Yorba Linda Vineyard

To Be or Not to Be a Denomination/Institution?  By John Wimber

One of the things that will come up as a Movement is this idea of being a denomination and fighting off the route of becoming an institution. John specifically wrote about these things in Reflections, which was one of the newsletters John had for Vineyard leaders around the Movement. I believe the following is crucial to where we are as a Movement in remembering who we are as well as some ‘easy’ pitfalls that have distracted church movements for centuries.

It's interesting as a leader that is also in the Vineyard, many of the things John makes very clear here are so easy write off as "I'll never do that!" or "I'll never become that!” However, I know that if I am not making myself intentionally aware so to speak, the small, day to day decisions can very much put me in a place where what I lead looks more like an institution, rather than a group of those inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit and His Words. I must have great conviction to keep myself alert to those decisions that could put me in a place where I actually resent the very thing I thought I wanted to be a part of here on earth.

If you're in the Vineyard Movement or not, this message will most likely sound alarms in you. Not all of them ‘negative alarms’ of course. However, if you are a Vineyard leader I would encourage you to take seriously the words John expressed here in a very ‘fatherly’ way that only John could do. Again, much of what he saw was way before his time and he knew many of the things we would be encountering today in continuing the call of the Kingdom in the Vineyard.

Christy Wimber

[Reflections- 1993- John Wimber]

The Association of Vineyard churches, for better or worse- is a denomination. We see this primarily in the area of relational structure that provides accountability, cohesion, and encouragement.  I want to use this space for several things. I want to provide some definition of what were trying to build in terms of AVC and why were trying to build it.  And what are the guiding organizational values that are guiding us as we build.  Admittedly talk of the Vineyard as a denomination causes distress for some because the idea of denomination carries with it two pieces of baggage: sectarianism and institutionalism.

These two ‘isms’ are real threats to the vitality and effectiveness of the Vineyard Movement.  The antidote to sectarianism is to exalt Christ above all human structures. The antidote to institutionalism is to constantly seek renewal in the structures we create. For the past thirty years following Jesus has been the primary goal of my life.

Forming a new denomination has never been the goal. After all there’s over 23,000 denominations around the world. If asked whether the Vineyard has become a denomination, I would have to answer: If you mean do the churches across North America and over a dozen foreign countries, called, “Vineyard” have more structure than they did a decade ago, the answer is yes; there is more organizational and relationship structure.

Again, I didn’t set out to create a new denomination. God put the Vineyard in my hand. Kenn Gulikson started this movement, handed it to me, and God told me he was right in doing it. So I’m trying to make the best of what was handed to me. By 1984 the number of Vineyard churches was growing rapidly. We made the decision to formalize the structure that had evolved. Until then, we really worked under Vineyard Ministries International. But VMI was a renewal organization, so we formed, AVC for church planting and to provide oversight. Historically, we probably became a denomination when we incorporated AVC, appointed Regional Overseers, called a board of directors, and began ordaining ministers.

And because 99 percent of the churches in the Association of Vineyard Churches have the word “Vineyard” in their name, then because of a unified identity, yes we've become a denomination.

Admittedly, I still have mixed feelings about that. Interestingly, there's wasn't much criticism of what we did in 1984 until 1992. The criticisms reflected certain assumptions:

• Denominations are evil
• God will lift his hand
• We will be controlled

But reading New Testament and church history, I cant find any alternative, since I see structure as necessary to growth and survival. Yes there is some control with organization. But remember, were in spiritual warfare. Would you rather be a lone soldier behind enemy lines, or part of a battalion? By being in the Army, you trade some personal freedom, for the protection and encouragement of comrades in arms. Most pastors I've talked to recognize the wisdom in having some accountability structure. When I joined the movement, I had to yield some control to others.

Ten years ago I talked about explorers and homesteaders in the Vineyard. I said at that time that explorers are radicals and they usually spin out; because they cant stand the containment of an organization. Explorers seek adventure. Homesteaders, on the other hand, build community, leaving a heritage for future generations. Homesteaders use, need, and create structure; by the way, they also create wealth!

A few explorers who started out with the movement have not stayed with it, because as they saw the encroachment of more structure, they resisted control.

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATION

Some believe organization inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit. Less organization makes more room for the Spirits leading. Yet even in the primitive church of Acts, the leadership recognized a need for organization. Therefore, deacons were appointed to deal with certain practical matters of benevolence, while the twelve chose to “give [their] attention to prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:4).

