The Toronto Blessing dog leash video...where is it from?

[MikeBigg]

Interesting, I wasn't aware these manifestations were common in Scotland.

What happened in Toronto was not unique to Toronto. It has happened before. I was involved in and leading meetings with some of the "Toronto style" manifestations before Toronto started and there are reports of these types of things even earlier than that.

The Toronto thing spread around the world. Whilst the excesses of Toronto, which is what we're talking about in this thread, may not be common, certanly the laughter, falling over and prophetic expressions are still around in many places.

I've said it before on here, probably the most profound thing that came out of Toronto is a greater understanding of the Father's heart.

Mike

 

[jamadan]

How do you know the exact details of this situation? That Arnott lied...

I was actively involved with Vineyard and a bog fan of TACF at the time and the news of the official decision and rationale was no secret, reported publicly. This is not inside information.

The Vineyard organization is very loose.

Indeed, such actions and confrontations are rare. Shows how profound the concerns about this whole animal manifestations was.

I'm sure Arnott never took an oath to obey Wimber even if he felt he was wrong. Arnott, just like each one of us, has a responsibility to obey God over Man.

Oath? What happened to 'let your 'yes' be 'yes'? Arnott told Wimber one thing to get his endorsement in the book and then didn't do his part to pull the chapter. Recall that Wimber was clearly Arnott's elder and apostolic covering. And Arnott did make a commitment to the Vineyard. Humble submission to ones authority is Godly. Open disobedience is from the enemy. If Arnott didn't agree, he could have stated that and pulled TACF before the deceit.

What I read into the situation is that Arnott listened to correction, and tried to obey the leadership of his "denomination"; yet in the end chose to be obedient to God rather than to Man. Withdrawing his church from the fellowship of the Vineyard was a mutual decision, not a "kicking out" as you seem to indicate, if we are to believe what both sides had to say about it when it happened.

Yes and no. It's like a parent who tells the disobedient son 'you've crossed the line, it's time you moved out of the house' and the son says 'fine, you can't kick me out, I'm leaving'.

You know Jamadan, HOW you report the details is just as important as getting the facts straight. 12 spies went into the land of Canaan, and saw both the giants and that the land was flowing with milk and honey. But for 10 of them, all they could talk about were the giants, with no hope in a God that had promised to fight their battles for them!

Every time I read one of your "reports" about what the land of Charismatic Christianity holds for us, the faith inside of me gets frostbite.

It should leave you frostbite. Some of this stuff is very concerning! It's not meant to make you think warm and fuzzy thoughts about some of these ministries and their lack of character and integrity, lack of sound doctrines and practices, and even inviting dangerous spirituality. There are times to splash the cold water in the face and wake up - that's one of the roles of the Holy Spirit, to bring correction.

 

[PinkSapphire007]

In my post I mentioned JWs and Latter day Saints:



I didn't refer to 'John Arnott'

God Bless

nice skipping around. I realize you didn't know what you were talking about when you said the movement had "new revelation". Nice talkin' to ya.

 

[jamadan]

Just to clarify, by "stage" do you mean allowing people to come down to the front/altar and manifest?

Didn't really matter where it happens. When someone is acting in that way, all attention and eyes are on them - they become the stage. So whether its just a fleshly manifestation from someone who likes the attention (and there are lots of those who hang around charismatic congregations and conferences), or a demon who wants to put on a show and make a mockery of the Holy Spirit by getting people to think what its doing is of God, it's the responsibility of the pastor to manage it. If its flesh, gently reign it in. If its demonic, cast it out. If its God, let Him do His thing. I admit that it's difficult to discern, but the leadership of the Vineyard movement discerned that it was not of God (specifically the animal thing). I agree with them.

lol I bet the manifesting stopped pretty quick without an audience. It's no good prophesying to an empty room.

Yeah, I thought it was a great solution. They had a name for the room - can't quite pull that one out of the memory cells this morning. Their basic message was repentance. So if anyone was manifesting anything that suddenly took away from the main message and focus drawing attention to themselves, they were very gently escorted to this room and allowed to continue on uninterrupted. Brilliant solution.

 

[lismore]

nice skipping around. I realize you didn't know what you were talking about when you said the movement had "new revelation". Nice talkin' to ya.

The Mormons certainly do have new revelation, they have a book of Mormon. Just because their group or any generic group experiences huge growth does not automatically mean that their 'new revelation' is automatically true. A better test would be to line it up with scripture, as the Bereans did.

