Kingdom Christian and Charity Movements

[Ernie]

I think Ernie is saying most of us could divide things into the two categories even if we can’t reach 100% agreement on what “apostolic doctrine” is.

Yes, I am saying that, but I am also saying that the "apostles doctrine" is not all that hard to understand.

Regarding "apostles doctrine"...were you thinking the apostolic creed? Or did you have something else in mind? For example would you say something like the various doctrines of eschatology or hell are doctrines that are clear to you, or did you have other more "basic" doctrines in mind?

I'm not sure that the "Apostles Doctrine" included all the nuanced sub-doctrines but rather the basic doctrine of the church. For example, I'm not sure if all the apostles had the exact same thoughts about eschatology or hell, but I think what they taught (the basics) sounded the same. This is simply my guess. I can't prove this.

For example: "Jesus is coming again soon, and we should be ready to meet him." "Those who reject the Messiah are in danger of hell."

Ok thanks. My basic question is, "Why advocate for sticking only with the 'words of scripture' when it comes to doctrine, but not when it comes to practice?" It seems your answer is, doctrine is different "in kind" than is practice - when it comes to "implementing" the Bible's teachings. I was trying to understand "why" a group should "clarify" one thing with additional language, but not the other. I am still not sure if I understand...

RE: Doctrine
1. Paul says, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth."
2. My observation is that when groups try to clarify doctrine that is not clarified in the Bible it always results in lopsidedness, schisms, polarization, and disunity.

RE: Practice
3. I don't know of any place in the NT that indicates groups of believers should only adopt practices mentioned in the NT. On the contrary, we see the church adapting to changes and adopting practices based on current issues. I don't see any reason to think that this was not to continue past the time of the apostles.
4. There are definitely schisms, polarization, and disunity resulting from group practices not mentioned in the NT. However when "new" practices are viewed as values for the overall embetterment of the group, rather than "decrees for to keep", and if Christians can voluntarily adopt the new practices (as part of an Order) without refusing communion to those who are not part of the Order, then I think "new practices" can be a spiritual benefit to Christians, their families, and their community.

[joshuabgood]

Thanks for that additional explanation. I think I understand your position. I find it compelling, if I am not fully persuaded...

[JoshScott]

Are they actually calling their leaders "Apostles"...

Does anyone have first hand knowledge of this practice at FOTW? If it is so, what powers or responsibilities come with this title that are distinct from "shepherd" or "pastor".

Yes...they are fully bought into the "five-fold ministry" model. (Well available online.) They would advocate for it as the model ordained by God and outlined in the NT. It goes something like this:

1) Apostles
2) Prophets
3) Teachers
4) Pastors/Shepherds
5) Evangelists

And you can google Five-fold Ministry test and take a personality profile and find out what giftings you have. Finny personally told me these giftings, in his view (with which I agree) apply to men and women. Finny referred me personally to the test, which I took. I came out part teacher part prophet.

This is mostly news to me.. this aspect of their thinking.

First, does the test assume that everyone is one of the 5? Or will it tell you, "you're not any of these things"? Surely, they wouldn't teach that every Christian is one or the other?

Secondly, for a group that derives much of its theology from the early church writings, I'm surprised they take this position. Can anyone give an example of any (respected) early church leader that took the title "Apostle" to himself? I'm not a patristics expert here but from what I know from early Christian writings, this is not the ministry model of the early church - at least not beyond the actual apostolic period.

[RZehr]

I took the "5 fold" test. Not a real huge fan of these self analysis tests.
Apparently I am:
27% Prophet
22% Teacher
22% Pastor
20% Evangelist
9% Apostle
So pretty much not anything, since the top three are pretty equal.
And although I'm apparently not an "Apostle", I've moved and am helping (although not leading) start a new church.

[Josh]

Paging JM

[JoshScott]

I will tell you again, except for Dean Taylor, the attitude is palpable, and you admit that you have heard it too. I would LOVE to know what went on at that EPMC church, but I would defiantly not send my children to a place where the leadership takes shots at my home church...

J.M.

This. This is my main issue with the FOTW movement... The strident anti-Mennonitism. We experienced the same poisonous sentiments in the Charity movement. What can I say? How unhelpful is this in God's kingdom? No respect for the success and longevity of a faithful, biblical church tradition that was born in blood and that God obviously continues to use and bless. I do not wish any ill on their movement, but I will say this.. God has a way of helping us, individually, and corporately, when we perhaps inadvertently make ourselves "accusers of the brethren." How has that attitude served the Charity movement? Where are those churches (practically - in expression - or even in existence) today that declared so boldly that they understood better what it takes to do church? It's the humble ones that recognize the need for some applications to be made that are still around and bearing the kind of fruit that I think God is looking for.

