Vineyard Churches?

[katesmom]

Has anyone here ever attended or heard of Vineyard Churches? My friend recommended that I visit one & see how I like it.

Thanks

[NacDan]

Has anyone here ever attended or heard of Vineyard Churches? My friend recommended that I visit one & see how I like it.

Thanks
I've not only heard of Vineyard Churches, I attend the Old Town Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Nacogdoches Texas...

I absolutely LOVE my fellowship!

Danny

[Toms777]

Has anyone here ever attended or heard of Vineyard Churches? My friend recommended that I visit one & see how I like it.

ThanksI am very familiar with this denomination (they call themselves an association not a denomination, but they are effectively a denomination nonetheless).

I have some concerns regarding this denomination. If you would like details, please PM me.

[Beoga]

been to one for a concert, and the have this cafe that they own that i go to with friends every tues/thurs, and i think it is pretty charismatic, not sure but that is all i know about it

[TerraSin]

I too have some concerns on that church group.

CJ

[plmarquette]

Patterned after the Toronto Vineyard church , where there was a outpouring of the holy spirit in Canada .

They are a bit laid back , casual dress , middle class , biblically fundamental , upbeat praise and worship ...

Not for the average , right wing , conservative , denominational type ...
prayer in tongues , falling out in the Holy Spirit , laying on of hands ...
.... Acts 2 , 4 , 19 .... Mark 16.16-20 ... test and see .

[Asaph]

Patterned after the Toronto Vineyard church , where there was a outpouring of the holy spirit in Canada .

They are a bit laid back , casual dress , middle class , biblically fundamental , upbeat praise and worship ...

Not for the average , right wing , conservative , denominational type ...
prayer in tongues , falling out in the Holy Spirit , laying on of hands ...
.... Acts 2 , 4 , 19 .... Mark 16.16-20 ... test and see .
The Vineyard church is no longer in association with the Toronto Christian Fellowship, formerly the Toronto Airport Vineyard.

Everything else you said with the possible exception of "middle class" is correct as far as I can tell. Like the late great Rodney, we got no class! :D

Asaph

[Highland Watchman]

Actually, I think the Vineyard movement started up in the States... California, I believe. I was looking on the website www.vineyard.ca, for the Canadian version, as I am currently a pastor "between churches", and someone gave me a lead of a position in a Vineyard church near here, and I was checking out a few things.

Regarding it's association with Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, they disowned the TACF because it was too extreme. I have a friend who attends TACF as his home church, and he started going there after it became independant.

Um... I don't know if they place as much emphasis on tongues as some other denominations do. I think their emphasis is more on "prophecy" and "miracles" than it is on tongues, as I did not see the emphasis on tongues, or its catchphrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" on their website when I was looking at their statement of faith.

One thing I do know about them as a movement, though, is that there is a lot of stuff on spiritual warfare, and can at points get to the point of rebuking demons who live under ever twig and salt shaker... (this is an extreme case, and I only heard of one instance... but I don't know if this person was a regular member, or just an extremist with a few mental issues of her own...). I did hear as a rumour that a Vineyard church fired their pastor once because he refused to pray that the congregation would get teeth of pure gold. I am not sure of the validity of that story, though.

As far as theology in other areas goes... according to their website, they are an "everything goes" group... at least on the non-essentials like eschatology/end times, calvinist/arminian/molinist/open theism, etc. But they do recognize women in leadership as a denomination, and they are charismatic in their expression. I have yet to meet one Vineyard person who was not into the contemporary music (for which the Vineyard churches have many great musicians, btw!), charisma (the gifts), and have a hunger for hearing from God (even if sometimes, the discernment may be lacking... but then, discernment can be lacking in a lot of our churches, right?)

Well, that's what I was able to find out. Hope it helps.

[Toms777]

Actually, I think the Vineyard movement started up in the States... California, I believe. I was looking on the website www.vineyard.ca (http://www.vineyard.ca/), for the Canadian version, as I am currently a pastor "between churches", and someone gave me a lead of a position in a Vineyard church near here, and I was checking out a few things.

Regarding it's association with Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, they disowned the TACF because it was too extreme. I have a friend who attends TACF as his home church, and he started going there after it became independant.

Actually, having watched events during the time of the disassociation, and read the communications, I would have to say that my impression was that it was more of a power struggle, whereby one church was getting more attention than the whole denomination and the cracks opened wide.