We're looking at a video of people being led around on dog leads in a Christian meeting. If that's not new please refer me to the passage in scripture where believers are treated in such a fashion.

Just because it's in Christian circles popular does not automatically make it right.

 

[lismore]

Interesting, I wasn't aware these manifestations were common in Scotland.

thanks

Probably not common, but they exist in some circles. More common is perhaps shaking, jerking and groaning. When I heard the lady in the clip with the Scottish accent make the wolf howl it made me sit up and take notice.

 

[Yitzchak]

I was actively involved with Vineyard and a bog fan of TACF at the time and the news of the official decision and rationale was no secret, reported publicly. This is not inside information.

This is one of the reasons why we are instructed to not listen to gossip.




The split was over the issue of control. But not in the sense that Wimber was a control freak. Toronto became an international movement that involved millions of people from all over the world and from all kinds of denominations and backrounds. Vineyard had spent years building a network of churches who shared a common vision and way of doing things and Toronto was changing and no longer fit as a vineyard church. They went their separate ways.

Here is what John Wimber had to say about personal attacks. I have enough respect for Wimber to know that the rumors and gossip that you listened to and are now repeating did not come from him.There is no way that Wimber was circulating public slander about Arnott. The split was over doctrine/practices and not over personal attacks or slander , just as the official reports from the leadership on both sides indicated at the time and have maintained since then.

You've had your share of critics over the years. What have you learned about the way a minister of the gospel should respond?
I try to take personal criticism without response. I never write back. But I try to take criticism of doctrine seriously. I've spent days answering questions that I thought were fair-minded.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/july14/7t8046.html?start=1


.

 

[Yitzchak]

It amazes me how strongly some people will defend being conservative and what lengths they will take it to. Which is what this issue about Toronto comes down to. I am surprised that more people are not speaking about this as one of the great lessons for the church to learn out of the Toronto revival. What we saw was a conservative , we need to be careful about everything all the time mindset presented against a more open minded perspective that is the mindset of a risk taker.

I don't make any apologies for the Arnotts because I don't think they need any. He choose the virtue of courage and God blessed it. It really does not matter what all the fearful worriers think.

This conservative bent in North American churches is extreme and has earned it the reputation both inside and outside of the church as fuddy duddies. You know it well if you attend church in the average Evangelical church in North America. The truth is it has very little to do with the Bible and a whole lot to do with a cultural bias. It is as if the nerdy book keeper has gotten control of the church and now we all have to wring our hands and say " oh my " over and over again.

I say it is high time for this " can't dance " , socially awkward fuddy duddy church to give way to real people who have emotions and who enjoy life.

The truth is that John Arnott shut down the revival that began at Stratford when he was a pastor there. But he determined not to repeat that error. That if God gave him a second chance at revival , he would not restrict the Spirit in order to make himself feel comfortable. We all know the outcome of that. John embraced the virtue of courage which is what it takes to stay the course and not give in to the pressure that comes from religious people in that context. That old , " we better be careful " thing that shuts so much down. Which is why I refuse to make apologies for him. It just seems like a weenie thing to do in light of the courage that John and Carol have shown. Instead , I thank the Lord for the second chance that God gave them and the courage they have shown which has ushered in what is probably the largest revival of the church in modern times.

I wonder if those who are so determined to defend their conservative cultural mindset realize that it has very little to do with the Bible ? It can be seen in politics , parenting and other religions. They even make s bunch of movies with the theme being all about this whole fuddy duddy mindset. the ironic thing is almost everyone will insist that it is not them but someone else who is the real fuddy duddy. But I say ask their children. or better yet , ask their God.

 

[PinkSapphire007]

The Mormons certainly do have new revelation, they have a book of Mormon. Just because their group or any generic group experiences huge growth does not automatically mean that their 'new revelation' is automatically true. A better test would be to line it up with scripture, as the Bereans did.

We're looking at a video of people being led around on dog leads in a Christian meeting. If that's not new please refer me to the passage in scripture where believers are treated in such a fashion.

Just because it's in Christian circles popular does not automatically make it right.

YOU sir said John Arnott was given new revelation. I know about the other things. NO one said anything about what you just said here. I am holding YOU to the fire, for saying John Arnott had new revelation. He had NO such thing.

 

[MikeBigg]

We're looking at a video of people being led around on dog leads in a Christian meeting. If that's not new please refer me to the passage in scripture where believers are treated in such a fashion.

Just because it's in Christian circles popular does not automatically make it right.

