Ship of Fools: Word of Faith movement in the UK

Thread: Word of Faith movement in the UK Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023069

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I see that Randy Clark is speaking at Holy Trinity Brompton in London. I'm getting increasingly worried about this phenomenon coming here to the UK. How can such a high-profile Anglican church like HTB get involved in this stuff? They had Bill Johnson there a few years ago too.

Should one of the Bishop's or even Rowan should get involved? Part of my concern is also selfish. My poor wife is accepting the Word of Faith guff without any scepticism and that has its own consequences.

K.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

Oh dear, the Pond is not deep and wide enough...

Worrying indeed. I cannot understand HTB's involvement. What message do they try to send?
I would think that this is a case where Bishops should get involved...they are meant to be shepherds of their flock, aren't they?

But it seems to be symptomatic of what's going on in the UK and some other countries (France & Spain).

Sorry to hear about your wife. Difficult to get people out of this once they've been mesmerised. May The Force be with you

[ 15. May 2012, 11:18: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

am i the only one who has had to google 'word of faith' movement?

i'll accept i possibly might be ...

i just wanted to ask what your take/view/explanation of 'word of faith' means as maybe your person experience means its something different to a standard answer i just read on wikipedia

only asking out pure ignorance and interest.

ive heard bill johnson speak before, but never really considered what 'category' he came under.

i'm very interested at the moment, and spending time exploring what all the different denominations in thing here Christianity, what they all mean and represent, and also phrases that I'm not so au fait with such as evangelical/liberal/traditional and so on, when it comes to teaching.

so, word of faith movement is what?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I could be wrong, but I understood that Holy Trinity Brompton was heavily into the whole Toronto Blessing thingamejig. Is this guy saying anything different to the whole Vineyard and Toronto gubbins?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Randy Clark was also involved in Vineyard and became closely associated with the Todd Bentley scam in Florida a few years ago. Bill Johnson is a much more controversial figure and is discussed here on the Ship quite a bit. The Word of Faith movement concentrates on new revelation, much like the gnostics. Bill John argues that Jesus was 'born again', among other things. The list of weirdness is too long to type.

Here is a pretty good response (from a Baptist perspective) to Bill Johnson's new book When Heaven Invades Earth.

K.

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

interesting ... thank you, i'm going to go have a read now, especially because i know IHOP very well. I have friends who are 'members of staff' so to speak at the central base in KC ... but it isnt something i've read up on much in terms of what they believe/preach etc ...

to be honest, over the years i've been quite disengaged with it all because its hard to know what is 'right' isnt it? but am now starting to explore a lot.

I havnt been a christian overly long, and am part of a wide range of networks, as mentioned above have friends who are part of the IHOP thing, to me, who has largely mostly been involved in UK alt church etc.

i'm now part of an anglican church that describes itself as evangelical ... and i'm on a journey of trying to work out what thats means!

anyway, sorry to ramble, off to read your link ...

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

wow, what a big sea to dip into ...

so would you say things such as New Wine and Soul Survivor that have these people speak at are part of this word of faith movement?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Horatio, that was being discussed on another thread recently. Apparently, New Wine have apologised for booking at least one of the Signs and Wonders speakers (I can't tell where the Signs and Wonders group ands and the Word of Faith starts... or if they're one movement!). The same source said that New Wine were distancing themselves from the Bethel church of Bill Johnson.

It seems that the links with Bill Johnson and IHOP are informal, though I've read that IHOP are receptive to Johnson's teaching.

K.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Holy Trinity Brompton welcomed a guest speaker involved in the charismatic movement. Charismatic Anglican parishes aren't all that rare. Why should the bishops get involved?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

HTB do like to be at the forefront of any new Christian movement. I expect the CofE church in my area that likes to do the same will be following this very closely (and even send delegates to listen).

I guess the difference is if a church invites these speakers in order to critically analyse what is said to be aware of new and possibly controversial teachings, or whether they just swallow everything that comes along without questioning it. I would like to hope that any church which invites such speakers allows space for discussion and discernment in the weeks to follow. Or is that asking too much?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
wow, what a big sea to dip into ...

so would you say things such as New Wine and Soul Survivor that have these people speak at are part of this word of faith movement?

The thing is that there is sliding scale of sorts; There are obviously the out and out word-faithers, and then there are people who adopting a few of their beliefs.

The trouble is that a lot of people seem to adopt a six-degrees of separation approach to diagnosing problems which tends to make their critiques less than credible (Such and such had so and so speak who endorses this and that also endorsed by someone who endorsed William Branham etc).

I doubt if HTB would endorse the crass version of Word-Faith, however as they are a fairly affluent congregation the temptation would certainly be to err on the side of assuming some correlation between Godliness and the Good Life. One could say the same about the ways in which they sometimes embrace powerful people who seem to be fairly nominally christian.

As Gamaliel observes elsewhere, the CofE roots of HTB, New Wine and others tend to act as a piece of elastic - pulling them away from some of the wilder reaches of such movements.

Which doesn't mean to say they are all benign.

I read the link provided. While I would agree with some of the critique, a lot of it assumes that that Johnson and others have necessarily thought out the logical conclusions of some of their arguments. I don't think that this is the case. I think a lot of Johnson's ideas have parallels with movements like New Thought, but I don't think he has necessarily thought through what it would be for his view of Christology etc.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I'm not surprised that HTB have invited someone at the fringes of charismania, but rather to find them flirting with gnostics. All the John Wimber/animal noise stuff was strange enough and probably theologically unsound, but Bill Johnson scene seems to be out-and-out heresy.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Thanks for that Chris; it gets me thinking.

K.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I see that Randy Clark is speaking at Holy Trinity Brompton in London. I'm getting increasingly worried about this phenomenon coming here to the UK. How can such a high-profile Anglican church like HTB get involved in this stuff? They had Bill Johnson there a few years ago too.

Should one of the Bishop's or even Rowan should get involved? Part of my concern is also selfish. My poor wife is accepting the Word of Faith guff without any scepticism and that has its own consequences.

K.

Your wife is fortunate to have your views for check and balance. I'd like to think that Church leaders would help provide this for their 'flocks', but some are swept up in movements too.

It's wise advice imv to look out for the danger signs of exclusivity, and words of judgement over love.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think there is a subtle difference, be it only one of style, between "word of faith" (more old-school pentecostal) and what I refer to as "kingdom now" proponents (Johnson, Clark, etc).

For further reading, see this recent thread and the older one here. There's another couple languishing in Oblivion somewhere. Googling "Kingdom Now" + "Johnson" + "site:forum.ship-of-fools.com" will take you to printer-friendly versions but not to the original threads. I don't have time to dig them out right now.

I have Randy Clark pegged as self-deluded. I'm far less sure about Johnson.

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

thank you for those ship links ... i had had a little look for related threads but to not much avail, probably looking for the wrong thing x

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I see that Randy Clark is speaking at Holy Trinity Brompton in London. I'm getting increasingly worried about this phenomenon coming here to the UK. How can such a high-profile Anglican church like HTB get involved in this stuff? They had Bill Johnson there a few years ago too.

Should one of the Bishop's or even Rowan should get involved? Part of my concern is also selfish. My poor wife is accepting the Word of Faith guff without any scepticism and that has its own consequences.

K.

I'm a bit horrified to read this. HTB were the innovators of the Alpha course, and I respected them for that.. but now...

Still, as I got out of the C of E, it isn't my problem anymore.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I am not sure if Komensky is referring to the HTB leadership conference where Randy Clark spoke, or if he is also preaching at one of the services. The Bishop of London was also speaking at the conference along with Rick Warren and Tony Blair.

I have heard about 10 sermons at HTB over several years, certainly Nicky Gumbel, Archie Coates and Graham Tomlin and maybe some others. I have never heard anyone there suggest that one can claim healing or prosperity or anything else, which are ideas that I would associate with word of faith. I have heard that one should pray and hope for things from God but not that one can claim them.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

As was mentioned above, inviting someone to speak is not exactly an endorsement of everything they say. Nevertheless, a degree of that is certainly implied. Nicky Gumbel certainly pushes the boat out inviting a variety of speakers from Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentacostal and other denominations. I think that should be to his credit. However, there ought to be a line, that when someone argues against the essential truths of the Nicene Creed, that more caution is needed. I have, in the past, walked in the HTB circles as an Alpha leader—and there is much to recommend the place—put there is a culture of accepting without skepticism those invited by Nicky. Anyone from the Wimber circle (and I would include the likes of Bill Johnson) are treated as a Saints. While I have quibbles with Wiberism, Johnson is really off the charts in heretical and wacky teachings.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Moonlitdoor is right, the HTB curates and other preachers don't go over the line, but their guests do. And Nicky is effusive about John Wimber and the laughing hyenas, barking dogs, etc..

