There's a lot of truth to this...

[Carl Emerson]

And I agree with a lot of what you say. But we don't live in a tiny town where we simply walk a few doors down and have a house service. Even though I live in a country town, some of our church members live 20 km out on farms, it separates us without it being intentional. So you end up meeting when both families come to church, this doesn't foster the closeness that having a few small houses clustered together does.

And we can't ignore society, it impacts us even if we try and avoid it and if we are to get non Christians to attend church we won't do it without basic amenities people expect. Church isn't just the saints meeting together, there are kids programs and other things going on. Our kids program is one outreach we have as mostly they come from non Christian families. But to run those we need people and amenities.

I see both sides of the argument. Your view wonderful, but we can't just ignore modern life and people going elsewhere or the people going no where at all because sport is on.

It wasn't a tiny town where I experienced it... It was a City - Christchurch New Zealand.

The church exploded from about 100 to 450 in a very short time.
Leaders were in a foreign land trying to keep the boat steady with Gifts of the Spirit being manifest home fellowships blossoming, repentance and awesome conversions, healings, but most of all - Love.
There was sharing, going from house to house with great gladness of heart. I remember going in a van to the Sunday service and not recognising a passenger. So I asked is this your first time at church? Yes was the reply - I saw an angel at the end of my bed and he said I had to get to church.
Folks were repenting and being baptised, prayer meetings went on for hours - no one wanted to leave. Book burnings were common for those renouncing occult.
Hospitality was a big factor - hosts were prompted by the Spirit when to cook for more people, food was shared - everyone helped.
This was the real deal - leaders from different denominations were led to help - the common goal was to see souls saved not to win theological arguments.
Sadly the move eventually died when leaders tried to control it for fear of it getting 'out of hand'. It was obvious that home based fellowships that sprang up should become mini churches and multiply but this was not allowed to happen.
So I am convinced that the opportunity for such a breakout of Love is always there. The fresh breath that again ignites the Word as in early Acts is ready to blow - we Just need to take the first chapters of Acts seriously - keep it simple - He is willing - are we???

 

[Paidiske]

So I am convinced that the opportunity for such a breakout of Love is always there. The fresh breath that again ignites the Word as in early Acts is ready to blow - we Just need to take the first chapters of Acts seriously - keep it simple - He is willing - are we???

Honestly, I don't think we can do that now. Not in that way.

Somebody does need to take responsibility for things like making sure everyone who hosts a church gathering has a working with children check, that sort of thing. You might say they didn't need them in Acts, but we do need them now. And we need to have learned from our own recent history that evil people will be perfectly willing to exploit our naïve goodwill. I'm not willing to have a child sexually abused because of my own neglectfulness (for a start).

I am also convinced that the Spirit is always at work, that a greater depth of love and joy and peace are always on offer to us. That revival is always possible. But the days when we could throw caution and responsibility to the winds and do that in a totally unstructured way are gone.

Edited to add something else, too. Many churches, movements, people, have had a defining experience, a mountaintop time when everything seemed perfect and God was doing great things. By the very nature of existence, though, those times never last. One of the greatest mistakes any group can make is trying to get back to the golden moment in the past, rather than getting on with being faithful in whatever their situation in the present.

We can't recreate a golden age or a time in our past. It may or may not come to pass that we have another such awesome experience, but in the meantime, it is absolutely lethal to faithfulness and joy in the present, to be stuck yearning for something that has had its time.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Somebody does need to take responsibility for things like making sure everyone who hosts a church gathering has a working with children check, that sort of thing.

Well there is no law against love and families can host gatherings without bureaucratic drama, this happens all the time. (except during Covid)

Should a genuine breath of God be stopped for the fear of sexual abuse?

Your claims of irresponsibility are completely unfounded.

There was a robust structure in place - in fact too robust - that is what eventually put the fire out.

 

[Paidiske]

Should a genuine breath of God be stopped for the fear of sexual abuse?

Why don't you ask survivors of sexual abuse in church contexts what they think?

We can no longer ignore abuse in our communities, and the potential for abuse. No genuine breath of God will be stopped by us having proper policies and procedures in place.

Your claims of irresponsibility are completely unfounded.

I am simply pointing out that our structures are there for very good reasons, and we can't just abandon them. Churches have legal obligations in a secular context, and moral obligations before God.