Nor does it make it approved by, sanctioned by, or anything by the leaders of the meeting.

They cannot be held responsible for the lifestyle choices made be people who come to an open meeting. There is no evidence or even a suggestion that the leashed guy was doing it "in the Spirit" or actually, that they were even Christian people.

Regards,

Mike

 

[jamadan]

This is one of the reasons why we are instructed to not listen to gossip.

Yeah, well, if you talk to leaders in the Vineyard at the time, it ain't gossip when its true.

The split was over the issue of control. But not in the sense that Wimber was a control freak. Toronto became an international movement that involved millions of people from all over the world and from all kinds of denominations and backrounds. Vineyard had spent years building a network of churches who shared a common vision and way of doing things and Toronto was changing and no longer fit as a vineyard church. They went their separate ways.

That's a matter of perspective. The reality is that the Vineyard leadership, more so than Wimber himself, was very concerned about the manifestations there. They asked and warned TACF to reign it in, that's what belonging and submitting to a communion is all about. To agree to listen to the collective wisdom and how the Spirit is speaking through the collective hearing of the leaders.

If TACf was repeatedly warned, see below, and chose not to listen, one side calls that 'rebellion' while the other calls is 'resisting control'. In my opinion, the Vineyard was right and TACF was in the wrong.

The issue of Wimber's endorsement and the chapter he left in was a very real issue and was wrong and sinful of Arnott to have done it. The leaders decided to remove the endorsement of TACF directly because of the book.



According to the February 1996 issue of Charisma magazine,

“The issue centers in part on the unusual animal-like behavior — such as roaring or barking — that is sometimes manifested during renewal meetings at the Toronto church. Wimber said Arnott and his staff repeatedly were warned not to promote, encourage or theologize the animal behavior and the accompanying sounds” (pg. 12)

 

[Yitzchak]

Nor does it make it approved by, sanctioned by, or anything by the leaders of the meeting.

They cannot be held responsible for the lifestyle choices made be people who come to an open meeting. There is no evidence or even a suggestion that the leashed guy was doing it "in the Spirit" or actually, that they were even Christian people.

Regards,

Mike

I agree but I do think that leaders of a meeting do make decisions which can steer the direction of things. John Arnott is on record as saying that he does not endorse or speak against these specific instances , as you pointed out. He is also on record as saying that he and the leadership team intentionally took a higher risk strategy in the sense that they wanted to lean towards allowing freedom rather then being over cautious. Arnott accepts that some will not disagree with that decision. I happen to agree with his decision.

I think our churches in North America, in general , have a greater danger of quenching the Spirit than they do of allowing too much. Of course , that has changed in the last few decades and in a large part due to the influence of the Toronto outpouring. Things have moved a little more into balance in that. Although I would say that most churches are still too stoic and leaning towards an overly cautious mindset that quenches a lot.

The amazing thing is that some Charismatics would take the conservative part and defend an already out of balance model in this. Considering that the charismatic movement accomplished pretty much the same thing of loosening things up in the previous generation.

Which brings me to my final point. I said I agreed with Arnott. The other question that arises is all of these people who disagree , what makes them think it is their choice to make to overrule Arnott ? And when they do not get their way , they stoop to very low levels of personal attacks and sowing discord into the body of Christ.

It is one thing to have an opinion. But people should really tread more lightly on making these harsh judgments about what they think that they would have done differently. There are thousands of churches out there and lots of chances for those in proper positions of leadership to do differently.

In the big picture, the church seemed ready for a move of The Holy spirit which allowed more freedom. As some have pointed out , God himself prospered it and showed up at the meetings and changed people's lives. Clearly , there was a percentage of the church world that choose to not allow this much freedom in their churches. Why they are puffed up to the point that they think they should be able to bully the rest of the church with these man made limits is beyond me. There is not a single scripture which specifically speaks against what they are against and there is no real base of authority for them to overrule the leadership of other churches . It is just bully tactics.

In any case, your point is well taken. Taking a higher risk strategy which is what the entire Charismatic movement does , by the way. (it is all relative on the scale ). Anyway, taking a higher risk strategy does not make a leader responsible for every action that a person takes in a public meeting.

Ultimately we are all connected and we are all , on some level, responsible for how our actions effect the world. A leader is even more responsible. I think John Arnott has had a very positive effect. But when it comes down to his supposedly being responsible these random individuals in a meeting , that is just stretching the issue. Public comments were made on the position of the leadership with regards to these types of practices , generally speaking. That is enough.