A similar power struggle occurred in the Brwonsville Assembly of God a couple of years ago.

Um... I don't know if they place as much emphasis on tongues as some other denominations do. I think their emphasis is more on "prophecy" and "miracles" than it is on tongues, as I did not see the emphasis on tongues, or its catchphrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" on their website when I was looking at their statement of faith.

They are very focused on physical manifestation and feelings.

[Andry]

I've not only heard of Vineyard Churches, I attend the Old Town Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Nacogdoches Texas...

I absolutely LOVE my fellowship!

Danny
I attend a Vineyard too, in Vancouver, Canada. We may be a bit crazy, but not as crazy as some of you! ;)

[NacDan]

They are very focused on physical manifestation and feelings.
Not wanting to be confrontational, but where do you derive this statement from? I can't speak for the Vineyard moment, just as a member of a single Vineyard affiliated group, but our focus is on GOD, not physical manifestations.

My understanding is that if you go to 3 Vineyard Groups, you'll get 3 different experiences. I think our lil group here in Texas may be a little right of the "radical middle" in that I believe we are more evangelical than some of the other churches.

Danny

[New_Wineskin]

I am very familiar with this denomination (they call themselves an association not a denomination, but they are effectively a denomination nonetheless).
Yeah . Sounds like a certain UNdenominational group passing themselves off as nondenominational .

[Toms777]

Not wanting to be confrontational, but where do you derive this statement from? I can't speak for the Vineyard moment, just as a member of a single Vineyard affiliated group, but our focus is on GOD, not physical manifestations.

10 years of research, interactyion with members of tyhe Vineyard. readiong Vineyard documents, monitoring or participating on Vineyard or Vineyard related mailing lists, etc., etc., etc.

Just stating that the focus is on God does not say anything in an of itself - even Hindus would say that.

My understanding is that if you go to 3 Vineyard Groups, you'll get 3 different experiences. I think our lil group here in Texas may be a little right of the "radical middle" in that I believe we are more evangelical than some of the other churches.
Danny
I do agree that there are variances, but that is not an endorsement.

[JVD]

Vinyard is one of the groups at the forefront of the modern signs and wonders movement. Although each church is a little different I would imagine you can find in most of them such things as Joel's army, latter rain theology. You would also find an emphasis on modern prophets and apostles.

I have "issues" with all of the above.

[xenia]

The Vineyard is a group of churches that used to be affiliated with Calvary Chapel. The Vineyard's increasing enthusiasm for signs and wonders was a bit much for Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard churches departed.

-Xenia

PS Their leader was John Wimber.

[Shannonkish]

I attend Milan Vineyard in Milan, TN

[Highland Watchman]

Vinyard is one of the groups at the forefront of the modern signs and wonders movement. Although each church is a little different I would imagine you can find in most of them such things as Joel's army, latter rain theology. You would also find an emphasis on modern prophets and apostles.

I have "issues" with all of the above.


Hm... Signs and wonders may not be as much of a negative thing as we may think. I don't want to draw out an argument here, but I don't think that having the signs and wonders is such a bad thing, as long as the focus is not on the signs and wonders themselves, but on the Trinitarian God whom we serve, and that the doer of the wonders does not go around parading an "ability" to do these things... For it is God who heals,and God who does the miraculous... And I have seen much of both in my day, and I give praise to God for all of it, and that HE has not fallen silent, but HIS Spirit is still active in our day... it is the one thing that is constant, is it not?

As for the modern-day ministry of the prophet and apostle, I would once again take a step back and ask why is there a problem if there are those anointed by God to do these things? Granted, I disagree with Peter Wagner's definitions of the gifts, and it might be his definitions that we are holding to, or perhaps we are just raising up the original Christians to be holier than ourselves. In which case, I can see the issue at hand.

But for me, I see an apostle as a missionary (not a glorified bishop who has absolute authority, which is what Wagner teaches, and which is the traditional Papist teaching, and not merely someone who saw Christ)... I take that from looking at the mission an focus of the apostle (which, in the Greek, it is a title given to one who is "sent out", which fits my definition). Paul's focus was not to form a bunch of churches where he would have ultimate authority over, and neither was Peter's, James', John's, or any of the other apostles... But rather, their mandate was to take the Gospel to the very ends of the earth, was it not? And I would wager that there are still those in our day who have this "mission" and "focus" on their hearts.