Structure was undoubtedly important to the effectiveness of the New Testament ministry. In Paul’s pastoral letters, we read of church officers called “overseer” and “deacon” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1,2, 12; Titus 1:7). Paul obviously recognized the role of authority figures in each community (cf. 1 Cor. 16:15-17; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:12).

As Johnson points out in Writings of the New Testament, “sociological studies of intentional communities in every era suggest that they do not survive for decades without strong structures for decision making and social control; …structure and charism, in fact, often co-exist rather than follow each other.”1

I slightly disagree with Johnson on the latter part of this statement in that I have said for years that structure follows life. As an organism, the Vineyard needs organization. Compare two life forms: an amoeba and a human body. Which can accomplish more? Certainly the more highly structured human body if it is alive. The key: life and relationship with God, nor organization or lack thereof.

To father children and not take responsibility for raising them is considered uncivilized. To make new converts, and not set them into a church, is unthinkable. Likewise, to plant new churches, and not band them together and mature them is irresponsible. That's why I'm structured for relationship among churches with a shared sense of calling. I'm proposing we introduce structures carefully, always aware that the organization is subservient to the organism. We must make alterations whenever the organization thwarts the growth of the organism.

AVC ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES

Beginning in the 1960's as a result of the hippie movement, many young people were challenging the notion of formal marriage contracts to find something more pure in the way of relationship. It was interesting doing weddings in those days. I would sit down with young people an ask, “What is it that you want?” Often what they wanted reflected Gods design for marriage, but they thought that having a ceremony and a license would somehow restrict the possibility of that. I think that describes the feeling of some Vineyard pastors as they've watched the development of organizational structure. No one wants to join something they have to be subservient to. We want to join something that will help us realize our potential. In the past, when pastors have asked, “What are we building here” What am I signing up for?” I would talk about the Vineyard as something that would help leaders do more together than they could independently. Basically we have tired to build an organization that will give people latitude and freedom, yet also give them the security that comes from appropriate amount of structure and authority.

This organization ought to be propelled by an honest desire to serve God the best we can in this lifetime. I believe that desire can be expressed in five organizational values I hope will guide us in the future.

1.            Minimal Bureaucracy

Whatever organizational structure we build should be built on people who remain in pastoral positions. At present, Bob Fulton gives full-time governance as the national coordinator. Once you begin freeing large numbers of people whose only role is to govern a movement, that seems to set up a situation when bureaucrats become less focused on the original mission, and become more devoted to self-preservation. A hardening of the structure is inevitable. Hopefully by maintaining a system where those giving governance are themselves on the front lines, we can avoid losing the vision in the process of carrying it out.

This approach has been burdensome for all of us, even me. I serve AVC in addition to serving the local church. I suppose in time we will probably release others to serve full-time as needed, but if we remain committed to the value of minimal bureaucracy, I think we will have a more viable structure.

2.            The Importance of Relationship

Developing relationships among leaders who like to be together, work together, and get things done is primary to maintaining a highly relational movement. If we do that, we have the pleasure of serving God with our peers, equals, friends, and colleagues.  That ought to satisfy all of us long-term.

Holding these friendships together are the kingdom values, goals, theology, and practices we share in common. Though we are not all equally gifted in any area of ministry, we value one another's distinctive contributions.

3.            Local Church Autonomy

If the Vineyard is a denomination, some might worry that Anaheim will begin issuing edicts that prescribe what a Vineyard church should be like to create uniformity. That's not what I want. I want the local church to freely express itself within the constraints of the values, theology, and genetic code of the Vineyard. If a Vineyard in Valparaiso, Indiana has the genetic code, values and theology, in a general sense, it doesn't have to a clone of a Vineyard church in Venice, California. In some ways the Indiana Vineyard will reflect a mid-western cultural setting, and that's okay. We have to be careful about making judgments (“That's not Vineyard”) because future Vineyards- especially those in a cross-cultural context- may have little outward similarity to Vineyards as we know them in say, Southern California.

But it's also fair to say that wherever I went and started a church, certain kinds of things would be characteristic of that church. And I think that those who have been trained under me and by me would have very recognizable churches. They would have a “Vineyard” family resemblance, without necessarily having an identical personality.