Anyway , The Arnotts were pastors for decades and have had people under their care. It seems to me , that these critics who find a need to personally attack the Arnotts with innuendos and guilt by association are exposing their own bad motives. A fair assessment of their pastoral leadership would include the many people who personally sat under their ministry as pastors. In other words , they have been in public ministry for decades and this is the best their critics can come up with ?? The critics should be ashamed of themselves.

With regards to their leadership of the renewal movement , the Arnotts have maintained a good testimony. they have not mishandled money and have been faithful partners to each other. They live moral lives and work many long hours dedicated to the spread of the Gospel of Christ.

So a general discussion about some of the issues is one thing. But personal attacks on Christian leaders are out of line. The Arnotts handled their leadership with integrity and the opening poster simply asked a question about the source of the video in question.

It amazes me how low people will stoop to try to force their will on the rest of us. Last I looked , sowing discord is one of the things which God hates. People attempting to slander a pastor and sow discord between him and people under his care are not in the right.

 

[Yitzchak]

Yeah, well, if you talk to leaders in the Vineyard at the time, it ain't gossip when its true.

Speaking about the private affairs of others in a negative way that attempts to damage the reputation of another person. That is pretty much the definition of gossip. It is a sin. You should repent. Also it may be true that some people in the Vineyard movement were guilty of gossip. But that does not make the content of that gossip true.

Not to mention that the leaders of the vineyard have more sense than that. Your post disrespects them , as well. To suggest that they had some heated disagreement with another leader and then went and tattled to you and the people under their leadership. Frankly , I don't believe you. I give more credit to the Vineyard leadership than that. If one of the leaders involved was responsible for promoting gossip , then i hope they repented. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt and consider the leaders of the vineyard to be victims of the that same gossip which you are still promoting.

That's a matter of perspective. The reality is that the Vineyard leadership, more so than Wimber himself, was very concerned about the manifestations there. They asked and warned TACF to reign it in, that's what belonging and submitting to a communion is all about. To agree to listen to the collective wisdom and how the Spirit is speaking through the collective hearing of the leaders.

If TACf was repeatedly warned, see below, and chose not to listen, one side calls that 'rebellion' while the other calls is 'resisting control'. In my opinion, the Vineyard was right and TACF was in the wrong.

The issue of Wimber's endorsement and the chapter he left in was a very real issue and was wrong and sinful of Arnott to have done it. The leaders decided to remove the endorsement of TACF directly because of the book.



According to the February 1996 issue of Charisma magazine,

“The issue centers in part on the unusual animal-like behavior — such as roaring or barking — that is sometimes manifested during renewal meetings at the Toronto church. Wimber said Arnott and his staff repeatedly were warned not to promote, encourage or theologize the animal behavior and the accompanying sounds” (pg. 12)

The decision was made to part ways over the issue. As previously discussed in my posts , the real issue was how much of a risk taker were they willing to be on this sort of an issue. Wimber has a proven track record as a risk taker in his own leadership so I think he has proven himself. But on this issue he decided to not run the risk of putting the name vineyard out there with this thing. The fact that God prospered the Toronto movement made it less difficult to endure whatever hurt feelings were involved for the good people in the Toronto congregation.

By the way , I don't think either side is calling it rebellion or calling it resisting control. They disagreed with how much to control the meetings. When they could not agree , they parted ways.

And as stated already. Your accusing Arnott of being a liar is wrong and it is also wrong for you to include the vineyard leadership in that. The Vineyard leadership made their official statements concerning the matter and your adding these conspiracy stories about the "real reason " that you know about based upon gossip is just ridiculous.

 

[Yitzchak]

Oh and one more thing. This whole argument of the naysayer bullies that these animal noises were/are such a danger is silly. Silly because it has been argued for 17 years now and proven by the track record to be wrong.

Consider the fact that the leadership at Toronto decided to allow more freedom and be careful not to quench the Holy Spirit rather than being careful about these animal noises. Now 17 years later and it has not characterized the movement at ll. It has been a small side issue. There have been countless thousands of meetings around the world and millions impacted and the vast majority of them have never even come into contact with animal noises.

What has characterized the movement is the message of the Gospel of Christ , the message of the Father's love and countless miracles and changed lives. Which was no great surprise since that is what The Arnotts stated up front.

So in it's proven track record , these animal noises were no great danger , at all. They are not even a major part of the movement. The fact that these critics still try to misrepresent these things just shows the lack of substance behind their warnings. It is simply an attempt to distract from the real issues.