As for prophets, I see them as spokesmen of God, who have a passion for reform and a renewal of the faith of the people for God. They are annointed preachers and writers, poets, activists, and so much more. And as I look back through church history, I see many who would fit the bill of those men and women whom God has called to bring revival to HIS people. In Biblical times, we have some whose writings appeared in Scripture, and many whose writings did not. So the mark of a true prophet is not in whether or not what they have to say makes it into the Bible. But rather, a prophet is one who listens to the heartbeat of God and reports to the people what he hears... For post-biblical examples, may I suggest the following... Francis of Assissi, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, the Wesley Brothers, John and Catherine Booth, Menno Simons, A.W.Tozer, Martin Luther King Jr, CS Lewis, Vance Havner, Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, Watchman Nee... the list goes on, but I won't continue...

Granted, a lot of what we consider to be prophecy in our day is false, and we do need discernment, and especially a knowledge of Scripture, if we are to comprehend what is being written there. Just a few thoughts.

[Starcrystal]

I've gone to 2 Vinyard affiliated churches. One was pretty good and one was completely off the wall.
The first one was into the "Shepherding movement" and I went to a few deliverance meetings and one service. I'd been a Christian for 5 years, but they felt the need to cast the "demons" out of me which they said hadn't left when I was born again. (Then what DID deliver me then??) Anyways they sat in a circle around me and told me to let my mind go and they started calling out demons to manifest. They told me to utter whatever first came to mind. Well, there WERE manifestations, but I don't think they were there before. By that I mean I think they were put there by the power of suggestion by the church elders praying over me. They also told me I needed to be "under authority" and needed to attend their services regularly. (I had been going to an independent Pentecostal church close to home, but the Vinyard people said I needed to be under their "covering" for them (or rather, God through them) to properly deliver me. Needless to say, I left that scene.

Several years later I attened a Vinyard style church patterned after the Toronto fellowship, and it was pretty casual, layed back, and there was lots of dancing, and a little "laughing in the Holy Spirit." I didn't really mind this even though I know some Christians were offended by it. I also saw some powerful signs and God moving there as well as in my life.

So that shows me that even within one denomination or fellowship there can be drastically different types of ministry.

[Toms777]

I've gone to 2 Vinyard affiliated churches. One was pretty good and one was completely off the wall.
The first one was into the "Shepherding movement" and I went to a few deliverance meetings and one service. I'd been a Christian for 5 years, but they felt the need to cast the "demons" out of me which they said hadn't left when I was born again. (Then what DID deliver me then??) Anyways they sat in a circle around me and told me to let my mind go and they started calling out demons to manifest. They told me to utter whatever first came to mind. Well, there WERE manifestations, but I don't think they were there before. By that I mean I think they were put there by the power of suggestion by the church elders praying over me. They also told me I needed to be "under authority" and needed to attend their services regularly. (I had been going to an independent Pentecostal church close to home, but the Vinyard people said I needed to be under their "covering" for them (or rather, God through them) to properly deliver me. Needless to say, I left that scene.

Several years later I attened a Vinyard style church patterned after the Toronto fellowship, and it was pretty casual, layed back, and there was lots of dancing, and a little "laughing in the Holy Spirit." I didn't really mind this even though I know some Christians were offended by it. I also saw some powerful signs and God moving there as well as in my life.

So that shows me that even within one denomination or fellowship there can be drastically different types of ministry.What I find interesting si when I speak to people and ask why they believe that "God was moving" they will typically point to the experience and the manifestations, but that is not how the Bible tells us to test the spirits.

Indeed signs and wonders are no proof that it is of God. Look at what scripture says:

2 Thess 2:9-12
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
NKJV

Luke 11:29-30
This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.
NKJV

[NacDan]

I attend the Old Town Vineyard in Nacogdoches, Texas, and I got to tell you that I would have gotten out of that first Vineyard you describe.

In "The Quest for the Radical Middle", the trials and tribulations of the Vineyard Movement are chronicled. Most of what you describe in that first assembly you attended have been rebuked by the movement as a whole. Several years ago, John Wimber, who never wanted to contain the Spirit, instructed the pastors in the Vineyard that it was okay to ask people to refrain from "Holy Laughter" if it was interferring with the rest of the service.