I like HTB's ecumenism, but some of this (esp. Bill Johnson) is dangerous stuff. I much prefered HTB's Catholic phase…

K.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I have not heard Randy Clark speak so it would be interesting if you could elaborate on the 'contrary to the Nice Creed' point. I once visited Hillsong in London and the speaker said that anyone in the congregation who wanted to have a baby but had not managed to get pregnant should come forward and he would pray for them, and they would then be able to get pregnant. I was quite shocked but that sort of approach is what I associate with word of faith. But I would not say it was against the creed, as it concerns issues not addressed in the creed.

So I am interested to know what sort of things you had in mind.

I also would be interested if Chris Stiles wants to say more about HTB embracing powerful nominal Christians. I am not sure how one can tell how keen or nominal someone is as people in the public eye in the UK don't tend to speak much about the details of their religious beliefs.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I also would be interested if Chris Stiles wants to say more about HTB embracing powerful nominal Christians.

A good example of this was Tony Blair visiting HTB and his lionisation by Nicky Gumbel.

I can't comment on Blair eternal fate, but what came across was that he was - at best - a very confused witness to the Christian faith, and that it would have been better not to have put the spotlight on him.

I agree with the above comment about HTB being fairly orthodox in its teachings (though Graham Tomlin sails close to the wind at times). However, that they can invite Randy Clark etc quite happily tends to speak to a fairly deep seated pragmatism that tends to override other concerns at times.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Randy Clark was involved with the 'Toronto Blessing' thing so I'm not surprised that he's ended up speaking at HTB.

The problem, as I see it, with the whole HTB/New Wine thing is that whilst they certainly do have an elastic band in place that will draw them back towards the centre if they start to wander up side-alleys, they also have an innate tendency to swallow anything that looks big and shiny and successful.

So they'll cut Bill Johnson some slack because he's got a big church.

There's an inherent pragmaticism in the charismatic thing. If something appears to 'work' then everyone else will jump on the bandwagon and try to copy it - at least until another bandwagon rolls along. The whole thing is shot through with faddism.

It happens in all manner of directions. I knew a bloke who ran an Orthodox book service who suddenly found himself receiving an inordinate number of orders for 'prayer ropes' because some well-known writer on spirituality (adopts California accent, 'spiridewealidy') had alluded to them in his latest paperback. He wasn't complaining about the revenue, but he was bemused that they were taking up one practice without embracing the monasticism, asceticism and other aspects that went with it.

As for the health/wealth thing arriving in the UK. It's been here for a good while. There have been a number of churches with links to Kenneth Copeland and other health/wealth preachers for some time. Some of these have been shortlived and members have either fallen away or been absorbed into more moderate 'new church' settings like New Frontiers.

I remember New Frontiers picking up lots of 'word/faith' casualties at one time.

Other than among some black-led and African churches, the health-wealth thing hasn't really caught on in the UK on any big scale. Sure, there are elements of it at Hillsongs and among some of the larger metropolitan charismatic churches but I've yet to see much evidence of it among charismatic Baptists and Anglicans. There may be smidgeons of it.

Among the restorationist house-churches, the Harvestime/Covenant Ministries axis did flirt with some of this stuff for a while but never went fully down that route - mercifully. Some of the offshoots/developments that emerged from the old Covenant Ministries do have elements of health-wealth and even word-of-faith about them - but I wouldn't suggest it was the main emphasis.

Overall, I'm not very impressed with what I've seen or heard on the Anglican charismatic scene in recent years and my suspicion is that some of these people will be gulled and drawn in by some of this crap.

Others, though, will have the common sense to pull back from it.

On the issue of whether anything that Hillsongs and others do are 'against the creeds' - well, it's not as straightforward as that. You can be creedally sound and still do stupid things.

History is peppered with people who believed the creeds and who could recite them backwards yet acted like complete berks.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am interested to know what sort of things you had in mind.

I think you'll find that the Word of Faith people are essentially orthodox in their theology. They are pentecostal, believe in healing in the atonement, and are quite likely to be pre-tribulation pre-millenial, as well as hot on tithing and legalistic, but at the end of the day they will toe the theological line.

Similarly, Wimber always claimed to abide by the Westminster Confession of Faith. He might be a little weird in terms of demonology and not averse to people falling over and making strange noises, but I don't think he ever assigned deep value to these manifestations.

In later years Wimber was impacted by the "Kansas City Prophets" and foremost among them Paul Cain who was himself a disciple of William Branham - a much more oddball variant of the Word of Faith crowd with heterodox doctrine.

In the wake of this I think a lot of people gravitating around Wimber and taking the stage after his death are a lot weirder than he ever was.

They cover a gamut from hard-working but perhaps deluded pastors through to out and out sideshow frauds worthy of Huckleberry Finn. Johnson is one of their number, I leave it up to you where you put him on that scale.

Where I think Johnson teeters on the brink of heresy is with things like the "manifest sons of God" doctrine and the contention that the Church is called to be the physical body of Jesus on earth. Christians are, as it were, subsumed into the person of the Son. I'd also say this generation makes far less attempt to exegete their case from scripture than Wimber did, simply because to all intents and purposes they see prophecy and their "apostolic" teaching (ie that of their leaders) as having equivalent authority to Scripture.

I think New Wine & co in the UK are susceptible to all this because they have rosy memories of when Wimber first came to the UK in the mid-80s invited by David Watson. It was at around the same time as Missin England with Billy Graham, which together served as a platform for charismatic worship songs and a chance for house church practice to enter the mainstream. In their quest for a return to those heady days I think they sometimes throw discernment out the window and welcome these newcomers as though they were on the same ticket as Wimber.

That's very broad brush strokes, no supporting documentation, and quite possibly wrong on many counts. But it's what my appraisal at a distance suggests.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Moonlitdoor is right, the HTB curates and other preachers don't go over the line, but their guests do. And Nicky is effusive about John Wimber and the laughing hyenas, barking dogs, etc..

I like HTB's ecumenism, but some of this (esp. Bill Johnson) is dangerous stuff. I much prefered HTB's Catholic phase…

K.

It's the Church of England for pete sake! The person appointing the diocesan bishops doesn't even have to believe in God. Coming down on Holy Trinity Brompton for inviting charismatics with squirrely views seems rather arbitrary.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:
posted by Gamaliel
You can be creedally sound and still do stupid things.

yes I understand that, I wasn't meaning that they must be all right if they don't go against the creeds. Komensky had written that a line should be drawn when 'someone argues against the essential truths of the Nicene Creed'. Although I have heard what seemed to me foolish things, eg at Hillsong, that is not how I would describe them, so I wondered what he meant, as I have not heard Randy Clark himself.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

For starters, 'being of one substance with the Father'. Bill johnson has written and preached that Jesus laid aside his divinity and needed to be 'reborn'. If Jesus is 'of one substance with the Father' then his divinity is not something that can come and go, let alone be 'laid aside', it *is*.

K.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Does this departure from mainstream teaching arise out of the two familiar arguments used by preachers who are not willing or interested in doing their homework:

a) the disciples were uneducated men; Jesus speaks most clearly through the uneducated as they are not encumbered with too much head knowledge.

b) the Holy Spirit speaks today about new things not necessarily previously recorded. And you can't put new wine into old wineskins.

This often seems to be the excuse for people standing up and saying all sorts of uncorroborated guff; if their ego is big enough they can convince an awful lot of people. Those who are not convinced are doubters and stopping the Holy Spirit working, of course.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - fair comments, moonlitdoor and Komensky. I wouldn't trust Bill Johnson further than I could throw him. It'd be like taking your car to the dodgiest car repair outfit in town.

New Wine do seem to have back-pedalled to some extent for inviting him along a few years ago. But still ...

What bugs me about these charismatic Anglicans is that they're blithely opening themselves up to things that caused havoc in the independent charismatic sector a few years ago and yet they think they can handle it without suffering the same ill effects.

It'd be like me saying, 'Ah look, that bloke over there has drunk a bottle of turps and he's been hospitalised. I'll go and do the same but it won't hurt me ... my constitution is made of sterner stuff ...'

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

This is all terrible. I've never walked in Charismatic circles, although I've tried most flavours of Protestantism.

One thing occured to me - we can all bash Jimmy Swaggart and family, but I know he had no truck with this Faith-Word stuff!