I've said in the past, they ought to be healing the sick, casting out demons, worshiping God, and teaching the Bible. As long as the genetic code is intact. I don't care if they wear doilies on their head, or uniforms to church. I would prefer they don't do that, but if they want to that's their business.

AVC wants each Vineyard to have local autonomy. We want them to own their own property, and have their own polity. We've given guidelines, of what we think works best, but we want them to be free to do what they need to do, to express their individuality. So if they want a board of deacons, let them have a board of deacons. We do not want and have not set up a bureaucratic system that controls the local church.

4.            Spiritual vs. Legal Authority

We've not put a structure together that gives us legal jurisdiction in the local church. We've assumed that if we have spiritual authority, we don't need legal authority. And if we don't have spiritual authority we don't want legal authority. I don't want to govern people who don't want governance from me. I don't want to bring correction or direction to people who don't recognize my spiritual authority to do so.

If a local church or pastor wont take counsel from us, then they're not under our authority, and they need to change their name, and become identified with someone they can submit to. I assume people will come and go in the Vineyard. Maybe they'll “outgrow” the Vineyard. Maybe they'll see new horizons, and want to get into other things. That's okay with me. That doesn't mean we're superior and they're inferior. It means were different. It should be no harder for a church to extricate itself, as it was to enter the Vineyard. We're not going to try and keep people in the Vineyard who don't want to be. Therefore, I'm not looking for a polity structure that would give me or anyone else legal control over a local church.

5.            Decentralization

Decentralization wasn't a guiding principle as the movement began to organize, but it is now. As the movement grew in maturity, I realized I needed to change the way I did business with the leadership, and treat them in a more collegiate fashion by giving them a greater voice in decision-making. When children are small, a parent will be much more directive than when the kids are in their 20s and 30s. And that's been true in the Vineyards life. When I used to sit on board meetings where everyone was in their early 30s with babies in their lap, I was in a different place as a leader than I am now when some board members are grandpas like me. They have a little gray in their beards, and they've learned a few things. So with the maturation of the Vineyard leadership, I'm recognizing and giving them greater voice in everything we do.

THE THREAT OF SECTARIANISM

Calling the Vineyard a denomination sends up red flags for some of our brethren. The word “denomination” denotes sectarianism, separatism, and factionalism, and a distorted view of the unity of the Body of Christ. Therefore, its valuable to remind ourselves that the unity of the church is an important theme in the Bible, beginning in the Old Testament.

Unity

Old testament. Genesis records God creating by his will the world as an ordered unity, in which all creatures satisfy the Creators purposes. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). When Adam and Eve sinned and alienated themselves from God and from one another, God acted to bring about mankind's reconciliation. God ordained a covenant with the Hebrew people and united the various tribes into one religious nation, Israel, bridging the alienation between God and humans and reconciling his people. Ancient Judaism, therefore, stood on the truth of the one people of God. Their faith in the oneness of God (Yahweh) expressed itself in their unity. Psalm 133:1 states: “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” their mission was to preserve the faithfulness and unity of all Gods people and to prepare them for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God.

New Testament. The concept of unity is pivotal to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of his Apostles. All who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior come together in a new community: the church. All New Testament writers presume that to be “in Christ” is to belong to one fellowship (Greek: koinonia). Jesus mandated this unity when at the Last Supper He interceded for his disciples and all those who believe in Him “That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). This unity manifested itself in the miracle of Pentecost (Acts 2) and the historic Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) that worked out conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

The early church however was not entirely free from many tensions and conflicts that threatened unity. For example, tensions arose between Jewish Christian churches, and Gentile Christian churches and between Paul and the Judaizers. Even with diversity and conflicts historian Paul A. Crow notes, “The early Christians remained of ‘one accord, ‘ visibly sharing the one Eucharist, accepting the ministries of the whole church, reaching out beyond their local situations in faith and witness with a sense of the universal community that held all Christians together.

As Paul taught the Ephesians, God's supreme purpose is “to unite all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10). Through centuries of sectarianism and fracturing, most Christians today allow differences to divide rather than appreciating and celebrating our distinctive and diversity. Our relations as an extended family are typically clouded by distrust, and disrespect. I want to relate to the whole body of Christ. Biblical unity to me flows from learning to love what Jesus loves- learning to love the whole body of Christ. When I cross paths with a brother or sister in a group or denomination different from my own, I want to fellowship based on our shared allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. I want to see the Vineyard work through its question: “How can brethren major on the things we agree on, ignore the things we disagree on, and love forward together? In my opinion this applies inside and outside of the Vineyard.