Personally, I see big blind spots in Finny's manifesto (King Jesus Claims His Church), and thus FOTW's position. He rails against many Mennonite applications of scriptural principles and calls them "extra biblical rules" and "fence around the Torah". Time is already telling what kind of church and faith expression this produces when we don't help God's people apply principles in the Bible. One person has noted a Bohemian, or urban hipster sort of expression. This is good because eventually, godly leaders are going to be forced to say "Maybe we should have some specific applications after all". Unfortunately, by then, it's usually too late to bring them in.

Edit: Having said all of this, I want to express my appreciation for them and their vision and for all that they are doing for God's kingdom. I see them as dear brethren with a similar concept of Christianity that I can appreciate and bless. Finny is an amazing person in general whom I admire very much. And I personally consider Milioni a dear brother with an amazing gift for preaching and speaking. Have you seen his talk at Harvard about voting? Phenomenal! I can't help but root for a brother from the West here with no college degree, converted to Christ, over there at Harvard putting the opposition to shame with inspired, biblical logic and reasoning. Go Brother Matthew! You know? Props where props are due. His preaching is inspired too. Seriously. God bless them both.

[ohio jones]

2. My observation is that when groups try to clarify doctrine that is not clarified in the Bible it always results in lopsidedness, schisms, polarization, and disunity.

4. There are definitely schisms, polarization, and disunity resulting from group practices not mentioned in the NT. However when "new" practices are viewed as values for the overall embetterment of the group, rather than "decrees for to keep", and if Christians can voluntarily adopt the new practices (as part of an Order) without refusing communion to those who are not part of the Order, then I think "new practices" can be a spiritual benefit to Christians, their families, and their community.

Might there also be a place for doctrinal Orders? People who use TULIPs, DAISYs, ROSES, or other vegetation to clarify doctrine, for example, yet without rejecting those who understand things differently (as long as there is agreement on the "mere" basics)?

[Josh]

2. My observation is that when groups try to clarify doctrine that is not clarified in the Bible it always results in lopsidedness, schisms, polarization, and disunity.

4. There are definitely schisms, polarization, and disunity resulting from group practices not mentioned in the NT. However when "new" practices are viewed as values for the overall embetterment of the group, rather than "decrees for to keep", and if Christians can voluntarily adopt the new practices (as part of an Order) without refusing communion to those who are not part of the Order, then I think "new practices" can be a spiritual benefit to Christians, their families, and their community.

Might there also be a place for doctrinal Orders? People who use TULIPs, DAISYs, ROSES, or other vegetation to clarify doctrine, for example, yet without rejecting those who understand things differently (as long as there is agreement on the "mere" basics)?

I believe this was what the Fundamentalist movement tried to do, which condensed the "mere" basics down to the infallibility of scripture, the virgin birth, believe in the atonement, literal resurrection, and historical reality of the miracles of Jesus.

Eventually, the basics become so basic they don't form any kind of saving faith at all. One person described the gospel to me as "Love God and love people". If that's all the scriptures were saying, we could have five words instead of 66 books.

[Ernie]

2. My observation is that when groups try to clarify doctrine that is not clarified in the Bible it always results in lopsidedness, schisms, polarization, and disunity.

4. There are definitely schisms, polarization, and disunity resulting from group practices not mentioned in the NT. However when "new" practices are viewed as values for the overall embetterment of the group, rather than "decrees for to keep", and if Christians can voluntarily adopt the new practices (as part of an Order) without refusing communion to those who are not part of the Order, then I think "new practices" can be a spiritual benefit to Christians, their families, and their community.

Might there also be a place for doctrinal Orders? People who use TULIPs, DAISYs, ROSES, or other vegetation to clarify doctrine, for example, yet without rejecting those who understand things differently (as long as there is agreement on the "mere" basics)?

I think the NT speaks against doctrinal orders. I have no problem with a person saying what they think the scriptures mean, as long as they talk about it that way, but when people "clarify" things, and say "this is the truth", I think that is going beyond what the apostles allowed.

[silentreader]

2. My observation is that when groups try to clarify doctrine that is not clarified in the Bible it always results in lopsidedness, schisms, polarization, and disunity.

4. There are definitely schisms, polarization, and disunity resulting from group practices not mentioned in the NT. However when "new" practices are viewed as values for the overall embetterment of the group, rather than "decrees for to keep", and if Christians can voluntarily adopt the new practices (as part of an Order) without refusing communion to those who are not part of the Order, then I think "new practices" can be a spiritual benefit to Christians, their families, and their community.

Might there also be a place for doctrinal Orders? People who use TULIPs, DAISYs, ROSES, or other vegetation to clarify doctrine, for example, yet without rejecting those who understand things differently (as long as there is agreement on the "mere" basics)?

I think the NT speaks against doctrinal orders. I have no problem with a person saying what they think the scriptures mean, as long as they talk about it that way, but when people "clarify" things, and say "this is the truth", I think that is going beyond what the apostles allowed.

So we are back to truth is relative?