[ 15. May 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Word-Faith stuff is one area of the charismatic thing that I would unhesitatingly declare heretical.

However, if we were to take the official Big O Orthodox line of what constitutes heresy, then someone can only really be a heretic if they KNOW that they are a heretic - if they are aware of it and adopt it as a conscious stance.

I'm not sure that applies in most instances with the Word-Faith people - they don't realise how off-the-wall their views are. There are gradations of it, of course.

From what I can remember the high-point of all that came around about 1984/85 and it all seemed to die down a bit after that - certainly towards the early 1990s. The Toronto thing of the mid-1990s did have some roots in the health-wealth/word-faith thing - although it's a very fragmented scene and difficult to identify all the sources - but by and large the Anglican and Baptist charismatics have avoided the worst excesses of it - let's hope they're not heading down that route.

I like to believe the best of people and suspect not. But vigilance is required.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think you'll find that the Word of Faith people are essentially orthodox in their theology. They are pentecostal, believe in healing in the atonement, and are quite likely to be pre-tribulation pre-millenial, as well as hot on tithing and legalistic, but at the end of the day they will toe the theological line.

The practitioners of Word of Faith are mainly orthodox, the originators of it aren't in my opinion. There's the whole idea of faith as some kind of invisible elemental/force.

Kenneth Copeland also has some fairly peculiar ideas about Adam and Jesus where the former becomes a lot more divine and the latter a lot more human. It's probably ideas like this that set the stage for theologies lihe the one about 'manifest sons of God'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, absolutely. On a charitable analysis, Copeland is seriously theologically skewed. On a less charitable analysis he is an heretick.

On both counts he is best avoided.

I won't reveal my sources, but I recently spoke to someone who used to be on the inside track with some of these guys. He told me how they used to manage some of their stunts.

He also told me that there were occasions - just a few - when genuinely miraculous healings did apparently take place - and these scared him witless when they actually occurred.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

WoF is most certainly not orthodox. It owes more to the likes of the extremely dodgy E W Kenyon than it does to the Bible.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...However, if we were to take the official Big O Orthodox line of what constitutes heresy, then someone can only really be a heretic if they KNOW that they are a heretic - if they are aware of it and adopt it as a conscious stance.

I'm Orthodox, and I'm sure that's not true. Protestantism in all it's flavours is heretical to us, but how many have you come across who KNOW they are being heretical?

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

posted by Chris Stiles

It's probably ideas like this that set the stage for theologies like the one about 'manifest sons of God'.

I remember squiggle Andrew used to quote St Athanasius 'God became man so that men might become gods.'

Are they echoing that or is their idea something quite different ?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, I got that from an Orthodox priest, Mark, so you'd better take it up with him ... [Biased]

Interestingly, the same priest opined to me that it often struck him how it was often possible to come across more 'orthodox' people in the various Protestant sects and splinter groups than it was in the mainstream Protestant churches and denominations.

I accept that the Orthodox regard all Protestants as heretical from their perspective, but most (in my experience) do exercise some kind of sliding scale of judgement whereby some Protestants are more 'Orthodox' than others.

Or, to put it another way, 'All Protestants are heretics but some Protestants are less heretical than others.'

If I were Orthodox, I think that's the view I'd take.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
WoF is most certainly not orthodox. It owes more to the likes of the extremely dodgy E W Kenyon than it does to the Bible.

But, it's the Church of England! Over the past 6 years on Ship of Fools, I've read all sorts of stuff that owes more to a dodgy source than it does the bible. Much of it came from members of the Church of England. Some of it came from clergy in the Church of England. Why make a big deal about a couple of squirrely charismatics at Holy Trinity Brompton?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Why make a big deal? Because one of the most well-attended and influential congregations in the country is getting into bed with some of the most unorthodox and wacky of non-conformist trends. This is surely one of the dangers of the whole 'invent-your-own-church' phenomenon. The CofE has a hierarchy and adheres to certain doctrine—not just any old dreamed crap up by some crackpot in California. What do you think would happen if the Bishop of Westminster, for example, gave a sermon where argued that Jesus 'emptied Himself of diety' and needed to be 'born again'? I suspect his phone would ring pretty quickly. I like the fact that the CofE permits a wide variety of practices and even beliefs and that is surely a strength, but within the perimeters of orthodoxy.

K.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I think there is a difference between people deviating from or struggling with historic orthodoxy openly and honestly and claiming to represent authentic orthodoxy whilst teaching things contrary to or in conflict with orthodoxy.

So some very liberal Christians may say that Jesus was not divine - but they do not claim that is orthodoxy.

The honest Vicar may share that he or she sometimes struggles with the virgin birth, but they do not claim it is a misprint in the creed.

However the preacher who claims to be representing a restored early church Christianity, be theologically orthodox, yet also teaches Ontological or Functional Kenosis* (that Jesus ministered as 'just' a spirit filled human - just like us) is a far more dangerous proposition.

Add to this that the picture of the Apostolic Church given in the earliest documents of Christianity seems to suggest a body that is liturgical and sacramental as well as supernatural has me running for the magisterium every time.

(Prep Prop Edit)

[ 16. May 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect it's a Pond thing, Beeswax Altar. From your Bible-Belt background in West Texas or whatever boondock backwater you hail from originally, you're more used to this sort of thing and consequently more able to shrug it off. Over here, we aren't, and so if a highly influential Anglican congregation such as HTB imbibes some of this stuff then I can understand why Komensky and others are concerned.

That said, I'm less concerned than they are because I've been through the charismatic thing and out the other side - so it can't hurt me no more ... nah nuh na nuh nah ...

I think that if I were in a church like HTB, though, I'd be waving my arms around by now (not in worship) crying, 'The barbarians are at the gates!'

That's the concern that some of the poster here have. They feel it may act as a conduit for some of the whackier left-field views that are prevalent on the health/wealth/word-of-faith axis to enter the mainstream.

The Wimber thing went that way over here, it was given a lot more kudos than it might otherwise have achieved because of apparent backing from prominent Anglican charismatics.

I suspect our friend Komensky and others are concerned that HTB could prove a Trojan Horse for other unwelcome innovations from across the Pond.

In which case, I would suggest they are right to be concerned.

As to whether Bishops and others ought to intervene ... I'm less convinced. It would only strengthen their resolve. Best starve the thing of the oxygen of publicity and they'll soon get bored of it and move onto something else. Whether that something else is likely to be any more wholesome is a moot point.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... nah nuh na nuh nah ...

Is that how post-charismatics are supposed to speak in tongues? [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I got that from an Orthodox priest, Mark, so you'd better take it up with him ...

Sounds like a rather unorthodox Orthodox Priest!

quote:
Interestingly, the same priest opined to me that it often struck him how it was often possible to come across more 'orthodox' people in the various Protestant sects and splinter groups than it was in the mainstream Protestant churches and denominations.

I accept that the Orthodox regard all Protestants as heretical from their perspective, but most (in my experience) do exercise some kind of sliding scale of judgement whereby some Protestants are more 'Orthodox' than others.

Or, to put it another way, 'All Protestants are heretics but some Protestants are less heretical than others.'

If I were Orthodox, I think that's the view I'd take.

This is all true. The reason we view Protestantism as heretical has to do with their view of the Church (eg. "invisible") whereas we see it completely differently. I'm not forgetting I've spent most of my life as a protestant, of course.

But when it comes to other things, such as Faith-Word, well that is another matter - however, the reason such beliefs can ever come into existence is precisely because of the protestant view of the "true" Church.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Mark Betts is on to something. This is something that, as I get older, I struggle with. I don't really believe that anything that calls itself a 'church' is therefore a church. Where does it end? The snakehandlers? If I wasn't married to a charismatic, I'd probably swim the Tiber—or maybe it is those former stresses that make me want to jump.

K.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I got that from an Orthodox priest, Mark, so you'd better take it up with him ...
Sounds like a rather unorthodox Orthodox Priest!

quote:
Interestingly, the same priest opined to me that it often struck him how it was often possible to come across more 'orthodox' people in the various Protestant sects and splinter groups than it was in the mainstream Protestant churches and denominations.

I accept that the Orthodox regard all Protestants as heretical from their perspective, but most (in my experience) do exercise some kind of sliding scale of judgement whereby some Protestants are more 'Orthodox' than others.

Or, to put it another way, 'All Protestants are heretics but some Protestants are less heretical than others.'

If I were Orthodox, I think that's the view I'd take.
This is all true. The reason we view Protestantism as heretical has to do with their view of the Church (eg. "invisible") whereas we see it completely differently. I'm not forgetting I've spent most of my life as a protestant, of course.