Last year, the Vineyard I pastor hosted a fund-raising concert at Victory outreach. Victory Outreach is a dynamic movement that has had a tremendous amount of success starting community bases drug rehab programs and planting churches among Latino communities. They reflect a Pentecostal heritage, but we were delighted to work with them, even though we aren't totally like them. Yet we agree on one thing: the world needs Jesus. And I must say Victory Outreach is effectively sharing Jesus with its part of the world.

Definitions

Are denominations in conflict with unity? Before I answer that, lets define some terms.

A denomination, according to Webster, is a class or society of individuals called by the same name; especially a religious group or a community of believers called by the same name. For example, the Presbyterian Church in America represents one denomination of Christians.

In an ideal world, there world be no denominations. But we can't turn the clock back on five hundred years of history. In contrast to denomination, denominationalism is the emphasizing of denominational differences to the point of being narrowly exclusive. A synonym is sectarianism. Denominationalism promotes one denomination over the rest of the church, and asserts that, “our group is better than any other group.” I can make my peace with the reality of different denominations, but I totally reject the idea of denominationalism.

Recently, I met with a group of Baptist pastors from Scandinavia. I’m not a Baptist, but I love them, because they're my brothers. We have relationship, fraternity, and fellowship. I am a Christian, and so are they, but I don't have to express it in the mode they do. That's not separation. Separation is when I declare your “brand” of Christianity is inferior to mine because of what you belong to and what you avow or are committed to.

A denomination devoted to sectarianism can have correct theology, and have wrong attitudes towards the rest of the body of Christ, which is an emphasis on “do it our way, or take the highway.”

We must remember that we can become so enamored of who we are and what we do… and that's a mistake in my opinion. Its reminiscent of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:4: “so that we may make a name for ourselves” which when we emphasized produces divisiveness.

This divisiveness results from leaders cultivating sinful attitudes towards other members of the body of Christ. However, you don't have to be a denomination to take on this attitude. I have asserted that many groups, individual churches, and leaders who do not regard themselves as denomination are quite divisive. What I'm saying is that division is not so much a structural problem as an attitudinal one. I can affect an individual Christian as much as a group.

If twenty years from now, the leaders of the Vineyard turn inward, and become self-serving, shame on them. They need to take risks and continue to grow in the same way we took risks and continued to grow. If they don't God will hopefully raise up some other renewal movement, and they will be seen as irresponsible radicals, in much the same way some parts of the institutional church regard the Vineyard today.

Remember, church history reveals a cycle in which the homesteaders of one renewal movement persecute the “pioneers” of the mot recent move.

The Methodist movement began as a sectarian protest against the worldliness of the Church of England; its success stimulated it to become a church, which in turn spawned various sectarian protests, including charismatics communities. The Catholics Charismatic renewal was persecuted by the Pentecostals, because the Pentecostal couldn't believe the Catholics were Christians. If we're not diligently humbling ourselves before the Lord, the Vineyard will do the same things to someone else eventually. This sinful attitude is often the result of fear.

This is because new and different group leaders frighten us, so we attack them, thereby sowing discord perpetuating the practice without properly examining. In this situation, slanderous reports that confirm our prejudices are often gladly accepted and passed off as fact to others.

May the Vineyard never be accused of contributing to that ugliness? The antidote for this sectarian spirit is exalting the name of Jesus. Even in the first century church, the apostle Paul had to plead the case for unity, In Philippians 2, he writes:

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with his Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being in one and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should not look only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others (vv 1-4).

This applies both locally and globally. The essence of learning to love the rest of the church is learning how to love one another. We can't do one with out the other. I don't want to make a name for ourselves. The Vineyard is not the is due. We need organization to exist- God called us- but the issue is the body of Christ. We must lift up no other name but the hallowed name of Jesus. God is passionate for the glory of his own name, and will not yield to any man or group.

If we don't keep buttressing and encouraging relationship with God first, and each other second we will indeed evolve into a sectarian organization.

Diversity in Unity

One illustration of diversity within unity is the twelve tribes of Israel. Each tribe had a different name, and a different identity. Jacob's prophetic blessings in Genesis chapter 49 describe different destinies for each tribe descending from his sons. Each tribe was unique.