There was a robust structure in place - in fact too robust - that is what eventually put the fire out.

Maybe. I don't believe that structures on their own put out genuine fires. But we see through history that these movements come and go. Even the very early church became "settled" within a short space of time. The Spirit blows where it wills.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why don't you ask survivors of sexual abuse in church contexts what they think?

I don't need to - you know nothing about me...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I am simply pointing out that our structures are there for very good reasons, and we can't just abandon them. Churches have legal obligations in a secular context, and moral obligations before God.

There were robust structures...

No laws were broken - what on earth are you on about ????

 

[Paidiske]

There were robust structures...

No laws were broken - what on earth are you on about ????

What robust structures were in place?

What you described happening - a fellowship where people went from house to house, under no particular oversight, without people even being known to one another - is something I couldn't be involved with today. It was probably legal in the 70s, but today it wouldn't begin to meet child safety standards (for a start; there'd be a bunch of other considerations as well).

 

[Carl Emerson]

What robust structures were in place?

What you described happening - a fellowship where people went from house to house, under no particular oversight, without people even being known to one another - is something I couldn't be involved with today. It was probably legal in the 70s, but today it wouldn't begin to meet child safety standards (for a start; there'd be a bunch of other considerations as well).

No - you have got it all wrong...

I am talking about what happened to a small Baptist Church which became the leading Baptist Church in the Country and the Pastor Murray Robertson became the head of the Baptist Union.

You have made some wrong assumptions.

Very mature oversight.

 

[Paidiske]

No - you have got it all wrong...

I am talking about what happened to a small Baptist Church which became the leading Baptist Church in the Country and the Pastor Murray Robertson became the head of the Baptist Union.

You have made some wrong assumptions.

Very mature oversight.

Perhaps I made some wrong assumptions, but you have also been very unclear. You described something where leaders "from different denominations" were led to help, but no one was clearly overseeing what was happening.

At any rate, you can't have it both ways; if this happened within the normal structures of the church, then it's not the normal structures of the church preventing such a thing.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You have to understand that this breath of the Spirit transformed churches from pretty much every denomination.

And yes it was all hands on deck - we were joined by a Gerald Tisch an ordained Anglican if I recall correctly, he became a solid influence in the leadership team.

Again there was no lack of oversight - please cease to insist that there was.

Your last sentence is quite wrong - maybe you need to research what happened in the late 70's. The move was so profound that church leaders had never seem anything like it. It was a steep learning curve for them - and in general they handled it pretty well -when they didnt the Lord stepped in pretty quick (I remember a noname in the church washing the Pastors feet at 2am and the whole eldership repented and got back on track) - we built a new church to fit everyone in - they had to import experts to guide them to some degree. Community naturally followed - a small village was built over the road from the church. New converts matured and supported mission work overseas. Quite a few went to Manilla's slums.

This is a wonderful success story - maybe you could rejoice with those who rejoice.

 

[Paidiske]

You have to understand that this breath of the Spirit transformed churches from pretty much every denomination.

Yes, I am aware of the charismatic movement.

Again there was no lack of oversight - please cease to insist that there was.

Well, again, what you're posting is not very clear. Who had legal responsibility for what was happening?

This is a wonderful success story - maybe you could rejoice with those who rejoice.

Maybe I could, if it wasn't being used as a stick to beat people now.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well, again, what you're posting is not very clear. Who had legal responsibility for what was happening?

I have already made this very clear, I repeat - Pastor Murray Robertson who became head of the Baptist Union.

I have no idea what you last sentence means.

 

[Paidiske]

I have already made this very clear, I repeat - Pastor Murray Robertson who became head of the Baptist Union.

So this entire experience of yours took place within the established structure of the Baptist church? Under the governance of a local board and so on?

In which case, why seek to reject such structures now?

And I imagine he was paid as a pastor? In which case why seek to make paid clergy out to be the problem?

I have no idea what you last sentence means.

I started this thread in order to share and discuss the issues raised in the article linked in the OP. And your entire take on it seems to have been to come in and tell us how terrible we are, and how all our problems stem from not being a re-creation of a particular experience you had fifty-odd years ago. As if that were the only experience of church that mattered or was faithful to its calling.

