what makes your church different, or different to God? When did the growth start, and what else was happening at around that time? There'll be sociological factors relevant to the congregation's success: history, social make-up, expertise, local area, age range, etc.

Well, just my thoughts, anyway.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Took me right back to the 50's and Billy Graham. Councellors placed strategically so that when the 'appeal' was made they began walking forward, thus encouraging others to follow - thousands responding to Christ, or so it seemed.

You are missing the organ that repeatedly plays 'Just as I am' (accompanying the crying of the repentant to encourage more people to come forward).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Baptist Trainman, no, it's not a particularly Anglican failing but EM has said it better than I can. I was, frankly, surprised and disappointed to hear some of the guff that New Wine puts out.

It's not that I hold the Anglicans to a higher standard of theological mouse and discernment than I would expect of the Baptists or any of the Free Churches - far from it - it&s more that I am surprised and disappointed to come across such shit in a church with as much longevity as the CofE and which ostensibly has some theological clout and produced some impressive thinkers and theologians of various stripes - evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and all points in between.

The more bollocky bits of New Wine wouldn't have passed muster back in the day in the charismatic 'new churches' and that is saying something.

However we cut it there's been declension.

My old mother-in-law has old copies of Renewal magazine going back to the mid-60s. The level of theological reflection was considerably higher in the early years than what came later. Flick through the issues and you can see it happening before your eyes.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The more bollocky bits of New Wine wouldn't have passed muster back in the day in the charismatic 'new churches' and that is saying something.

However we cut it there's been declension.

Possibly, or perhaps these things are in the air and the NW crowd don't really have the background to evaluate these things. There is a certain middle class naivety dressed as politeness that one encounters IYSWIM, and perhaps the fact that that socioeconomic group has traditionally been very low-church in a cultural Christianity sort of way plays a part - people get too used to outsiurcing their thinking to a professional class.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My old mother-in-law has old copies of Renewal magazine going back to the mid-60s. The level of theological reflection was considerably higher in the early years than what came later. Flick through the issues and you can see it happening before your eyes.

And, of course, for a while "Renewal" magazine even had an explicitly theological sidekick - that must have been in the mid-1970s.

Tom Smail recalls an incident in the very early days of Renewal (?late 1950s) when he was meeting with Baptist and Pentecostal colleagues in Scotland. Having been brought up in an orthodox but somewhat academic Reformed tradition, he found renewal liberating and wanted to "go light" on theology. But the Pentecostal minister reproved him and told him that the new movement would need his "good theology" - how right he was!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There is an interesting critique of Smail's theology by Nigel Wright (my old New Testament theology tutor!) in this 1996 article.

Please note Wright's comment near the end: "Likewise, if the Charismatic movement captures something of a genuine experience of God ... it ought to be a hallmark of that movement that innovative theological reflection will follow".

But I think we have left Mr. Anthony and his misdeeds behind us ...

[ 14. August 2016, 07:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Orginally posted by ExclamationMark: A lot to reply to but here's a few

1. My daughter doesn't attend a church. That doesn't stop her being involved in the conversations you mention with people who are church goers and who do have the conversations and do the walk. She works in a pretty challenging environment where questions of life and death and suffering are hourly issues.

Martin: Exactly, it can't be done in Charismatic (fundamentalist, damnationist, legalistic, UNtranscendent, trajectory-less) fellowship. As was demonstrated again for me last night.

2. I know Northamptonshire pretty well. There are several churches to my personal knowledge across number of denominations where the things you mention are happening even as we speak.

SSE of me and my former county of residence for ooooh, 20 years. The things I mention? Like, as in analogous to, the Hope Centre? Yeah, I've picked shit off the floor there. Literally. Stopped the odd fight. Don't worry, no one would remember me, it was years ago. There was a lovely Roman Catholic chap, Richard, who served without restraint and an old girl before his time I recall. Then there's Bugbrook of course. Saw Noel at the disused cinema on a Sunday Bonfire Night about 12 years ago. A VAST disappointment. Mandatory tongues at baptism. Very sad.