However, in unity, the twelve tribes formed one nation, without losing their identity. As long as the tribes were united in purpose: e.g., serving Yahweh, things went well. But in time, as the spiritual vitality of he nation waned, individual tribes sought advantage for themselves rather than the welfare of the nation. Eventually the northern tribes (Israel) were enemies of the southern tribes (Judah).

Without trying to justify denominations as different tribes. The challenge of denominations is to strike a balance between the unity of the whole body, and their individual distinctive. Our differences may cause us pain, but they needn't polarize and alienate us. I may not agree with everything about Catholic doctrine, but there's a lot about individual Catholics I love. Our understanding of the Scripture may prevent us from endorsing certain doctrines without causing us to despise other traditions into the body of Christ.

All separation of the body of Christ is unbiblical, whether denominational or non-denominational. We need to be careful not to think more highly of the Vineyard than we ought “…but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you" (Rom. 12:3). The Vineyard is simply another experiment- in a long line of experiments- to live out pure Christianity within the larger church.

We need to cultivate an attitude that rejoices in the unique contributions various denominations, movements, and traditions have made and currently make to the cause of Christ. We can learn from one another. I rejoice when I read about the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Assemblies of God are planting new churches. Many of our people here at the Anaheim Vineyard participated with the Southern California Calvary Chapels for Greg Laurie’s Summer Harvest Crusade. And I’m sure our people benefited from it. I thank God for the diversity of so many groups, because I know our society need to have many thousands of new and different churches. Not everyone who needs to find Christ is going to want to do so through a Vineyard. The Victory Outreach folks I mentioned earlier reach strata of society the Vineyard may never touch. An attitude of Christian unity says, “Who cares how many people the Presbyterians win, or the Methodists! I bless what I see God blessing.”

THE THREAT OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Becoming a denomination runs parallel to the process of institionalization. The Vineyard movement in some ways reflects the classical Protestant model of new beginnings. In this model, as described by Paul Hiebert of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, those tired of living in a “dead” church decide to leave and create a new church that's more alive and warm. They hope they can create one that will never fossilize. The Vineyard, like any other human organization, is experimenting more structure as time goes on. This has both benefits and drawbacks for a church planting movement. Professor Paul Hiebert has adroitly reviewed both:

One benefit of increased structures relationship is efficiency. The men and women who work in the various offices of the Anaheim Vineyard are all my brothers and sisters in Christ. On Sunday we worship together, and once a month we take communion together. As individuals we are each pursuing close and more intimate relationships with Jesus Christ. But on Monday through Friday, at 8:30a.m. Something changes. A new relationship figures in. I'm the boss. We have a structure that enables us to work efficiently toward the same overall objectives. The structured relationships make the accomplishment of certain goals possible. But the structure doesn't enhance or detract from the fact that were just bothers and sisters in Christ.

Denominations, in their best light, do several things: They attempt to bring good government- pastoral oversight and accountability- that cares for leaders and protects Gods people from abuse in the following areas:

• Theological (heresy)
• Ecclesiological (abuse of power)
• Moral (ethical failures)

Structure provides oversight, and training (cf. 1 Tim. 2:2). As a movement we've needed those things. Without them, it becomes chaos. Pastors left unpastored often do things according to the dictates of their hearts and sometimes those dictates aren't too healthy.

A second benefit according to Hiebert “is the ability to mobilize large numbers of people and reserves to carry out an otherwise impossible program of missions and ministry.”

Common theology, vision, values, and strategy make denominations more effective than individual churches in missions and church planting. Since like begets like, denominations can be more effective than Para church organizations in missions. Why? Para church organizations normally do not plant churches (if they did, they would become denominations and cease to be Para church organizations)/ Para church organizations are outside of God's ordained means of government and oversight.

Furthermore, I think we need to organize and coordinate for continued growth. In 1992, I mandated a fresh emphasis of church planting, and evangelism, and world missions to the semi-annual conference of the AVC Board and Council. Since that time we've grown at an unprecedented rate, planting approximately 170 churches, which almost matches what we'd done in the preceding either years. That was a sovereign move of God, but I believe God worked through the organizational structures that have been put in place. So if organization is detrimental, it's working well for us now. A final benefit is the theological maturation of the Vineyard movements. New converts, particularly in new churches, often have little understanding of the Bible or of a biblical world view. We recognize the need to deepen the knowledge of the Bible among our leadership and laity. This is why the Vineyard Bible Institute has expanded over the past six years, giving access through the correspondence course to excellent biblical scholars (like Don Williams and Wayne Grudem) who reflect the Vineyards kingdom values. The long-range survival of the Vineyard- and it’s remaining true to the Christian faith—depends upon cultivating leaders rooted in a deep understandings of the Scriptures. If I was starting all over in ministry, one thing I would do differently is to give more time to study the Scripture.