If nothing else I suppose you have illustrated one possible dimension of the clash of expectations that can occur.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So this entire experience of yours took place within the established structure of the Baptist church? Under the governance of a local board and so on?

In which case, why seek to reject such structures now?

It wasn't my experience - it was a sovereign move of God.

What I don't get is why such a beautiful thing elicits such distain... what spirit is that coming from?

You miss the big picture - little old church is blessed by the wind of the miraculous and the Love of Jesus - leadership have never seen this before an are out of their depth. They do some things well and others not so well. The Spirit corrects dramatically in some cases for the sake of the congregation. Murray publicly repents years later regarding the way they handled it. In some issues fear of what God might do caused the leadership to legislate in opposition to the move. Eventually the move dies as new fellowships that are home based are not allowed to develop. It seemed to came down to control and where the tithes would go. By that stage the leadership had a big building and a big congregation of around 500.

As to structure God works within what we have got whether it is right or wrong. In Matt 23 Jesus doesn't tell the faithful to leave when the leadership is corrupt, but to remain.
Not to question and review structure is myopic.
That is what I have been encouraging, but human loyalty to structure runs deep as if it is sacrosanct.

I would have hoped a forum such as this might be a platform within such matters could be reviewed.

When fresh fellowship is born out of revival, gifts emerge, these are recognised, leadership is one of these gifts that needs to be supported and flourish. I saw this happen - the generosity was profound - God was moving.

When the move dies, the shell of what was, continues on, the collective vision wanes and the generosity wanes and it is back to business as usual.

That revival mode that I am trying to describe is parallel to what we read in early Acts and was Gods model when the Church was born.

I dont expect you to agree or understand, but for the sake of the readers I continue to dialogue and hope for better things and a fresh breath in future.

Meantime I am faithfully attending an Anglican Church in the knowledge that He can create something out of any circumstance and lovingly release the breath of life again.

The best systems in themselves cannot produce life, but when He comes it is beautiful.

 

[Paidiske]

What I don't get is why such a beautiful thing elicits such distain... what spirit is that coming from?

My "disdain" is not because of what happened, but because it is being used to attack the church now. We are worthless because we are not that thing that happened in the past.

I notice you didn't answer my questions about board governance and a paid pastor. Seems they are not the obstacles you initially suggested.

As to structure God works within what we have got whether it is right or wrong... Not to question and review structure is myopic.

I agree with both of these. God can - and does - work within necessary structures. That does not mean we should not be open to change, but it does mean we don't have to reject structure as inherently wrong.

The best systems in themselves cannot produce life, but when He comes it is beautiful.

Indeed.

 

[Carl Emerson]

My "disdain" is not because of what happened, but because it is being used to attack the church now. We are worthless because we are not that thing that happened in the past.

I notice you didn't answer my questions about board governance and a paid pastor. Seems they are not the obstacles you initially suggested.

Sad that you use the word attack...

I do try to encourage to better things - if this is threatening - so be it...

Sad that you say "We are worthless... where did that come from???

I did answer about oversight - Murray was the Pastor under the Baptist Union at the time.

I stand my ground about the payment of Pastors...

All I am saying is that when a fresh breath comes as I described, leadership and other gifts are distributed by the Spirit, Love breaks out and no one is in need as in Acts. That means those called and set apart for ministry are supported by a loving family for the season of their calling. When the Church is in this mode there is no need for paid positions which can lead to folks continuing in ministry long after the time appointed by the Spirit for ministry has passed. I knew a Presbyterian Minister who hated having to preach every Sunday - the time of his inspiration had long passed, but the system required it, that was what he was paid to do...

I am referring above to a mode of revival that I hope will return again to refresh the Church as it did in the 70's.

If you had seen it and lived it you would better understand.

I hope you can give me leave to encourage folks to better things without claiming I am attacking what presently occurs.
We should all not only rejoice when He moves, but hope and pray together for the fresh breath that will transform how we operate as a Church. Such moves invariably involve returning to biblical principles, hearing the voice of the least among us and being open to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Paidiske]

Sad that you say "We are worthless... where did that come from???

That seems to be the thrust of your posts. That only one sort of experience of church is valid, and the rest of us are just wasting our time.

I did answer about oversight - Murray was the Pastor under the Baptist Union at the time.