3. I also know Banbury (sort of) and Swindon (passing acquaintance with Christian friends there). I've not heard of Steve Chalke in those parts - whats he doing there according to what you know? Yep irl I don't happen to see well at all, but spiritually I think I'd have heard from my mates or at first hand what Chalke doing around Banbury and/or Swindon. Please enlighten me - I am actually interested to know.

Well they are the only SSW communites of any size within 125 miles of Leicester. Oasis isn't operating on those areas. It may be educationally. But down the road from Banbury, or up the road from Swindon, is Waterloo. An hour away from either.

Again even in London or elsewhere what Steve Chalke is doing is not unique only in the combination he does it in.

That's unique. Including his full inclusion of the LGBT community. You don't get kicked out of the EA for nothing.

4. The only magic is what the Spirit does. It isn't magic it is trusting God. No wacky ideas, prophecies or celebrities here - just opening the bible and linking our faith and our walking (living) by discussing and exploring together.

What magic is that? That isn't? Trusting God how? In what? And by the way EM, I see that you are trying: No wacky ideas, prophecies or celebrities. That's good. I mean that's VERY good. No wacky ideas excludes a VAST amount. People believe the ghastliest of things. No wacky (that's redundant admittedly) prophecies and wacky celebrities. Excellent.

Martin, I feel you are deliberately playing on this one.

Your feelings aren't wrong. And your point is?

Do you honestly believe that there's no transcendence at all? How do you then explain the work of the slum anglo catholic parishes?

Sorry? Why do you ask? Your premiss is that something transcendent is going on because Christians function in groups and actually go out to the highways and byways, go under the hedges and serve people? I'd agree. It's wonderful. No matter how wacky our ideas, how appalling our beliefs, our 'theologies', good is done. Despite our bizarre narratives. If only it could be done for its own sake. God has a funny sense of humour that's for sure.

5. I'm not a tentmaker. I happen to be a recognised minister - although I believe we're all that and I just happen to be paid to serve 24/7 through the church. I'd be interested for your view on what denomination and/or group you think I'm part of.

No idea. Not Roman Catholic, Orthodox certainly, not Anglican most probably, definitely not Quaker! Not Methodist, never heard of charismatic Methodism. Charismatic Baptists in the east of the county yes. At the deep and sharp end. A most disturbing aversion therapy.

I happen to have done a few other things in life - I'm probably one of the few ministers who came from a council estate and worked as a labourer. I have university level qualifications - pretty unusual for people from my background - and spent 17 years as a Building Society employee. So yes, I've seen a bit of life from a number of perspectives - but in each time/place I've looked to be more than 1% for God and others. What i do now is only a continuation of what I've always done and I find it thoroughly compatible with a con - evo - charis framework: that is the essence of seeking his Kingdom (work) and his righteousness (actions).

Your rounding, roundedness shows. And NO I'm not being sarcastic. I'm from a council estate till age 12 and for many years I was a labourer, blast furnace operator, McDonald's worker, progress chaser, cleaner (including toilet), council clerk, cold store worker (your breath rains as ice), due to cultic religion in large part.

There are other shows in town that serve the poor of course, the Sikh community is astoundingly generous. The and the Hindu and Muslim communities have been also overflowing to 'our' community needs.

I can't see any difference between work and action. I'll be glad when it comes with no agenda, no absurd desperation to 'save' anyone from Hellfire. When it's just done for its own sake. Christians certainly have more reason than any to be open handedly, radically, self-sacrificially, inclusively, freely kind.

6. I'm not 1% now either. IME in this neck of the woods the commitment is much greater ... and this is allegedly a problem town.

Aye, you're a professional, so one would expect more than 1%. 1% is nearly two hours a week, that's the average for people with normal responsibilities. There's an awesome development in the Netherlands where students get free accommodation if the give 30 hours community service, to the elderly they share with, a month. 4%. Fantastic.

7. As regards the payment for the first 3 hours of the day it would work out below minimum wage if you divide income by hours. I do, though, get the feeling that your comment was a sarcastic one - you do know better than that.