Danny

I've gone to 2 Vinyard affiliated churches. One was pretty good and one was completely off the wall.
The first one was into the "Shepherding movement" and I went to a few deliverance meetings and one service. I'd been a Christian for 5 years, but they felt the need to cast the "demons" out of me which they said hadn't left when I was born again. (Then what DID deliver me then??) Anyways they sat in a circle around me and told me to let my mind go and they started calling out demons to manifest. They told me to utter whatever first came to mind. Well, there WERE manifestations, but I don't think they were there before. By that I mean I think they were put there by the power of suggestion by the church elders praying over me. They also told me I needed to be "under authority" and needed to attend their services regularly. (I had been going to an independent Pentecostal church close to home, but the Vinyard people said I needed to be under their "covering" for them (or rather, God through them) to properly deliver me. Needless to say, I left that scene.

Several years later I attened a Vinyard style church patterned after the Toronto fellowship, and it was pretty casual, layed back, and there was lots of dancing, and a little "laughing in the Holy Spirit." I didn't really mind this even though I know some Christians were offended by it. I also saw some powerful signs and God moving there as well as in my life.

So that shows me that even within one denomination or fellowship there can be drastically different types of ministry.

[PollyAnna]

We attend a Vineyard church as well and I have not seen any of what you all describe. Our pastor preaches from the bible and the services are pretty orderly. In fact I wish it'd be more upbeat and charismatic in its services. We're attending a newcomers meeting right now with the pastor where he describes their beliefs and history of the church.


Basically, his philosophy is that the Vineyard church is meant to be a "middle ground" between the charismatic movement and the evangelical. And the "slogan" for our church is "People reaching up, reaching over, and reaching out in love".

I have seen nothing but true love and compassion and a real desire to study the word of God.

[Toms777]

We attend a Vineyard church as well and I have not seen any of what you all describe. Our pastor preaches from the bible and the services are pretty orderly. In fact I wish it'd be more upbeat and charismatic in its services. We're attending a newcomers meeting right now with the pastor where he describes their beliefs and history of the church.


Basically, his philosophy is that the Vineyard church is meant to be a "middle ground" between the charismatic movement and the evangelical. And the "slogan" for our church is "People reaching up, reaching over, and reaching out in love".

I have seen nothing but true love and compassion and a real desire to study the word of God.
What we have seen on this thread may show one of the key problems of the Vineyard and that is the lack of consistency. It was not until 1995 I believe before the Vineyard even had a defined statement of faith.

[Shannonkish]

What we have seen on this thread may show one of the key problems of the Vineyard and that is the lack of consistency.

Vineyard is not a denomination and therefore each church has their own set of beliefs, much like Assemblies of God.

Vineyard is an association or more accurately a movement. While it has an association and national and regional offices there is no governing body other than the members of each individual church. Each Vineyard is vastly different depending on where you are at.

I attended Vineyard in Tyler, TX. This Vineyard was more "in tune" with the gifts of the spirit than the Vineyard in Milan, TN that I presently attend. VCF in Milan is a lot more conservative about their beliefs in the gifts than the VCF in Tyler.

Unlike the SBC denomination (or any other denomination) Vineyard doesn't have a governing body nationally or regionally. The national and regional offices exist to assist VCF churches in finding resources and whatnot.

Therefore the "lack of consistency" is not a valid point because you can't have consistency in something that isn't a melded entity. The SBC stance on Speaking in tounges is a consistent doctrine held by their denomination. In most every SBC church you will find this same doctrine because in order to be a member of the SBC association/denomination you have to adhere to a certain set of beliefs. This is not the case with VCF.

[Suffolk Sean]

What we have seen on this thread may show one of the key problems of the Vineyard and that is the lack of consistency. It was not until 1995 I believe before the Vineyard even had a defined statement of faith.Wait a minute, earlier you stated it was more of a denomination than an association in your opinion, then you criticize it for NOT having a SoF and it's lack of consistancy??? You seem awefully down on this association/denomination, why is that? Because they don't fit your view on how a "church" should operate?

[Toms777]

Wait a minute, earlier you stated it was more of a denomination than an association in your opinion, then you criticize it for NOT having a SoF and it's lack of consistancy??? You seem awefully down on this association/denomination, why is that? Because they don't fit your view on how a "church" should operate?
My concerns are quite substantial and basic and have nothing to do with methodology. I offered information on here about my concerns earlier in the thread. My suggestion is not to try to judge my motives - take the time to get your facts straight and do your reserach as I have.

[Toms777]

[/size][/font]

Vineyard is not a denomination and therefore each church has their own set of beliefs, much like Assemblies of God.