Dangers

Three are also some dangers with institutionalization. Hiebert lists the following:

The vision is often lost in the process of carrying it out. That is why events, such as training conferences, worship celebrations, and retreats are important. These events must have both the teaching as well as the modeling of the teaching to be effective in informing as well as transforming the attendees. These “rites of transformation” have the potential of renewing commitment and vision.

Another danger is that the focus on goals gives way to a concern for self-maintenance. Churches are initially started to evangelize and minister to peoples among which no previous churches exist. But as time passes, more of their resources and efforts are spent on simply maintaining the institutional structures. Many Vineyard plants initially made to with modest rented buildings. In time, some more established Vineyards may spend more on sanctuaries and parking lots. Larger and more elaborate facilities are not necessarily bad… unless they dilute the mission of the church. Yet another danger of institutionalization is that flexibility gives way to inflexibility. Finally the fourth danger is the shift in focus from people to programs. Young institutions are generally more people oriented. There is a strong emphasis on fellowship, trust, and meeting human needs. As an institution grows, more and more emphasis is often placed on building programs and maintaining institutional structures.

Inevitable Tragedy?

Does this spell tragedy for the Vineyard as the processes of institutionalization take hold? True, there are some benefits, but to many the evils seem to outweigh the benefits in the long run. Some people holding this view look at history and see an inevitable slide of all denominations into sin. The following analysis, coming from Harnack, sounds something like this:

• God raises up a Man with a vision: e.g. Luther, Calvin, Wesley
• Men and women with leadership gifting are attracted to the Man and vision, and come alongside: e.g. Luther's Wittenberg School; Calvin's Geneva; Wesley's Class Meetings (i.e., small groups).
• Soon more men and women- the masses- join, and the need for greater organization arises. At this point growth is swift; we witness a class Movement.
• Finally, the movement eventually ossifies under the weight of organization and new leaders who have forgotten (or rejected) the founder’s vision. Frequently the man himself is kicked out (e.g. St. Francis, Calvin), and the whole things become an organizational Monument (e.g. much of Lutheranism, the Reformed Church, the Methodist Church). This can happen swiftly, or it can take generations.

How do we prevent the “Man, Men, Movement, Monument” scenario? Some say simply reject “denominations.” This comes in two forms: (1) reject organization, and simply be a local church. [Problem: limited impact in reaching and fulfilling vision]; (2) Organize anyway, then deny you are a denomination].

The other option- the one I endorse- is to say we cannot be held responsible for what the next generation will do with its inheritance, but we will serve God today in the most effective, and responsible way possible. Therefore, we can organize to beat today's devil, and trust God for the future.

Some say the only hope is for the Vineyard to avoid any semblance of becoming denomination. Our only hope is to resist the formation of any more organizational structures, and return to the “good ol’ days” planning did when there was less bureaucracy, fewer “rules,” and things, and more by letting it happen. But, as Peter Berber points out (1973), anti- structural movements have never been successful. For one, they're unable to build stable enduring societies or organize people into communities of common purpose and mutual support.

The Vineyard as a burgeoning denomination can avoid the hardening effects of institutionalism by a commitment to institutional renewal. Periodic regeneration can enhance our ministries.

Spiritual renewal can neither be programmed, nor reduced to a “formula.” But as Edwin Orr points out (1975), God responds to sincere prayers, and he uses individuals, human experiences, sermons, son, books, sacred places, sacred times, and other cultural symbols to love in the lives of people. Hiebert counsels that when we seek renewal, we need to understand the human processes that can make us open to the possibility that can make us open to the possibility of renewal. One-way renewal; can be an ongoing part of our experience is by emphasizing worship as our first priority and value. And most importantly, we must listen when God speaks.

Renewal Structures

Howard Snyder, in his book The Radical Wesley contributes a model for a renewing structure which {brings new life to the larger church without either compromising its own vitality or causing a split.”

