How accurate is the following description (Vineyard) ...?

[Alpine]

Jim,

Would you allow me to propose that the disassociation with the Toronto Airport Vineyard was the blunder? (Trust me, it's not going to be the arguement you are expecting. )

My impression of the split with the Toronto vineyard is that it was a pruning. For both the Toronto church and the Vineyard. I'm not anti Toronto vineyard btw.

I think it was best for both parties that they split.

 

[JimB]

Jim,

Would you allow me to propose that the disassociation with the Toronto Airport Vineyard was the blunder? (Trust me, it's not going to be the arguement you are expecting. )

Gasp! What do you mean?

~Jim

 

[TreeOfLife]

Gasp! What do you mean?

~Jim

What if we were to look at it as if it were a family thing? As if the Vineyard Association were the parent and all the congregations were the sons and daughters.

If one of your children were to go a little nuts would you have them permanently cut off from the family, or would you seek medical help and wait patiently for healing?

On the flip side, if one of your children were suddenly given riches beyond their wildest dreams and those riches were meant for all the other children too, would you cut them off to prevent the massive changes that would happen to your whole family?

I think Wimber's heart was to wait it out and see with the Toronto Vineyard, but the pressure from within the organization was just too great. Many other pastors were contemplating disassociating from the Vineyard because of the happenings at the Toronto Vineyard. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that was the only motivating factor, just one of many considerations. However, when you step back and put it all together, that was the actual moment that the Vineyard became a denomination. The moment the decision was made to part with Toronto.

 

[JimB]

You might be right but we will never know all the reasons why the Toronto Airport Vineyard chose to leave the AVC. It seems to have been after a reportedly amiable meeting between Vineyard leaders and the pastor, John Arnott, in late 1995. From my research of the issue, it seems to me that the Toronto church was creating a lot of controversy world wide (what with the barking, groaning, birthing, roaring, shaking, falling, clucking, etc.), so much so that the Toronto church had come to be the most newsworthy (think sensationalist/bad news) Vineyard in the world and had grown to identify and characterize all Vineyard churches, which was a concern to Vineyard pastors who were being forced to explain that, no, we are not like that! These concerns grew to the point where the Vineyard leadership had to take some proactive measures. Whatever was discussed and agreed/disagreed to between Arnott and the leaders remains covert but it did result in Arnott and the church withdrawing membership in the AVC and Vineyard pastors breathing a collective sigh.

I do not know, for sure, but this is what I have come to believe.

So, IMO, it was not that the Toronto church was removed but that they themselves chose to resign fellowship themselves. Whether it was a willing resignation or a forced one we will probably never know.

Personally, I am glad the Vineyard took the balanced approach. Had the movement swung to the pro-Toronto manifestations side I would not be Vineyard today.

~Jim

 

[Sabertooth]

... Had the movement swung to the pro-Toronto manifestations side I would not be Vineyard today.

~Jim

While I felt the same way about the "bestial" manifestations, haven't we lost something when we stopped singing or dancing in the Spirit? Those practices were conducive to worship and predate the TB. It just seems like the pendulum has swung completely the other way.

I have children who need healing and/or deliverance and I have nowhere else to take them.

 

[JimB]

That I cannot say, ST. Pendulums swing as pendulums do and if it is truth, and we pursue it, it will swing back in the right direction. I may disagree, though, that we have lost something. The emphasis these days seems to be on evangelism (the Great Commission), missions, church planting and healthy personal discipleship than in experientialism and manifestations. I see that as a good thing. The other, if it is real and we are, in fact, seeking first the Kingdom, will be added as needed.

~Jim

 

[NewSong]

You might be right but we will never know all the reasons why the Toronto Airport Vineyard chose to leave the AVC. It seems to have been after a reportedly amiable meeting between Vineyard leaders and the pastor, John Arnott, in late 1995. From my research of the issue, it seems to me that the Toronto church was creating a lot of controversy world wide (what with the barking, groaning, birthing, roaring, shaking, falling, clucking, etc.), so much so that the Toronto church had come to be the most newsworthy (think sensationalist/bad news) Vineyard in the world and had grown to identify and characterize all Vineyard churches, which was a concern to Vineyard pastors who were being forced to explain that, no, we are not like that! These concerns grew to the point where the Vineyard leadership had to take some proactive measures. Whatever was discussed and agreed/disagreed to between Arnott and the leaders remains covert but it did result in Arnott and the church withdrawing membership in the AVC and Vineyard pastors breathing a collective sigh.

I do not know, for sure, but this is what I have come to believe.

So, IMO, it was not that the Toronto church was removed but that they themselves chose to resign fellowship themselves. Whether it was a willing resignation or a forced one we will probably never know.