They call themselves an association, but in fact meet all the requirements of a denomination so that is merely semantics.

[Shannonkish]

What requirements?

According to Webster's a denomination isA large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
Vineyard fails to meet some criteria:
They are NOT organized under a single administrative or legal hierarchy. I have already mentioned this in my last post on this subject. The National and regional offices exist merely as resources.

How are we non-denominational--
1) Each church is a seperately incorporated legal entity.
2) The Vineyard Movement could cease to exist and our churches would still continue to function and unchanged legally.
3) The Leaders of the VM have no legal power over us.
4) The Association freely acknowledges each "member" church's right to withdraw from the Association via a simple letter.

[Starcrystal]

Tom777,
What we have seen on this thread may show one of the key problems of the Vineyard and that is the lack of consistency. It was not until 1995 I believe before the Vineyard even had a defined statement of faith.

The first church I mentioned with the deliverance ministry & shepherding was in 1990 so that was well before they adapted a statement of faith. The second one where they had decent services was in '97.

[Toms777]

The first church I mentioned with the deliverance ministry & shepherding was in 1990 so that was well before they adapted a statement of faith. The second one where they had decent services was in '97.
I could give you a bit more of the history and the background to the Vineyard - if you wish PM me.

Less has changed than you may wish to believe.

[Toms777]

What requirements?

According to Webster's a denomination is
Vineyard fails to meet some criteria:
They are NOT organized under a single administrative or legal hierarchy. I have already mentioned this in my last post on this subject. The National and regional offices exist merely as resources.

They have one national/international leadership and regional overseers. Sorry, but even under that definition, they qualify.

[Telrunya]

They have one national/international leadership and regional overseers. Sorry, but even under that definition, they qualify.
I don't see it that way. The only way it would apply as a denomination is if the national office had oversight of the local churches, which from my understanding they do not. The church I go to and the last one I went too both belong to the American Missionary Fellowship. I don't know anyone that would call the AMF a denomination. The individual churches have FAR more say about their doctrine than the national office. This is very differant than say the Lutheran church where the Synod has a majority say in what the local churches teach.

[Suffolk Sean]

My concerns are quite substantial and basic and have nothing to do with methodology. I offered information on here about my concerns earlier in the thread. My suggestion is not to try to judge my motives - take the time to get your facts straight and do your reserach as I have.
I know facts and I know opinion, you have an opinion. Again, you try to redefined them in what YOU feel they are and then criticize them for not adhereing to the structure YOU placed them under. Don't criticize their lack of consistancy and insist they are a denomination.

I have done research (not saying you haven't) and I'm sure your concerns are valid to you and you may have points, but in all reality what church is doctrinally pure? If you find one that you think is right, there will be a host of people that think it is wrong.

[Toms777]

I don't see it that way. The only way it would apply as a denomination is if the national office had oversight of the local churches, which from my understanding they do not.


There is a reason why their regional overseers are called overseers.


The church I go to and the last one I went too both belong to the American Missionary Fellowship. I don't know anyone that would call the AMF a denomination. The individual churches have FAR more say about their doctrine than the national office. This is very differant than say the Lutheran church where the Synod has a majority say in what the local churches teach.


The basic foundation and roots of the word "denomination" have the word "nom" which means "name" built right in. It is therefore the basic requirement that they all be called by one name, which is what some definitions of denomination say.

The arguments given against denominations when churches come together in a single grouping are typically semantics. If the churches had little or nothing to bind them together, they would not have come together in the first place. If they thought that other churches in the group were in serious error or heresy or off on the wrong track, would they stay in that association with them?

I just don't know why people try to avoid the word denomination when their church has indeed chosen that route. Indeed a association where the congregations have more independent action makes them even more strongly tied because they chose the association rather than as with some other churches where the church is under the complete control of the central office.

Thus the churches which have greater autonomy have less excuse when associated with churches that are in error or off the track in whatever way.

If your church is in association in any way with another church which is off track, they what have you done to have them sever that tie and associate with churches which are sound? Your church has a responsibkility regarding who they associate with and so do the members of the congregation. So if you don't like being said to be in association or having a common "nom" or denominator (name) with unsound churches, they why do you stay?

If I was a member of a denomination, I would not be afraid to defend that association and if I could not do so, my emmebershyip in that denomination would end (and I in fact did that very thing when I ran into that situation).