Snyder believes this model can include renewal movements within the institutional church (like early Methodism) and other groups that become independent sects. The Vineyard movement can learn much from Snyder's model even through the Vineyard doesn't fit perfectly fit the model.

1.             The renewal movement exists as a smaller, more intimate expression of the church within the universal church. It sees itself not as the true church in an exclusive sense, but as a form of the church that is necessary to the life of the larger church, and which in turn needs the larger church to be complete.

2.            The renewing movement uses some form of small group structure within the local congregation. While the size and structure of these small groups may vary, they generally have a dozen or fewer persons and meet once a week.

3.            The renewal movement has some structural link with the institutional church. This is crucial if the renewal structure is to exercise a revitalizing impact without brining division. Some kind of tie between the two structures is mutually sought and agreed upon.

4.            Because it sees itself not as the total church but as a necessary part of the church, the renewal structure is committed to the unity, vitality and wholeness of the larger church.

5.            The renewal structure is mission-oriented. It senses keenly its specific purpose and mission, which is conceived in part as the renewal of the church and in part as witness to the world. It will stress practical ethics, attempting to combine faith, love and belief with everyday life.

In an article titled, “Missions and the renewal of the Church” Paul Hiebert helpfully points out that “church planting and church renewal are the two central tasks of missions. The first without the second leads to widespread minimal Christianity; the second leads to widespread nominal Christianity; the second without the first leads to life without mission. In fact, the two go together. An effective mission to the world often revives the home church, and renewal at home often leas to a new missionary vision.

6.            The renewal movement is especially conscious of being a distinct, covenant-based community. It knows it is not the whole church; it senses its own incompleteness. But it sees itself as a visible form of the true church. Based on a well-understood covenant, it can exercise discipline, even to the point of exclusion, among its members.

As a community the renewal movement prizes face-to-face relationships, mutuality and interdependence. It especially stresses Scriptures that speak of koinonia, mutual encouragement and admonition within the Body, and sets itself as a primary structure for experiencing these aspects of the church.

7.            The renewal movement provides the context for the rise, training, and exercise of new forms of ministry and leadership. Out of its experience of community comes a practical emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit and the priesthood of believers. This consciousness generates new forms of ministry and new leaders who arise through the channels of practical experience and the shared life of the group.

The renewal group also provides a natural environment for training new leaders. Partly for this reason, a disproportionately high number of future church leaders often come from the ranks of a renewal movement if it is not cut off from the established church.

8.             Finally, the renewal structure maintains an emphasis on the Spirit and the Word as the basis of authority. It is both Christological and pneumatological. It stresses the norm of Scripture and the life of the Spirit. If it veers to the right or to the left at this point, it will become either a highly legalistic sect or an enthusiastic cult liable to extreme or heretical beliefs. In the case of Methodism, Wesley maintained a balance that prevented either extreme.

The renewal movement stresses the Spirit and the Word as the ultimate ground of authority, but within the limits also recognizes the authority and traditions of the institutional church.

Mosaic

Mosaic is the art of embedding small pieces of cut stone or pigmented glass in a plaster bed to decorate a floor or wall. Developed principally in ancient Greece, mosaic reached its greatest heights in Early Christian art and architecture. The beauty of a mosaic is enhanced by its complexity. The classical mosaic artists would use cubes of diverse size, shape, varieties, and color intensifies.

In the small 11^th-century monastery church at Daphni, near Athens, there is an example of Byzantine mosaic art that is unsurpassed. In the churches dome, the symbol of heaven is a huge impact of Christ, Lord of the Universe; circling the drum are 16 Old Testament prophets. As your eyes move down the shimmering surface, the impression of flickering images and of movement renders a lively and otherworldly effect. Near the wall areas in and around the nave are scenes from Christ's earthly life. Below these senses are images of saints and martyrs. Can you imagine anyone looking at this work of art, and bemoaning that the individual cubes are not identical in size, color, and position? Of course not, because the diversity of the individual cubes only enhances the beauty, and unity of the whole, symbolizes as it does a microcosm of Gods Kingdom.

So too, we need not necessarily decry the diversity of the church of Jesus Christ. Denominations inasmuch as they isolate Christians from one another are tragic, but they can also be seen as pieces of a grand mosaic, some different only in degrees, others with very little surface similarity.

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be the glory in the church in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen (Eph. 3:20, 21 NIV).

view all events