Personally, I am glad the Vineyard took the balanced approach. Had the movement swung to the pro-Toronto manifestations side I would not be Vineyard today.

~Jim

Jim:

This is also the story that Arnot and Tommy Reid have shared from here up North that they were asked to stop the barking in the services and John Arnot did not believe he was supposed to touch it. As a peaceful way of dealing with this Toronto, Kansas City reorganized under different leadership.
As I have shared in the past, I have heard a lot on the end from these leaders why they left and they did chose to leave rather than conform to the
request made by John Wimber at that time. My pastor has called these pastors many times for instruction and I do believe that they are of GOD. I do have a problem with the imbalances though that have made the Vineyard initially and still a controversy because of the disassociation. John Arnot and Tommy Reid who is a very good friend of John Arnot and I believe now on the board with TACF, Mike Bickle and others prayed very sincerely about this and came to this agreement. I believe the media really sensationalized things or I didn't see what everyone else saw.

I believe you have done your research well and I am comforted by the fact that the same story is being told by TACF.

Thanks.
Muffett

 

[JimB]

Jim:

This is also the story that Arnot and Tommy Reid have shared from here up North that they were asked to stop the barking in the services and John Arnot did not believe he was supposed to touch it. As a peaceful way of dealing with this Toronto, Kansas City reorganized under different leadership.
As I have shared in the past, I have heard a lot on the end from these leaders why they left and they did chose to leave rather than conform to the
request made by John Wimber at that time. My pastor has called these pastors many times for instruction and I do believe that they are of GOD. I do have a problem with the imbalances though that have made the Vineyard initially and still a controversy because of the disassociation. John Arnot and Tommy Reid who is a very good friend of John Arnot and I believe now on the board with TACF, Mike Bickle and others prayed very sincerely about this and came to this agreement. I believe the media really sensationalized things or I didn't see what everyone else saw.

I believe you have done your research well and I am comforted by the fact that the same story is being told by TACF.

Thanks.
Muffett

I understand Arnott’s reluctance to “touch” what he felt was the move of the Spirit (in particular, the more controversial “manifestations” exhibited at the Toronto church). I heard the pastor of the Brownsville Assembly, Pensacola, who admittedly was influenced by what was happening in Toronto, state a similar thing on one of my visits to the church. He said (to loud “amens”), concerning the more controversial “manifestations” that were happening during the “revival” at Pensacola, “I did not start this thing and I am not going to stop it.” That is a direct quote. It was greeted with applause and more “manifestations”. But it seemed to me that he was saying, I am not responsible for anything, even as the leader of this congregation, because it must be of God. It also said, to me, that he was unwilling, as a leader, to test the spirits to see if they were, indeed, of God or to “test all things” to prove “what is good” or to maintain, as a leader, “decency and order” in public worship, as the Apostle prescribed in 1 Cor. 14.

As a former Pentecostal pastor, I understood his concerns. In the tradition I was raised, to in any way say that anything that was happening in a gathering could possibly be anything but God or in any way try to discourage emotionalism or fanaticism, was to be vulnerable to the charge of “quenching the Spirit”, possibly the worst charge that can be laid at the feet of a Pentecostal preacher.

The Vineyard leaders who confronted the Toronto Mixed Blessing (as someone in this forum once called it) were, IMO, courageous in exercising and enforcing discipline and moderation. That is part of what leaders are supposed to do. They felt, rightly (IMO), that to continue to allow immoderation would be “quenching the Spirit” and God-ordained direction of the movement and move it away from its original, God-given, values and aims. IOW, by not quenching the spirit (small ‘s’) of emotionalism (a.k.a., the flesh) they would, in effect, be quenching the Holy Spirit. Ergo, they took the proactive measures they felt necessary to quell what they felt was an encroachment on the Vineyard’s God-given mission. None of them did it on their own without considerable prayer and pain.

It was a regrettable incident in the history of the Vineyard, IMO, but one that strengthened the movement and critics of their decision remain to this day. But I feel what they did was an act of courage and wisdom and may very well have safeguarded the vision God gave to the Vineyard in its beginning.

~Jim

 

[NewSong]

I understand Arnott’s reluctance to “touch” what he felt was the move of the Spirit (in particular, the more controversial “manifestations” exhibited at the Toronto church). I heard the pastor of the Brownsville Assembly, Pensacola, who admittedly was influenced by what was happening in Toronto, state a similar thing on one of my visits to the church. He said (to loud “amens”), concerning the more controversial “manifestations” that were happening during the “revival” at Pensacola, “I did not start this thing and I am not going to stop it.” That is a direct quote. It was greeted with applause and more “manifestations”. But it seemed to me that he was saying, I am not responsible for anything, even as the leader of this congregation, because it must be of God. It also said, to me, that he was unwilling, as a leader, to test the spirits to see if they were, indeed, of God or to “test all things” to prove “what is good” or to maintain, as a leader, “decency and order” in public worship, as the Apostle prescribed in 1 Cor. 14.