But when it comes to other things, such as Faith-Word, well that is another matter - however, the reason such beliefs can ever come into existence is precisely because of the protestant view of the "true" Church.

Yes, because Orthodoxy never throws up any heretics, does it? [Razz]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Mark Betts is on to something. This is something that, as I get older, I struggle with. I don't really believe that anything that calls itself a 'church' is therefore a church. Where does it end? The snakehandlers? If I wasn't married to a charismatic, I'd probably swim the Tiber—or maybe it is those former stresses that make me want to jump.

K.

I'm in shock!! (I'm not used to people agreeing with me!)

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, because Orthodoxy never throws up any heretics, does it?

Of course it does.. that's usually the moment such people cease to be Orthodox (unless they repent)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, he's not particularly unorthodox. Longstanding shippies will know the chap I mean. Let the reader understand ...

I've also read an essay by Andrew Walker the sociologist, a Russian Orthodox Christian who grew up Pentecostal based on a talk he gave to some fellow Orthodox. He suggests that the language of 'heresy' isn't the most helpful way to address the differences between East and West. He'd rather the Orthodox strove to find common ground instead of harping on about the differences all the time. He doesn't deny that the differences exist, though. Nor do I.

I always thought that the Orthodox made a distinction between 'heterodox' and 'heretical' - at least in public ... [Biased]

I do agree that Mark Betts is 'onto something' and also that the RCs are too ... Komensky, I don't see how being married to a charismatic precludes your crossing the Tiber necessarily, but hey ... none of my business ... I'd find it hard not to have communion with my wife too if I ever crossed the Tiber or the Bosphorus.

Historically, though, most heresies have arisen in the East and some were even fended off with the assistance of Rome. Even the Orthodox will acknowledge that.

I will agree that there is something intrinsically flawed in the uber-individualistic Protestant ecclesiology (such as it is, do some of these groups even HAVE an ecclesiology?) which leads to the emergence of whacky teachings such as Word of Faith. But then, it's not as if the more Catholic traditions have been immune to whackiness of their own.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've also read an essay by Andrew Walker the sociologist, a Russian Orthodox Christian who grew up Pentecostal based on a talk he gave to some fellow Orthodox. He suggests that the language of 'heresy' isn't the most helpful way to address the differences between East and West. He'd rather the Orthodox strove to find common ground instead of harping on about the differences all the time. He doesn't deny that the differences exist, though. Nor do I.

I always thought that the Orthodox made a distinction between 'heterodox' and 'heretical' - at least in public ...

Yes, maybe that's it! There's also the term "scismatic" but I don't think we want to go there at this time!

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect it's a Pond thing, Beeswax Altar. From your Bible-Belt background in West Texas or whatever boondock backwater you hail from originally, you're more used to this sort of thing and consequently more able to shrug it off

Much as I also enjoy a little gentle teasing of our post-colonial cousin (which he takes in very good humour) his point, as usual, has considerable merit. Why should we be more concerned about an overseas visitor (who none of us seems to have heard speak) than practicing clergy employed on the basis of confessing articles of faith they don't believe?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green:
I think there is a difference between people deviating from or struggling with historic orthodoxy openly and honestly and claiming to represent authentic orthodoxy whilst teaching things contrary to or in conflict with orthodoxy.

I don't see how.

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green:
So some very liberal Christians may say that Jesus was not divine - but they do not claim that is orthodoxy.

No, they mock the whole concept of orthodoxy.

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green:
The honest Vicar may share that he or she sometimes struggles with the virgin birth, but they do not claim it is a misprint in the creed.

No, they just condemn the entire Nicene Creed as outdated, exclusionary, irrelevant or some other negative term in vogue among liberals at the time.

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green:
However the preacher who claims to be representing a restored early church Christianity,

Liberals more well known than any preacher mentioned on this thread do it all the time. It's become a cottage industry. Liberals were claiming the early church taught a version of Christianity vasly different from the orthodox version way before Kenneth Hagin even started plagiarizing E.W. Kenyon.

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green:
Add to this that the picture of the Apostolic Church given in the earliest documents of Christianity seems to suggest a body that is liturgical and sacramental as well as supernatural has me running for the magisterium every time.

I believe all heretics should be treated equally.

[ 16. May 2012, 21:16: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Drewthealexander, well yes, I think it's both/and not either/or ... and I agree that Beeswax Altar has made a very good point. It still doesn't stop me ribbing him, though, he's one of those people (like Ender's Shadow) who sort of invites it ... I don't know why, but certain people draw my fire and BA is one of them - even though I agree with him on many issues.

I suspect a psychologist would have a field day ...

I'm sure he's right. We cut 'establishment' and well-educated heretics some slack but we don't extend the same courtesy to US preachers from the wrong side of the tracks.

But then, if Mark Betts is right, then we're all heretics apart from the Orthodox anyway.

Which is one of the ironies of Beeswax Altar's position when he gets all hoity-toity with Mudfrog and other non-sacramentalists - when his own church's sacraments aren't recognised by either the RC or the Orthodox ...

But that's another story.

@Mark Betts, yes I'm used to being regarded as a 'schismatic'. I occasionally visit my nearest Orthodox parish, which is pretty much a convert one with a handful of cradle Orthodox from Eastern Europe thrown in. For a while, on every visit, the priest would allude to 'evangelical schismatics' and so on in his (very short) sermons. I'd heard from his parishioners that he didn't always knock Protestantism but only did so when I turned up.

I challenged him about this and he told me that he only ever said what the Holy Spirit gave him to say, an assertion that caused some mirth among Orthodox posters on these boards when I shared the story.

He's not done it sense. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has prompted him not to niggle me about it ...

[Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never heard of Randy Clark, Bill Johnson or Word of Faith. Should I have done? Googling them has thrown up a lot of links which leave me little the wiser apart from concluding they don't look like the sort of thing I'm comfortable with. They appear to advocate a 'prosperity gospel' which, if so, is a perversion, treating the Christian gospel as a sort of cargo cult. There's also quite a strong implication they advocate that people should believe and act as though they have been healed even when they haven't been.

What I'd be more uneasy about is that Holy Trinity Brompton is the driving force behind Alpha which a lot of churches here use and find valuable. Are Randy Clark, Bill Johnson or Word of Faith likely to distort how Alpha works and how it presents the faith? If so, that's worrying. If Holy Trinity Brompton is not influenced by them, hears them and rejects them or does not recommend them, I suppose I'm less bothered.

Something I'm repeatedly troubled by, in the secular field as much as the religious, is how much more credence many of ones fellow countrypersons give people who come from abroad to peddle their nostra with a hard sell, to whom they'd never listen if home grown.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'm not concerned particularly on the 'tainting of Alpha' point as I think that's unlikely given that it's essentially a franchise which individual church communities are at least partly free to present in a way that best suits them and their constituencies. I'm more concerned for the reputation of HTB generally if it develops of habit of hosting fruitcakes.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Well, y'know, I could easily make a list of things I don't believe in that people would say made me a heretic

Substitutionary atonement
The historic creeds - specifically the phrase 'holy, catholic and apostolic'
The Theology of the Land
Sacraments. Any of them.
Ordination
Holy buildings

The goofiness of this movement is not related to whether or not they sign up to other people's list of orthodoxy. Everyone is someone else's heretic.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

What's The Theology of the Land? [Confused]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

In one sense I'm trying to avoid identifying the line of orthodoxy, as least as we understand it in the CofE and I think in Lutheran circles. Having said that, the deity of Christ seems to be a non-negotiable. Surely this is why the JWs and Mormons are not considered Christians.

The 'Signs and Wonders' lot have already landed, it seems. Not only have Bill Johnson and his ilk been preaching here, but check out their Welsh mate Justin Abraham (who pegs the bonkers metre). One blog has a recording of him preaching that Christians should be able to breath underwater.

I heard it here on a blog of someone who 'escaped' the whole Signs and Wonders/Word of Faith movement.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Mark Betts, yes I'm used to being regarded as a 'schismatic'. I occasionally visit my nearest Orthodox parish, which is pretty much a convert one with a handful of cradle Orthodox from Eastern Europe thrown in. For a while, on every visit, the priest would allude to 'evangelical schismatics' and so on in his (very short) sermons. I'd heard from his parishioners that he didn't always knock Protestantism but only did so when I turned up.

I challenged him about this and he told me that he only ever said what the Holy Spirit gave him to say, an assertion that caused some mirth among Orthodox posters on these boards when I shared the story.