[Toms777]

I know facts and I know opinion, you have an opinion. Again, you try to redefined them in what YOU feel they are and then criticize them for not adhereing to the structure YOU placed them under. Don't criticize their lack of consistancy and insist they are a denomination.

I have done research (not saying you haven't) and I'm sure your concerns are valid to you and you may have points, but in all reality what church is doctrinally pure? If you find one that you think is right, there will be a host of people that think it is wrong.
Well, If you choose to attack what I say without knowing why, that is your choice, but I can say that you are wrong because you have not taken the time to find out what the concerns are.

I will criticize what I know to be true. The lack of consistency was shown in the discussions on here - do you deny that?

They are a denomination by means of the definition and I showed that to be the case. See my previous message on denominations also.

Deny if you wish, but wishing won't make it so ;)

[Telrunya]

There is a reason why their regional overseers are called overseers.





The basic foundation and roots of the word "denomination" have the word "nom" which means "name" built right in. It is therefore the basic requirement that they all be called by one name, which is what some definitions of denomination say.

The arguments given against denominations when churches come together in a single grouping are typically semantics. If the churches had little or nothing to bind them together, they would not have come together in the first place. If they thought that other churches in the group were in serious error or heresy or off on the wrong track, would they stay in that association with them?

I just don't know why people try to avoid the word denomination when their church has indeed chosen that route. Indeed a association where the congregations have more independent action makes them even more strongly tied because they chose the association rather than as with some other churches where the church is under the complete control of the central office.

Thus the churches which have greater autonomy have less excuse when associated with churches that are in error or off the track in whatever way.

If your church is in association in any way with another church which is off track, they what have you done to have them sever that tie and associate with churches which are sound? Your church has a responsibkility regarding who they associate with and so do the members of the congregation. So if you don't like being said to be in association or having a common "nom" or denominator (name) with unsound churches, they why do you stay?

If I was a member of a denomination, I would not be afraid to defend that association and if I could not do so, my emmebershyip in that denomination would end (and I in fact did that very thing when I ran into that situation).You can't tell me there is no differance between a church that is a declared "denomination" and those who choose affiliations just because of the somantics of the word denomination. Our church reviews it's association with the AMF every year at our annual meeting. We are accountable for who we associate with. While we may not agree on doctinal points such as women pastors we agree on the basics of salvation and we are in an association to further a ministry which is supporting missionaries. The doctrinal teachings are not the focus of our association. There is a huge differance between a denominational church that has a national office that promotes doctrine and an association that does not promote doctrine. That is the point. Not the origin of the word denomination.

[Toms777]

You can't tell me there is no differance between a church that is a declared "denomination" and those who choose affiliations just because of the somantics of the word denomination. Our church reviews it's association with the AMF every year at our annual meeting.


Then it has chosen to align itself with those curches which are off the wall, or in error. That being the case, I do not understand why you avoid use of the word denomination.


We are accountable for who we associate with. While we may not agree on doctinal points such as women pastors we agree on the basics of salvation and we are in an association to further a ministry which is supporting missionaries. The doctrinal teachings are not the focus of our association.


Bingo!!!

That is exactly one of the key concerns. If doctrine is not a focus of an association which professes to be Christian, then I have a major issue. Without doctrine, we have no profession, without doctrine we have no anchor.

There is a huge differance between a denominational church that has a national office that promotes doctrine and an association that does not promote doctrine. That is the point. Not the origin of the word denomination.Except that promoting doctrine is not an essential part of what defines the word "denomination". Regardless, to suggest that the Vineyard is void of a doctrinal stance is not accurate either. Again, I would suggest that additional research may be appropriate.

[Asaph]

I've been following this thread with interest because I too have a familiarity with Vineyard churches. I know that John Wimber intentionally tried to set the association up so as to keep it from becoming a "denomination". Now that he is dead I do not think the structure itself is enough to prevent that from happening. But that's just my opinion.

Also, for whatever it's worth. One of the reasons it took so long for the Vineyard association to part company with the Toronto Airport Vineyard was this very Non-denominational attitude. There were numerous discussion in which the Toronto Vineyard was asked to use greater discernment in what it was allowing and to reign in some of the more "questionable" things that were going on. When it was obvious that they did not think they should do that the two parties parted company amiably (to my understanding anyway).

Asaph

[Telrunya]

[/color][/font][/i]

Then it has chosen to align itself with those curches which are off the wall, or in error. That being the case, I do not understand why you avoid use of the word denomination.