I see paid clergy living in spectacular houses, living very privileged lives and promulgating unchallengable magic. I mean really pathetic stuff in big, rich, mainstream, supposedly via media church. I'm glad you're not part of that. Nobody's legs changing length in your fellowship and that being announced in services. No strong arm manipulation. As in stand up everyone who's been miraculously healed. Stand up everyone who knows somebody who has. Stand up ... I was the only person out of 400 who didn't. THAT got a letter. As you said formerly EM, I must be out of step.

8. There's nothing new in emergent which makes it a very hypocritical movement in some ways as it always seeks to claim to be "a new thing." It's far from that. Some of us have memories!

I hear conservatives proclaiming new wine all the time. Too rich for my old wineskin admittedly. I've not heard or read any such claim by any under the emergent rainbow. Not since Jesus. There is nothing new under its trajectory.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Martin60

Two ideas occur to me.

1. Have you considered getting in touch with Oasis and discussing the possibility of helping to set up an Oasis fellowship in your area?

2. If you spend time with the Methodist-Baptist LEP you could discuss with the minister the possibility of setting up a connected Fresh Expression of church on the liberal and socially engaged lines that you have in mind.

In your engagement with the dispossessed, have you found that any of these people share your theology, and that they want to be involved in the kind of church you dream about? If so then you already have the nucleus of a fellowship of people who could help each other and could be nurtured to help others.

It wouldn't be big ministry in a big church, but everything has to start somewhere. And whereas big churches are unlikely to risk their success and their ethos for one man's ideas, smaller, humbler churches may be willing to try something different.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Took me right back to the 50's and Billy Graham. Councellors placed strategically so that when the 'appeal' was made they began walking forward, thus encouraging others to follow - thousands responding to Christ, or so it seemed.
You are missing the organ that repeatedly plays 'Just as I am' (accompanying the crying of the repentant to encourage more people to come forward).

Ah, yes, the power of music (and not just the 45 minutes on your feet at the start of a charismatic meeting). I have to hold my hand up - I was a little manipulative this morning from the seat of my keyboard. [Big Grin]

Good organists are aware of what they hold in their fingers.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I've started a new thread on manipulation.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Orginally posted by ExclamationMark: A lot to reply to but here's a few

I hear conservatives proclaiming new wine all the time. Too rich for my old wineskin admittedly. I've not heard or read any such claim by any under the emergent rainbow. Not since Jesus. There is nothing new under its trajectory. [/i]

Too much to respond to in one go - and your PM box is full.

I'm intrigued by what denomination you have me under. As it happens I work in a number of ways across denominations in partnership with other churches and parachurch set ups (homeless, CAP, Youth for Christ, Childrens' Centres) as well as within my own denomination.

I'll e mail you with more

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There's space now EM. As for what denomination; Baptist, Free Church, Congregational, United Reformed, Pentecostal: non establishment reformed. I've probably missed yours!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It's a good guessing game.

Baptist.
Could be, but posts here might suggest a bit more emphasis on action than the average baptist.
Free Church
Probably not - posting suggest less fluidity of view and slightly stronger polity than is common in a free church.
Congregational
Not in England.
United Reformed
Yes possible - the combination of action and calmness on polity is very united reformed for my money.
Pentecostal
No hint of pentecostal sparkiness here.
Brethren
I think less likely but just possible - but too much emphasis on action for that.
Salvation Army
Again possible, but the brand is so distinctive it usually comes through explicitly in the posting at some point so unlikely.
Quacker
Not enough fluidity of views indicated thus far.

Do I win a toaster?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not sure - I wonder if you are stereotyping too much (for instance my church, with robed choir and liturgical prayers, is hardly your average Baptist church). And, by the way, there are Congregational churches in England - not all joined the URC by any means.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Qua[c]ker, EM's critical to them.

"Congregational - Not in England.", meaning not socially active here?

Yeah, I met a VERY nice, very socially active URC minister 5 years ago. Stymied by his congregation, he emigrated to Oz where they're desperate.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I didn't know that about Congregational. As to stereotyping too much... absolutely the case!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Just to clarify - I meant what BT thought I meant, that they had all become URC. In which case I would put it back in the frame of possibilities.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Here is the website of the Congregational Federation. Just for information.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There's a Congregational church 400 yds from where I live, so I assumed you meant that they didn't get involved, not that they didn't exist in England.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0