He's not done it sense. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has prompted him not to niggle me about it ...

But I never called you a schismatic. I am a little perturbed when I hear of "Orthodox" parishes that mainly consist of UK/American citizens. I suspect they may be somewhat "westernised", especially if they use the "western rite."

We use the Eastern rite, and the people who attend are largely Russian/Eastern European, but the services are mostly in English - perfect!

Hang on, what was the subject about again...?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's The Theology of the Land?

Christian Zionism, essentially.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Ah, that land, that theology!

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Actually, I think there are other strange expressions of the Theology of the Land which applies it to other places, but that is the most obvious.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Ok, getting back to the matter at hand… When does just 'inviting a slightly loopy speaker' become inviting someone who does not accept the divinity of Jesus? Bill Johnson's idea that Jesus was a man who got zapped with the Holy Spirit and when we hold up our sword and say 'I have the power' we can perform miracles too— even greater than Jesus.

It's one thing to be open to ideas outside your comfort zone, but surely another to share a pulpit (OK, we're talking about HTB, so, a stage with lights and a sofa) with someone who is, theologically speaking, bonkers.

K.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Is that different to listening to the Dalai Lama speak in a Cathedral?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Can I be boring and go back to the OP? Here is Randy Clark's resume from the htb site:

quote:
American speaker Randy Clark spoke to around 800 church leaders at HTB Brompton Road today as part of the ‘There is More’ event hosted by Holy Trinity Swiss Cottage, a plant of HTB.
The day long conference was introduced by HTB Vicar Nicky Gumbel.Randy spoke of his experiences with international mission and of the many miracles he has seen in a lifetime's ministry around the world. He was speaking at the Airport Vineyard Church in Toronto when the Holy Spirit fell in 1994 - an event which became known as the 'Toronto Blessing'.Open ministry time was held throughout the day.Randy Clark also spoke at an open gathering held at Holy Trinity Swiss Cottage yesterday.

As a long time Alpha supporter I have a great respect for Nicky Gumbel and all at HTB.

I can't comment on this specific guy either, but my overall take on these sorts of things, is well, let's just keep our critical faculties and also don't write him off until we know what he's about - to be fair to the guy and his ministry surely?

As far as Word of Faith, in my neck of the woods some people really like Joyce Meyer and other W of F people. Personally they leave me a bit cold, and somewhat alarmed as well. Joyce Meyer certainly doesn't float my boat.

My main comment here would be, often these meeting bring on a ''special person'' sometimes with a ''special annointing'' usually from a long way away and they may (to be fair) have something useful to say; but often it is re-dressed same old same old.

My concern is that often there is so much hype and razzamatazz that real spiritual growth and movement may get squeezed out of the picture. That's the harmful bit IMHO.

As for calling in the local Bishop, well that's a matter for the local congo surely? What I know of Nicky Gumbel and crowd, they seem fairly sound and balanced and if they smell something awry they will raise alarm bells - I hope I'm not being too trusting saying that, but that's what I feel.

Saul

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Is that different to listening to the Dalai Lama speak in a Cathedral?

Not in my book, no. (Not that I'm saying that the Dalai Lama is bonkers, BTW!)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Ok, getting back to the matter at hand… When does just 'inviting a slightly loopy speaker' become inviting someone who does not accept the divinity of Jesus? Bill Johnson's idea that Jesus was a man who got zapped with the Holy Spirit and when we hold up our sword and say 'I have the power' we can perform miracles too— even greater than Jesus.

It's one thing to be open to ideas outside your comfort zone, but surely another to share a pulpit (OK, we're talking about HTB, so, a stage with lights and a sofa) with someone who is, theologically speaking, bonkers.

K.

So, Bill Johnson believes Jesus was a man zapped by the Holy Spirit and in the sense Jesus was God we can be God? What Johnson believes sounds very similar to bog standard liberal Christology. The Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London would have a serious crisis clergy crisis if they started prohibiting people with that view or similar from speaking in COE parishes.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's The Theology of the Land?

People do not own the land, God does. Not just in a theological way, but in a real way.

That's my theology soundbite of the day. [Smile]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's The Theology of the Land?
People do not own the land, God does. Not just in a theological way, but in a real way.

That sounds similar to First Nations/Native American traditional religious beliefs.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Bill Johnson believes Jesus was a man zapped by the Holy Spirit and in the sense Jesus was God we can be God? What Johnson believes sounds very similar to bog standard liberal Christology. The Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London would have a serious clergy crisis if they started prohibiting people with that view or similar from speaking in COE parishes.

Yes, I'm afraid I know from my C of E days that this was a view almost on par with traditional beliefs about the Incarnation.

Yeah, yeah, you all know I'm Orthodox now, and... blah-blah-blah

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Saul, I think you're right that Nicky generally has his head screwed on straight, but HTB have gone in big for the 'the Holy Spirit showed up' kind of stuff that you mentioned. I think this makes a nonsense of both biblical and Church history. The whole idea that if only you know the right tricks, God (though these types usually go in for modalism) will 'appear'.

Here is Clark taking part in the fraudulent Todd Bentley charade.

I think the whole 'Toronto Blessing' malarky was already beyond the fringe, but at HTB those rather wacky ideas are accepted as central. There is little room for skepticism. I can vouch for that.

K.

K.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Mark Betts. I'm something of an Orthophile, but you are beginning to annoy me - not the extent that I'm inclined to call you Hellward. Not just yet ...

For the record, the local Orthodox around here use the Eastern rite so they're probably kosher by your standards.

Converts ... [Roll Eyes]

- don't they get on your nerves?

[Biased]

@Saul and Komensky - well, the Gumboid and his pals might be fairly orthodox in theory but these folk do tend to be rather slip-shod and modalist in practice. I give them some credit for sense, but I would advice caution. They're far too ready to be taken in by anything that looks bright, shiny and successful.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When does just 'inviting a slightly loopy speaker' become inviting someone who does not accept the divinity of Jesus? Bill Johnson's idea that Jesus was a man who got zapped with the Holy Spirit...

Are you sure about this? I'd be very surprised if Bill Johnson does not accept the divinity of Jesus. Could you give us the context of your quote. Saying that Jesus was a man is not controversial. Saying he got zapped with the Holy Spirit could mean all sorts of things.

quote:
and when we hold up our sword and say 'I have the power' we can perform miracles too— even greater than Jesus.

I doubt he was talking about literal swords, and for the rest he is using a gospel quote of Jesus' own words. Ok, so we don't see miracles happening on a daily basis and perhaps we should ask ourselves why, but this is surely nothing heretical? Or "bonkers"?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Huh, great point Jonah - at the baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit was said to have come upon him as a dove (whatever that means), and he said that we will do greater things..

Maybe the problem is that this guy is a touch too literal for some..

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I doubt he was talking about literal swords, and for the rest he is using a gospel quote of Jesus' own words.

Do a bit of googling for "Bethel" "supernatural school of ministry" and "knighting" and you will find Johnson et al. wielding real swords to "knight" graduates of the school... They have a whole thing about the Knights Templar [Paranoid]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Bill Johnson pays lip service to the divinity of Jesus, but in his writing and doctrine clearly denies it. A big part of the reason he encounters so many theological problems is his strong anti-intellectual bias. In short, studying the Bible leads to 'spiritual' poverty. So he can argue for this modalistic magic show and if you don't buy it, he can merely point to your spiritual shortcomings because of your silly intellectualism. Mercifully, this has all happened before and the frauds are always exposed (just like his chum Todd Bentley). Not that this is direct reflection of Bill Johnson himself, but several of his number have escaped the Bethel scene and revealed the trickery and lies happening there. One of them was involved with a Derren Brown TV programme about fake healing. The blogosphere has many 'recovering' from the likes of Bethel and Mars Hill (Driscoll version).

Back to the deity of Jesus. Bill Johnson espouses yet another version of the Kenosis doctrine—it isn't novel, but it is a denial of the deity of Jesus.

As for the baptism of Jesus, the image given in the scripture (literal or metaphoric) of the Holy Trinity—not a magic power being bestowed upon Jesus. Moreover, Jesus was always part of the Trinity, otherwise, like Bill Johnson and co., you find yourself in modalism. However we might read the baptism of Jesus it does not mark a point where Jesus 'gets his powers' [which is part of the Hollywood, entertainment strain that runs through so much of the weirder side of evangelical teaching). Jesus 'had' the Holy Spirit before he was born. Luke 1:15 . If we are to talk about the Holy Spirit descending on a human and changing them—it was the Virgin Mary. Alas, she's been written out the Evo take on things.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

John the baptist, that is—in Luke 1. Silly edit window! Isa. 11:2 is the one I meant for Jesus and the Holy Spirit before his birth.