As a former Pentecostal pastor, I understood his concerns. In the tradition I was raised, to in any way say that anything that was happening in a gathering could possibly be anything but God or in any way try to discourage emotionalism or fanaticism, was to be vulnerable to the charge of “quenching the Spirit”, possibly the worst charge that can be laid at the feet of a Pentecostal preacher.

The Vineyard leaders who confronted the Toronto Mixed Blessing (as someone in this forum once called it) were, IMO, courageous in exercising and enforcing discipline and moderation. That is part of what leaders are supposed to do. They felt, rightly (IMO), that to continue to allow immoderation would be “quenching the Spirit” and God-ordained direction of the movement and move it away from its original, God-given, values and aims. IOW, by not quenching the spirit (small ‘s’) of emotionalism (a.k.a., the flesh) they would, in effect, be quenching the Holy Spirit. Ergo, they took the proactive measures they felt necessary to quell what they felt was an encroachment on the Vineyard’s God-given mission. None of them did it on their own without considerable prayer and pain.

It was a regrettable incident in the history of the Vineyard, IMO, but one that strengthened the movement and critics of their decision remain to this day. But I feel what they did was an act of courage and wisdom and may very well have safeguarded the vision God gave to the Vineyard in its beginning.

~Jim

I, in no way, disagree with what you are saying. Services in my own church at that time were similar and my pastor said the same thing as these pastors, however, after we closed down our services and regrouped with prayer and study of God's word, I believe our pastor is convinced that there were times that we should have done something different and I am so glad he came to. My experience in the "free for all" as was indicated that was happening in the Toronto church that was also happening in my present church was such a painful and excruciating time in my life that I cannot ever describe. It was like the ones that acted like donkey's were elevated to God's highest pedestal and those of who cried were peon's in God's sight. I believe that even I took advantage of this beautiful visitation of the Holy Spirit and also tried to conform to what was being perceived as "Holy"...

Getting back to your OP--- when Vineyard and Toronto broke up---this made me take a good look. I don't think I ever cried so hard in my life when it happened and I was so mad and angry that I searched for reasons and answers. I arrived at the conclusion we are at in our post and found that when talking to God that I was guilty of falling into traps of performance and so I gave a lot of flesh during those services. I went to my pastor and told him that I started to question whether these things were of God and why. He was very kind about listening but where he was at during those moments said, "Maybe you better sit in the last seats where you move out if you don't like it." So I did. I gave up everything God gave me to do in that church and I became angry because my pastor couldn't see that there was more flesh than mine. I ran away for awhile, which is when I started posting on the forum and started seeing your posts on the Vineyard and some of the things I was struggling with and where I was at. I ended up returning to my church only to hear my pastor realized there was something out of whack and perhaps there was balance and there was more flesh and possibly there should have been better patroled services by himself. To my knowledge, I am the only one who vocalized this to him and if anyone else did, they are not mentioned.

So going back to the breakup of the TACF and Vineyard---that is when I questioned things and I found that your posts and my investigations and research are indicative of pastors who should have stepped up but perhaps didn't. Thankfully Vineyard stepped up. I still appreciate John Arnot and his heart for God as well as John Wimber and the stand that Vineyard has taken. I can also appreciate the TACF and the stand they took as one living in the middle of it and why they took the stand. I cry a lot as I think of the situation because it was a sad one.


And so going back to the topic of "How accurate is the description is of the Vineyard" ---I find that this thread has blessed me to speak openly about this as I have not been allowed to really say a whole lot without the forum and coming to terms with the whole breakup until now. It was a grief that laid heavy on my heart.

Thanks Jim.

 

[JimB]

Thank you, Muffett. I hope no one interprets what I am saying as being a criticism of Toronto. I have never visited the church and cannot rightly judge anything that goes on there. John Arnott felt that the Holy Spirit led the church in the direction it took and I will not doubt it. From my understanding, it was simply not the direction God had ordained for the Vineyard movement from its beginning and since the aims were not compatible, there had to be a parting of the ways, IMO. From all accounts, it was an amiable parting without bitterness or resentment and it seems that God is working in both tribes. The good thing is that many souls have been brought into the kingdom on both sides of the issue.

~Jim

 

[NacDan]

The emphasis these days seems to be on evangelism (the Great Commission), missions, church planting and healthy personal discipleship than in experientialism and manifestations. I see that as a good thing. The other, if it is real and we are, in fact, seeking first the Kingdom, will be added as needed.

~Jim

Amen. This very way of thinking is why I'm thinking the church my wife and I plant will be Vineyard.

Danny