 

[mrhappy3]

Nice duck pic !

 

[Yitzchak]

Nice duck pic !

They are the real deal. The wind chill was minus 35 the other week , not to mention the blizzard last week. These ducks have some winter survival skills.

 

[mrhappy3]

They are the real deal. The wind chill was minus 35 the other week , not to mention the blizzard last week. These ducks have some winter survival skills.

amazing - out in that weather- some say their quackers !:o

 

[Faulty]

some say their quackers !:o

Boo! Don't quit the day job.

 

[mrhappy3]

Boo! Don't quit the day job.

thats what they call - egg on face ! x

 

[jamadan]

Speaking about the private affairs of others in a negative way that attempts to damage the reputation of another person. That is pretty much the definition of gossip. It is a sin. You should repent. Also it may be true that some people in the Vineyard movement were guilty of gossip. But that does not make the content of that gossip true.

Not to mention that the leaders of the vineyard have more sense than that. Your post disrespects them , as well. To suggest that they had some heated disagreement with another leader and then went and tattled to you and the people under their leadership. Frankly , I don't believe you. I give more credit to the Vineyard leadership than that. If one of the leaders involved was responsible for promoting gossip , then i hope they repented. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt and consider the leaders of the vineyard to be victims of the that same gossip which you are still promoting.






The decision was made to part ways over the issue. As previously discussed in my posts , the real issue was how much of a risk taker were they willing to be on this sort of an issue. Wimber has a proven track record as a risk taker in his own leadership so I think he has proven himself. But on this issue he decided to not run the risk of putting the name vineyard out there with this thing. The fact that God prospered the Toronto movement made it less difficult to endure whatever hurt feelings were involved for the good people in the Toronto congregation.

By the way , I don't think either side is calling it rebellion or calling it resisting control. They disagreed with how much to control the meetings. When they could not agree , they parted ways.

And as stated already. Your accusing Arnott of being a liar is wrong and it is also wrong for you to include the vineyard leadership in that. The Vineyard leadership made their official statements concerning the matter and your adding these conspiracy stories about the "real reason " that you know about based upon gossip is just ridiculous.

I assume you similarly accuse Paul for providing details of his confrontation with Peter and his confrontation with Barnabus in Scripture - and there were others.

Why is the behavior of leaders in the public eye making very important decisions such a secret? It speaks of their character and integrity. Peter saved the day by recognizing that Paul carried God's authority in his confrontation and he humbled himself in repentance. Not many have that in them. John Arnott failed to recognize God's rebuke was carried by the concensus of the Vineyard leadership. To many of us in leadership in the Body, we see that as the negative turning point at TACF. By rejecting God's opportunity to reign in the flesh, God turned them over to their sin. When one provides an unhindered stage and a spiritual free-for-all, it can come as no surprise when the enemy slips in an plants some seeds in the midst.

Countless friends of mine were reporting a big change had to TACF in the late 90's. Before they visited and were tremendously blessed. Suddenly, they came home reporting all kinds of concerns, deeply disturbed in the Spirit. Something was amiss at TACF. I prayed about it and the Spirit directed me to the Wimber confrontation. Like Paul confronting Peter, John Wimber confronted John. But unlike Peter, John failed to recognize the Lord's hand in the message John brought and instead of repenting and turning to obey the Lord, he decided to rebel and go on his own resigning from the leaders God placed him accountable to for his own protection.

And the real problems aren't so much with TACF. John, even in the midst of such an error, had what he believed were good intentions. I never view himas having evil intent. However, his children are another matter all together. Patricia King of Extreme Prophets and Todd Bentley took the seeds of rebellion that were sown at TACF and allowed full blown evil to enter the camp. Having learned that any supernatural manifestation is a welcome manifestation from TACF, they decided any means to an end is fair game. And as I've pointed out in other threads, they, and other similar minstries out there, have begun to focus solely on manifestations and seeking after signs and experiences. They learned well at TACF and took it to the next level , entertaining demonic practices and doctrines in the name of angels of light.

It's amazing how much bad fruit can come from rebellion. Seeing John and head-spinning Stacey Campbell on stage in Lakeland in 2008, falsely prophesying all these wonderful things over Todd in front of the world, I shed a few tears for him (John that is). A few weeks later, he had to backpedal and stated that he never knew Todd all that well and didn't realize he was actively adulterous while he was 'prophesying' how awesome Todd was. Sad state of affairs.