How can you say any of the churches we are affiliated with are in error or off the wall? Are you familiar with AMF churches? Do you know any that are "off the wall"? I don't avoid using the word denomination. I don't apply it to this fellowship because it doesnt apply.


[/color][/font][/i]
Bingo!!!

That is exactly one of the key concerns. If doctrine is not a focus of an association which professes to be Christian, then I have a major issue. Without doctrine, we have no profession, without doctrine we have no anchor.

Why do we need some national office telling us what we should believe and teach. It's right there in the bible. That is our anchor. We have a Profession of Faith. We don't need a national office to give it to us. By the same token we're not going to tell another congragation how they should apply God's word because that's not our place or focus. We do keep tabs on the missionaries we support about what they teach and preach because we are sending them money. The AMF is a FELLOWSHIP. Meaning a friendship among like minded bodies. There is no overriding oversight required for this.


[/color][/font][/i]
Except that promoting doctrine is not an essential part of what defines the word "denomination". Regardless, to suggest that the Vineyard is void of a doctrinal stance is not accurate either. Again, I would suggest that additional research may be appropriate.
I'm not trying to defend the Vineyard churches because I don't know anything about them. I was simply curious as to why you are blasting anyone who claims to be non denominational. That just set all kinds of alarms off to me.

[Toms777]

I've been following this thread with interest because I too have a familiarity with Vineyard churches. I know that John Wimber intentionally tried to set the association up so as to keep it from becoming a "denomination". Now that he is dead I do not think the structure itself is enough to prevent that from happening. But that's just my opinion.

Also, for whatever it's worth. One of the reasons it took so long for the Vineyard association to part company with the Toronto Airport Vineyard was this very Non-denominational attitude. There were numerous discussion in which the Toronto Vineyard was asked to use greater discernment in what it was allowing and to reign in some of the more "questionable" things that were going on. When it was obvious that they did not think they should do that the two parties parted company amiably (to my understanding anyway).

Asaph
From reading the events at the time of the split and the documents associated with it, it appears to be more of a power struggle than it was a matter of differences on doctrine. A similar power struggle took place not long ago at another church which had an association with Toronto, Brownsville Assembly of God.

[Toms777]

[/size][/color][/size]

How can you say any of the churches we are affiliated with are in error or off the wall? Are you familiar with AMF churches? Do you know any that are "off the wall"? I don't avoid using the word denomination. I don't apply it to this fellowship because it doesnt apply.


Again, I offered some more information earlier You are welcome to it also.

I could also point to messages from others on here who suggested that some churches in the Vineyard have serious problems.


[/color][/size]

Why do we need some national office telling us what we should believe and teach. It's right there in the bible. That is our anchor. We have a Profession of Faith.


Thus have established a common basis of belief and common doctrine with all Vineyard churches. I don't know why those on here deny the cenhtral authority nor the existence of overseers. Here are examples from the Vineyard website of a national office, central control and the overseers:

http://www.vineyardusa.org/news/regions/midwest/guidelines/due_process.htm

http://www.vineyardusa.org/about/vineyard_offices/vineyard_offices.htm

http://www.vineyardusa.org/about/leadership/national_director.htm

http://www.vineyardusa.org/about/leadership/national_board.htm

I am not trying to show anyone up, but the fact is that the Vineyard has everything required of a denomination and more. And for those who are members and do not know that there is a national office, or regional overseers or denominational authority, then you should do more research into your own denomination - don't hang the messenger. They can call themselves a movement, an association a group or anything else but they meet all the criteria for a denomination.


I'm not trying to defend the Vineyard churches because I don't know anything about them. I was simply curious as to why you are blasting anyone who claims to be non denominational. That just set all kinds of alarms off to me.
I didn't. I blasted no one. I don't care if someone is non-denomination. I simply pointed out the obvious - the Vineyard is a denomination and apparently some took offense. I do not understand why they wish to avoid the obvious, but as I said, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Those who deny the Vineyard is a denomination were trying to deny commonality, authority, etc., all of which exist in the Vineyard to one degree or another, but are not necessarily required to be defined as a denomination.