Running late,

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I doubt he was talking about literal swords, and for the rest he is using a gospel quote of Jesus' own words.
Do a bit of googling for "Bethel" "supernatural school of ministry" and "knighting" and you will find Johnson et al. wielding real swords to "knight" graduates of the school... They have a whole thing about the Knights Templar

Very sorry for the treble-post. The funny part is, Eutychus, I just borrowed the sword scene and even the words 'I have the power' from 'He Man, Master of the Universe'. Presumably that's required watching at the Bethel school of magic and wizardry?

K.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think there is a rather specifically New World fascination with olde-worlde culture and legends that is fused, unhealthily, with contemporary christian praxis.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Edward Green

However the preacher who claims to be representing a restored early church Christianity, be theologically orthodox, yet also teaches Ontological or Functional Kenosis* (that Jesus ministered as 'just' a spirit filled human - just like us) is a far more dangerous proposition.

OK, I can understand that claiming that Ontological Kenosis might violate the idea of the full divinity of Jesus, but I can't see why Functional Kenosis is problematic. It's fairly well taught in Paul, and at least implied by Jesus Himself. Nor can I see that Jesus operating as a Spirit-filled human should ring any alarm bells. Again, scripturally quite well attested. Where do you see the danger?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

For my part, I see it as a pendulum, with docetism at the other end.

The Johnson is the idea that Jesus functioned in exactly the same way as contemporary charismatic christians. He was an ordinary man until he was baptised in the Spirit and then exercised his ministry, particularly the miracles, with a modus operandi that is identical to that of a Spirit-filled christian today.

What I personally have taken from Wimber is a refreshing emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, but I think setting Jesus and his ministry up as a model to follow on the assumption that we have access to exactly the same resources is a big mistake and liable to lead off into heresy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This has been a hot-potato for years. There were issues around kenosis way back with the teachings of Edward Irving. You pays your money and you makes your choice as to whether Irving was sound in his Christology. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One the whole, I would agree with Jolly Jape that most charismatics have a balanced view on the kenosis thing ... but the danger, as Eutychus has highlighted, with Bethel and similar outfits is the sheer lack of formal theological training of any weight and their very anti-intellectual approach.

I'm not suggesting that HTB or New Wine or any of the other charismatic Anglicans are going to hell in a handcart simply because the Gumboid and all have invited a fruitcake to speak. There are plenty of fruitcakes around and they'll have had fruitcakes there in the past and will do so again.

But I would sound a very strong note of caution.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's The Theology of the Land?
People do not own the land, God does. Not just in a theological way, but in a real way.

That's my theology soundbite of the day.

quote:

Thirdly, It is shewed us, That all the Prophecies, Visions, and Revelations of Scriptures, of Prophets, and Apostles, concerning the calling of the Jews, the Restauration of Israel; and making of that People, the Inheritors of the whole Earth; doth all seat themselves in this Work of making the Earth a Common Treasury; as you may read, Ezek. 24.26, 27, &c. Jer. 33.7 to 12. Esay. 49.17, 18, &c. Zach. 8. from 4, to 12, Dan. 2.44, 45, Dan. 7.27. Hos. 14.5, 6,7. Joel 2.26, 27. Amos 9. from 8 to the end, Obad. 17.18.21. Mic. 5. from 7 to the end, Hab. 2.6, 7, 8, 13, 14. Gen. 18.18. Rom. 11.15. Zeph. 3. &c. Zech. 14.9

(Gerard Winstanley and others, 1649, The True Levellers Standard Advanced: Or, The State of Community Opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men)

[Yipee]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

The alternative perspective in all this is that, in their private conversations, the conference organisers may be having a positive influence on brother Clark.

Not that I can pass any comment on his teaching having not heard any of it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I admire your optimism, Drewthealexander, but I spent much of my 18 years in a restorationist charismatic church trying to bring alternative perspectives and balance. It gets you nowhere in the end. These people hear what they want to hear. Just like everyone else.

I would have more expectation of the Pope suddenly removing his tiara and throwing in his lot with the Mennonites or the Principal of Hyper-Reformed Theological Seminary of Calvinsville Minnesota declaring that he was becoming a Copt, than I would of any of these guys changing their spots ...

Still, stranger things have happened ...

Incidentally, I'm not sure that the Gumboid and his pals are in a particularly good position to bring commonsense to bear, but I might be doing them a disservice. They won't be as whacky as some of the company they keep ...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Bill Johnson believes Jesus was a man zapped by the Holy Spirit and in the sense Jesus was God we can be God? What Johnson believes sounds very similar to bog standard liberal Christology. The Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London would have a serious clergy crisis if they started prohibiting people with that view or similar from speaking in COE parishes.
Yes, I'm afraid I know from my C of E days that this was a view almost on par with traditional beliefs about the Incarnation.

Not at all. As I'm sure you know very well, the traditional belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I move in fairly liberal Anglican circles and I have never heard anyone suggest from a pulpit that this was not the case- indeed, quite the reverse.

Or is this just some snarky jibe at the alleged doctrinal laxity of the CofE?

[ 18. May 2012, 21:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

It's funny how everyone's critical of some of the word-faith preachers that are invited to preach at Holy Trinity, yet Nicky Gumble can do no wrong - shouldn't we judge people by the company they keep?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Bill Johnson believes Jesus was a man zapped by the Holy Spirit and in the sense Jesus was God we can be God? What Johnson believes sounds very similar to bog standard liberal Christology. The Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London would have a serious clergy crisis if they started prohibiting people with that view or similar from speaking in COE parishes.
Yes, I'm afraid I know from my C of E days that this was a view almost on par with traditional beliefs about the Incarnation.

Not at all. As I'm sure you know very well, the traditional belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I move in fairly liberal Anglican circles and I have never heard anyone suggest from a pulpit that this was not the case- indeed, quite the reverse.

Or is this just some snarky jibe at the alleged doctrinal laxity of the CofE?

Errr.. no it's not a jibe - I've heard it often enough with my own ears, from "evangelicals" amongst others. I get the impression that either view is acceptable in the C of E - that's why you don't often hear of priests saying that it is fundamentally necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Stick around, Mark, you'll hear plenty of jibes at Gumbel. I'm no fan. The bloke brings me out in spots.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Stick around, Mark, you'll hear plenty of jibes at Gumbel. I'm no fan. The bloke brings me out in spots.

I wouldn't say our Nicky brings me out in spots - but he is annoying! ...and why does he have to call himself "Nicky"? ...or shouldn't I ask?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Because he's a prat.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
shouldn't we judge people by the company they keep?

Well, it worked so well for the Pharisees [Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Big Grin]

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because he's a prat.

In your opinion.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because he's a prat.
In your opinion.

Was there any point to that comment? Gamaliel is posting an opinion - wow, woopie do. Isn't that what everyone does on a bulletin board - or do you have a hotline to the deity which means that everything you say is god's-own-truth whereas everything Gamaliel says is unreliable opinion?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because he's a prat.
In your opinion.
Was there any point to that comment? Gamaliel is posting an opinion - wow, woopie do. Isn't that what everyone does on a bulletin board - or do you have a hotline to the deity which means that everything you say is god's-own-truth whereas everything Gamaliel says is unreliable opinion?

Wouldn't it be easier to just say that you think he's a prat as well?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Wouldn't it be easier to just say that you think he's a prat as well?

Do you ever shut up? What is your problem?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Wouldn't it be easier to just say that you think he's a prat as well?
Do you ever shut up? What is your problem?

Well? You answered one person's pointless (in your opinion) comment with another pointless and long winded comment of your own!

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because he's a prat.
In your opinion.
Was there any point to that comment? Gamaliel is posting an opinion - wow, woopie do. Isn't that what everyone does on a bulletin board - or do you have a hotline to the deity which means that everything you say is god's-own-truth whereas everything Gamaliel says is unreliable opinion?

Barrea posts three words in gentle disagreement and suddenly he's claiming "a hotline to the deity"? Good grief. A bit over the top, I'd say.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Because he's a prat.
In your opinion.

When, like Gamaliel, you see a prat every time you look in the mirror, you know a prat when you see one. [Biased]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The problem is that as usual, things are not that black and white. Nicky Gumbel can hardly help his 'rah' background. He has been instrumental in the work of Alpha, which although I cordially detest it has I'm sure resulted in at least some people coming to the faith and has "even" been taken on board by many RC churches here. I'm sure he "loves the Lord".