So this amazing experience you're using to try to invalidate church structures happened within a church structure. Your whole argument is shot.

All I am saying is that when a fresh breath comes as I described, leadership and other gifts are distributed by the Spirit, Love breaks out and no one is in need as in Acts.

And in the meantime, all the rest of us doing our best to minister faithfully should have our lives made more precarious and difficult why? Just because you have an ideal to which you want us all to aspire, even when it doesn't match reality?

When the Church is in this mode there is no need for paid positions which can lead to folks continuing in ministry long after the time appointed by the Spirit for ministry has passed.

Paid ministry enables many people who otherwise could not minister (or do so full-time) to give themselves fully to the life of the church. There might be some who coast along long after they should have left, but to tar us all with that brush is pretty gross.

If you had seen it and lived it you would better understand.

I saw what it had devolved to by the 90s, and it definitely had a shadow side. Some protections from that shadow side are a good thing.

I hope you can give me leave to encourage folks to better things without claiming I am attacking what presently occurs.

Well, maybe if you could acknowledge God's presence in and work through what presently occurs, it might come across as less of an attack. Openness to the Holy Spirit also means being aware of what the Holy Spirit is doing now; we have not been left orphans.

 

[Philip_B]

I stand my ground about the payment of Pastors...

Firstly, there is the entirely Biblical Principle that the labourer is worth their hire.

Secondly, there is a generally accepted notion that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Thirdly the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

The charismatic movement, to the extent that it was of the Spirit showed these things, however like many good things, it also suffered from the stains of human sinfulness, and we also saw pride, division, arrogance, ungraciousness, unkindness and licence. This is a sad reflection on the truth of human investment and not in any way intended to be a quenching of the Spirit.

Well, maybe if you could acknowledge God's presence in and work through what presently occurs, it might come across as less of an attack. Openness to the Holy Spirit also means being aware of what the Holy Spirit is doing now; we have not been left orphans.

The Holy Spirit is neither contained by, nor excluded by, institution. Indeed no meaningful effort in ministry will ever bear real fruit without the Holy Spirit. Institutional and Spirit-Led are not polar opposites.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That seems to be the thrust of your posts. That only one sort of experience of church is valid, and the rest of us are just wasting our time.

That is not the thrust of my posts... they are your words...

And in the meantime, all the rest of us doing our best to minister faithfully should have our lives made more precarious and difficult why? Just because you have an ideal to which you want us all to aspire, even when it doesn't match reality?

You really have not understood my position - it is clear that for some reason you cant discuss this topic fruitfully.

So this amazing experience you're using to try to invalidate church structures happened within a church structure. Your whole argument is shot.

Sorry but you still don't get it... You seem to be determined to make me into a protagonist - that couldn't be further from the truth.

Paid ministry enables many people who otherwise could not minister (or do so full-time) to give themselves fully to the life of the church. There might be some who coast along long after they should have left, but to tar us all with that brush is pretty gross.

What is pretty gross is the way you cant help yourself from misrepresenting my position, maligning a move of God, for goodness sake if you were correct I would not be in an Anglican church working in with the paid clergy.

Well, maybe if you could acknowledge God's presence in and work through what presently occurs, it might come across as less of an attack. Openness to the Holy Spirit also means being aware of what the Holy Spirit is doing now; we have not been left orphans.

Having God's presence with us does not indicate we are doing everything right.

Why on earth should anyone who encourages others by testifying that there is more of God to be had - be treated like an enemy?

What really is your issue?

I was going to withdraw from the discussion earlier but wanted to be gracious and give you another shot...

What are you afraid of?

 

[Paidiske]

Why on earth should anyone who encourages others by testifying that there is more of God to be had - be treated like an enemy? What really is your issue?

You didn't just come in to encourage by testifying, though. You used that to argue that - for example - paid ministry is bad and wrong, that paid ministers in institutional churches are stifling and holding back the work of the Spirit. You blamed us for the problems in the church but have not demonstrated any reason why that is a fair or accurate thing to do.

What are you afraid of?

In this thread, I'm not so much afraid as incredibly annoyed at what I have definitely seen as a direct attack. Your posts have come across as a real slap in the face to all the hard-working, dedicated, faithful, Spirit-led people in ministry around the world.