[Asaph]

From reading the events at the time of the split and the documents associated with it, it appears to be more of a power struggle than it was a matter of differences on doctrine. A similar power struggle took place not long ago at another church which had an association with Toronto, Brownsville Assembly of God.
I can understand how it may have looked that way from the perspective of those involved at the Airport, but it was not. John was a much more patient man than I, and when you couple that with an honest desire not to "Lord over" those who were in resposible positions at the Toronto Vineyard at the time, perhaps you can see why he was so seemingly slow in making the disassociation.

After all is said and done, it's the Lord we trust in, and He sure seems to move slowly some times!..:D

Asaph

[Toms777]

I can understand how it may have looked that way from the perspective of those involved at the Airport, but it was not. John was a much more patient man than I, and when you couple that with an honest desire not to "Lord over" those who were in resposible positions at the Toronto Vineyard at the time, perhaps you can see why he was so seemingly slow in making the disassociation.

I was not at the airport - I was watching things from an external and objective viewpoint, and went by much more than just superficial appearances.

[Asaph]

I didn't. I blasted no one. I don't care if someone is non-denomination.
Wow. Surely even you can see how rabid you are about this. Why is this so important to you? Do you honestly not know the difference between the loose association that is called the "Vineyard" and say something like a Lutheren church?

If Lutherens want to be Lutheren, what do I have to do with that? I couldn't care less. They are my brothers and sisters. I assure you their approach is way different than mine, but the Lord is the Lord. Our puney human ideas have no effect on that.

What is this "denominational" thing you are afflicted with?

Asaph

[Asaph]

I was not at the airport - I was watching things from an external and objective viewpoint, and went by much more than just superficial appearances.
Trust me, I was not at the airport either, and nobody will ever accuse me of being superficial. Except maybe you, who have only a superficial knowledge of me. Do you get it?

Asaph

[Toms777]

Wow. Surely even you can see how rabid you are about this.

Can we stay off teh personal attacks and stick to the issue?


Why is this so important to you?

Three key reasons:
1) I am a Christian. Everything that affects the body of Christ is important to me
2) Our ministry is a watchman ministry where we check out movements within the church and are involved in polemics and apologetics. (Ez 33)
3) Past involvement in related movements.

If you want more, I already said how you or anyone else can find out more.

Do you honestly not know the difference between the loose association that is called the "Vineyard" and say something like a Lutheren church?

I understand probably much more than you realize.

What is this "denominational" thing you are afflicted with?
What is this "persona;l" thing that you have? Can we not discuss a topic without getting into personal attacks?

[Toms777]

Trust me, I was not at the airport either, and nobody will ever accuse me of being superficial. Except maybe you, who have only a superficial knowledge of me. Do you get it?

You are the only one who is making personal comemnts. I said nothing about you. Let's stay off teh personal attacks - Do you get it?

[Leimeng]

~ Quite honestly, denominationalism as a modern movement is thoroughly unscriptural. You can be a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran etc...
~ I chose to be a Christian.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~

One of my credit cards was stolen but I decided not to report it because the thief is spending less than my wife.

[Toms777]

~ Quite honestly, denominationalism as a modern movement is thoroughly unscriptural. You can be a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran etc...
~ I chose to be a Christian.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

I am also a Christian and not a member of any denomination. But to be fair to those who do belong to denominations, I think that you should choose words carefully. Denominations are not found in scripture but are also not contrary to scripture. the problem arises when people make their allegiance to their church or denomination rather than to God and His word.

One can be just as a good a Christian in a denomination or by being denominational. It is irrelevant. One can show undue allegiance to money, country or even family and all of these would be just as bad as undue allegiance to a church or deniomination.

Our allegiance to God and His word should be just like the Bereans who were willing to even test the words of Paul (Acts 17:10-11).

I might even add that even within denominations, one can find good churches like that at Berea, and can find churches in occultic practices. It is not the denomination through which we are saved, not through which we find our standard of truth. Our allegiance must be alone to God and His word or we are at risk of being mis-led into false teachings - and that goes for any chruch or any denomination or indeed even any pastor.

[holyrokker]

I was part of a Vineyard church from 1989-1996

During the end of that time period The Association of Vineyard Churches began to establish some leadership structure.

Part of the problem is that they grew very fast and didn't have adequate structure in place.
It's not a rigid structure even today. Each congregation has a lot of autonomy.

We left the Vineyard in part because of leadership problems in our region.

Like all "denominations" - EVERY congregation is different.


As far as ther beliefs - The Vineyard holds a solid theology.

They do believe in the "gifts of the Spirit" and encourage their usage in worship services.