Unfortunately, like a lot of leaders of all stripes, he seems to have a blind spot with regard to some of those he gives a platfom to and unintentionally legitimises.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The problem is that as usual, things are not that black and white. Nicky Gumbel can hardly help his 'rah' background. He has been instrumental in the work of Alpha, which although I cordially detest it has I'm sure resulted in at least some people coming to the faith and has "even" been taken on board by many RC churches here. I'm sure he "loves the Lord".

Unfortunately, like a lot of leaders of all stripes, he seems to have a blind spot with regard to some of those he gives a platfom to and unintentionally legitimises.

Exactly - that's the dilemma!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well in Ship terms I think it's called "attack the issue not the person".

Even if, to misquote Adrian Plass, we are called to be fools for Christ and not prats for Jesus.

Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on :

I think its understating the case somewhat to say that Alpha has resulted in a few people coming to Christ. Its resulted in more than a few in my town; and I am sure thats multiplied by most of the towns in the country. Tempting as the reverse snobbery thing is I think Nicky G has undoubtably made a great contribution to the church in the UK.

As for Randy Clark; I have heard him speak once on mp3. It was clear that he mixed with word of faith types and was comfortable with them but not clear that he shared their views. In fact he was quite explicit about healing not resulting automatically from a certain level of faith; that he had seen healings where there seemed to be little faith on the part of the person praying or the person being prayed for and that this might upset the "word of faith" types.

The only other thing I know about him really was that Heidi Baker in her book mentions him prophesying over her at Toronto about how her ministry in Mozambique would take off - in a few years afterwards her organisation went from one orphanage and two churches to planting 8,000 or so churches and looking after many more orphans.
She incidentally can't really be described as a "health and wealth person" despite being enthusiatic about healing given that she talks and writes about how she has learnt the most theology from children and the poor. She also talks quite realistically about children coming into their orphanages with Turberculosis, Aids and other STDs for example and then how God has healed one or more of these but not all of these afflictions in response to prayer - a really clear affirmation of the tension of living with the "now and not yet" of the kingdom.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
She also talks quite realistically about children coming into their orphanages with Turberculosis, Aids and other STDs for example and then how God has healed one or more of these but not all of these afflictions in response to prayer - a really clear affirmation of the tension of living with the "now and not yet" of the kingdom.

I cannot help thinking that miracles have more to do with teaching the reality and power of God than with fixing up all our temporal problems.

Many people have an ultimately bleak and deeply negative view of the universe'n'all. Miracles show us that underneath the universe lies the eternal and all-powerful love of God. They don't teach us that God will fix all our problems instantly.

Once we get out of a negative view of ultimate reality (God, who is Love, is ultimate reality) then we can face the problems of every day life knowing that they are not ultimate, not eternal.

This is what I got out of the Charismatic movement. Not "all your problems can be solved, if only you believe hard enough", but "God is real, utterly real, and whatever you go through, He is there with you".

A miracle occurs, and we believe in the reality of God. Then a miracle does not occur, and we have to decide whether we want God rather than miracles. We move on from "miracles all the way" to Habakkuk's words: "Though the fig tree does not prosper, and there be no fruit on the vine ... yet will I rejoice in the Lord". Whether a miracle happens or not, is simply a temporal matter. The reality and love of God is eternal.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, Bill Johnson believes Jesus was a man zapped by the Holy Spirit and in the sense Jesus was God we can be God? What Johnson believes sounds very similar to bog standard liberal Christology.

Darn, yet another memo I must've missed on 'What you must believe, if you are a liberal (according to Us Real Christians)'. I just hate it when that happens!

Anyway, to the topic. I think a great deal of good has been achieved by HTB through Alpha and its various courses. If Randy Clarke proves to be a mistake in programming, I hope and trust what is valuable in HTB's ministry will not suffer. They're probably big and ugly enough to suffer a few bad associations, if that were the case, however.

At this stage, I can't see either that there's any particular reason for a Bishop to 'do' anything. Voicing private reservations might be one thing. But no reason - as yet - to worry about the congos at HTB?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
The only other thing I know about him really was that Heidi Baker in her book mentions him prophesying over her at Toronto about how her ministry in Mozambique would take off - in a few years afterwards her organisation went from one orphanage and two churches to planting 8,000 or so churches and looking after many more orphans.

May I ask - when you say 8,000 churches, does this refer to actual buildings in most cases or the groups of people who form the congregations?

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see how.
.... I believe all heretics should be treated equally.

So assuming that extreme Liberalism and Extreme Charismaticism are equally wrong/dangerous do we take into account that the latter is growing whilst the former seems to fizzle itself out? I find in ministry that the former is far easier to engage with and challenge than what folks have picked up from the latter, because as they believe it to be orthodoxy they would see me as a heretic

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

OK, I can understand that claiming that Ontological Kenosis might violate the idea of the full divinity of Jesus, but I can't see why Functional Kenosis is problematic. It's fairly well taught in Paul, and at least implied by Jesus Himself. Nor can I see that Jesus operating as a Spirit-filled human should ring any alarm bells. Again, scripturally quite well attested. Where do you see the danger?

Complex and subtle.

Firstly for any given action of Christ do we end up wrestling with to what extent it is human or divine? Signs and Wonders perhaps can be seen as 'just' down to the Anointing, but what about emotional responses. Did Jesus the man weep at the grave of Lazarus, or sweat blood in the Garden, or were divine and human will united in these actions?

How about the institution of the Eucharist. Was this 'just' an anointed human act that any of us could fulfil, or is it a divine human act that we are all drawn into?

I have no problem with 'greater things', this can be seen in charismatic and sacramental terms (although in orthodox Christianity I suspect the dichotomy is false), but the reason the Church as a whole does such things is because Christ did all as fully human and fully God.

I don't want to be just an anointed human being, I want to be drawn towards the resurrected Christ, where humanity is lifted to heaven itself.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Stick around, Mark, you'll hear plenty of jibes at Gumbel. I'm no fan. The bloke brings me out in spots.
...and why does he have to call himself "Nicky"? ...or shouldn't I ask?

Probably because he thinks it sounds young and trendy - though he must be 50 by now.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Stick around, Mark, you'll hear plenty of jibes at Gumbel. I'm no fan. The bloke brings me out in spots.
...and why does he have to call himself "Nicky"? ...or shouldn't I ask?
Probably because he thinks it sounds young and trendy - though he must be 50 by now.

Isn't it just likely he was always called 'Nicky' and that maybe it was his family who first called him it? Did Billy Graham suddenly become 'William' on his 50th? I'm sure as hell not going to suddenly adopt my full moniker when I hit the magic half-century!

Besides - wild hypocritcal generalization coming up [Big Grin]

- the English are fiends for shortening names, aren't they? A kind of endearing little national characteristic?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Given he was educated at an exclusive private school and Cambridge, I suspect Mr Gumbel was frequently used to be referred to by his surname.

By the time he came to be ordained, I suspect there was an effort to leave behind his previous life and become a friendly face rather than Rev Gumbel - and I would think that went hand in hand with using a simplified first name.

It also seems to be generally true that boys at private school are called by a shortened friendly name by family - possibly also due to same effect.

This is all, of course, an opinion. I can't really see that Mr Gumbel's choice of name has anything to do with the rightness of his association with the Word of Faith oojamaflip, but that could just be me.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Also possibly an impact of his mentor Sandy Millar.

Both were educated at Eton and Cambridge.

I was also thinking that a certain time ago, it was very common for people to have shortened familiar names - possibly due to the impact of conscription. My Grandfather's brother was nicknamed Mac from the army days until he died at an older age. My Grandfather - a career soldier - was always known as Jim even though his name was Richard.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

At the risk of turning this into a pond war or a Circus thread, in terms of ridiculous names for ministers there are plenty of non-UK contenders. Winkie Pratney, anyone? Dutch Sheets? [Paranoid]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
The only other thing I know about him really was that Heidi Baker in her book mentions him prophesying over her at Toronto about how her ministry in Mozambique would take off - in a few years afterwards her organisation went from one orphanage and two churches to planting 8,000 or so churches and looking after many more orphans.
May I ask - when you say 8,000 churches, does this refer to actual buildings in most cases or the groups of people who form the congregations?

Hi Susan. It's groups of people, and if you include countries who are neighbours to Mozambique the figure climbs to over 10,000.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
I think its understating the case somewhat to say that Alpha has resulted in a few people coming to Christ. Its resulted in more than a few in my town; and I am sure thats multiplied by most of the towns in the country. Tempting as the reverse snobbery thing is I think Nicky G has undoubtably made a great contribution to the church in the UK.

As for Randy Clark; I have heard him speak once on mp3. It was clear that he mixed with word of faith types and was comfortable with them but not clear that he shared their views. In fact he was quite explicit about healing not resulting automatically from a certain level of faith; that he had seen healings where there seemed to be little faith on the part of the person praying or the person being prayed for and that this might upset the "word of faith" types.

The only other thing I know about him really was that Heidi Baker in her book mentions him prophesying over her at Toronto about how her ministry in Mozambique would take off - in a few years afterwards her organisation went from one orphanage and two churches to planting 8,000 or so churches and looking after many more orphans.
She incidentally can't really be described as a "health and wealth person" despite being enthusiatic about healing given that she talks and writes about how she has learnt the most theology from children and the poor. She also talks quite realistically about children coming into their orphanages with Turberculosis, Aids and other STDs for example and then how God has healed one or more of these but not all of these afflictions in response to prayer - a really clear affirmation of the tension of living with the "now and not yet" of the kingdom.

Over 15 million people in nearly 170 countries have attended Alpha courses, and it's still the default evangelistic approach for many evangelical and new missional churches.

And good to read someone who has actually heard Randy Clark.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

FYI I have actually heard Randy Clark on tape. The message was entitled "God can use little ol' me".

Posted by Rich Clifford (# 16881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the risk of turning this into a pond war or a Circus thread, in terms of ridiculous names for ministers there are plenty of non-UK contenders. Winkie Pratney, anyone? Dutch Sheets?

When I was in YWAM many years ago there was an American preacher called Randy Neighbor. And of course there is the worship song writer, Wayne Drain.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Or indeed Wimber's sidekick Happy Leman.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Or indeed Wimber's sidekick Happy Leman.

This thread is getting far too intellectual for me! [Killing me]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Then clear off and find another thread, Mark ...

[Razz]

Anyway, I hadn't realised I'd cause such a furore with my knee-jerk comment about the Gumboid.

And, barrea, of course I was expressing an opinion. I've sure the Rev Gumbel is charm itself. I can't be doing with his style, though and I don't have a lot of time for any of the big name pulpiteers - be they J John (don't ask [Mad]

), Mark Stibbes or any of the big conference speaker types.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that Alpha has been a very effective (if flawed) evangelistic method (it recognises that people are socialised into the Kingdom and aspects of the format are fine) nor that I'm writing off anything that's been done or achieved by the HTB axis and those influenced by it. Far from it.

Posted by Darkwing (# 16207) on :

My favorite Word of Faith minister name is Creflo Dollar. You can probably extrapolate from his name what kind of ministry he has.

His wife's name is Taffi Dollar, too.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks, Darkwing, I'd forgotten about them ...

[Big Grin]

Some things you just couldn't make up ...

On the Randy Clark thing, I suspect Anselmina is right. HTB etc is big enough to weather a few oddballs. Clark's probably nowhere near as bad as some of these guys. I'd be more worried if HTB had Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn or Morris Cerullo along.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect it's a Pond thing, Beeswax Altar. From your Bible-Belt background in West Texas or whatever boondock backwater you hail from originally, you're more used to this sort of thing...

Such a lot of condescension, achieved without even the use of italics!

Good thing Jesus didn't "hail from whatever boondock backwater."

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect it's a Pond thing, Beeswax Altar. From your Bible-Belt background in West Texas or whatever boondock backwater you hail from originally, you're more used to this sort of thing...
Such a lot of condescension, achieved without even the use of italics!

Good thing Jesus didn't "hail from whatever boondock backwater."

Aaah, the italics - these are a must for subtle sarcasm! [Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Leaf - I sometimes get into trouble on these Boards and in the Cafe for being sarcastic.

I was teasing Beeswax Altar and he's big enough to recognise that. He's teased me back by calling me a 'prat'. A fair call.

I spar with Beeswax Altar a bit, which is fair enough surely? I only tease people I like.

When I look at Nicky Gumbel, I see a bit of a prat. When I read Beeswax Altar's posts I see a different kind of prat. When I look into the mirror I see an even bigger prat.

That's how this stuff works.

One of these days someone is going to invent a 'heavy irony' smilie and then people wouldn't take me so literally whenever I was being ironic or 'post-modern' or whatever the current phrase is for being a pain in the neck ...

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Several of you have commented above that HTB, for all its quirks, has been a tremendous success in many areas. It's a good, but risky, strategy to invite Christians from all corners of the faith to seek common ground. Nicky Gumbell has been clear about his ecumenicist approach and I like that. I think the CofE benefits from a broad range of approaches, but this 'Sings and Wonders'/'Word of Faith' lot just made me wonder if HTB has finally crossed the border of from 'different tradition' into heresy.

Should they invite the snakehandler churches? Bill Johnson's theology/Christology is not far from Mormonism—will HTB invite Mormons too? I certainly hope not.

K.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Several of you have commented above that HTB, for all its quirks, has been a tremendous success in many areas.

Like you I'm somewhat bemused by this argument - even ignoring how much Alpha owes to the Iwerne approach, and how successful it may or may not be which is the subject of some other thread.

The idea is presumably that if one has a practical innovation to ones name, one can't be wrong theologically?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect it's a Pond thing, Beeswax Altar. From your Bible-Belt background in West Texas or whatever boondock backwater you hail from originally, you're more used to this sort of thing...
Such a lot of condescension, achieved without even the use of italics!

Good thing Jesus didn't "hail from whatever boondock backwater."

Nice one!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rich Clifford:
When I was in YWAM many years ago there was an American preacher called Randy Neighbor. And of course there is the worship song writer, Wayne Drain.

Back when I was a Christian we used to refer to it as Young Women After Men due to the high rate of people joining, meeting and getting married.

[Devil]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Rich Clifford:
When I was in YWAM many years ago there was an American preacher called Randy Neighbor. And of course there is the worship song writer, Wayne Drain.
Back when I was a Christian we used to refer to it as Young Women After Men due to the high rate of people joining, meeting and getting married.

And let''s not forget Young Wolves After Maidens. I was based in Salem, OR for several years.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

Bringing up YWAM reminded me that when I was on staff there a speaker was invited to speak at one of the schools. The guy who showed up looked nothing like the speaker we knew and then sounded nothing like the guy some of us knew. Turns out he had the same name, but was heavily into Word of Faith theology. It worked out well, though, because we had many spirited discussions on the very issues raised in this thread and others and students learned not to accept everything wholesale a teacher/speaker said just because they were a pastor/speaker/teacher.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Gamaliel, sorry thought you meant a whole prat,
not a little bit of one, You really should be more precise. [Smile]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Bazinga! as Sheldon Cooper would say. [Big Grin]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

For the record, I agree with Anselmina that HTB and New Wine - the dominant charismatic Anglican axis - are big enough and ugly enough to weather having a few oddballs to speak every now and then.

I'm not sure the sky would fall in purely on account of that.

However, there's no room for complacency. To be honest it saddens me that they feel the need to draw in people like this. I've seen the damage they've done on the 'independent sector' as it were. I don't want to see sections of the CofE make similar mistakes.

Still, people have to find these things out for themselves. They certainly don't want to listen to the likes of me.

I think Chris Stiles has nailed it. Because some of these churches have experienced numerical growth and done some apparently innovative stuff they think that they're somehow immune to it all going pear-shaped. There's also a delightful but rather trusting naivete about some Anglican charismatics. They've yet to get their finger's burned ...

[Roll Eyes]

I may start a new thread about Alpha. It's been done before, but I've thought of a different tack.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's also a delightful but rather trusting naivete about some Anglican charismatics. They've yet to get their finger's burned ...

They did in Sheffield.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

What happened in Sheffield, Enoch?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Ah yes the Nine O'clock thingame. ignore me.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Whoa—so was John Wimber one of the Signs and Wonders lot?

K.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, he was, Komensky, one of the main figures on that particular scene and very popular among Anglican and Baptist charismatics in the UK because of his laid-back Californian style. It travelled better than the Midwestern or Southern style of the Word of Faith guys.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

the long ranger:

quote:
By the time he came to be ordained, I suspect there was an effort to leave behind his previous life and become a friendly face rather than Rev Gumbel

Of course, since he is English rather than American, he would never have been "Rev Gumbel" but "the Reverend Nicky Gumbel" or plain "Mr Gumbel". [Devil]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0