I started writing this post in early March, and finished it when a decision that *could* have been changed was confirmed by the Anaheim Vineyard in mid-March.
Back in 2013 I had the totally unexpected privilege of being in California for a Society of Vineyard Scholars Conference. It was hosted at the Anaheim Vineyard, often seen as the ‘mother church’ of the Vineyard movement. It was a powerful place to be. Recently, the church has decided to ‘disaffiliate’ from the Association of Vineyard Churches USA (henceforth VUSA), saying that it’s leadership are following divine leading in a different direction.
There have been a range of responses.
- Profound sadness. Because this is a key church to the history of a movement which most Vineyard folk have chosen to join as adults – very few have grown up in it or been born into it (unlike, for example, the Church of England). Because this is a part of our family, with people who some of us have known for years, involved in various ways. Because this is historic – churches have left or been asked to leave the Vineyard before, but this wasn’t just any church.
- Bewildered confusion. Because the story broke with a leak, which heavily implies that the church’s current leadership felt a need to control the story. Because the decision, and just as importantly the way it has been communicated, seems completely unaware of the affection that Anaheim is held in by many within and beyond the global Vineyard movement.
- Resigned expectation mixed with anger. Because some might say that the present leadership of this local church have been on a different theological trajectory. Because some unsubstantiated theological ideas have more currency than they do biblical or moral pedigree. Because language matters, and there had been clues.
My personal emotional response is one thing (which I’m in the process of processing!) – in this post, I want to offer something of a theological response (not that the two are separate, but that some ‘issues’ are helpful to dissect, and I hope the theological thoughts I offer may help others process and move forward). There are a range of things that could (and, in time, probably should) be reflected on theologically, but I want to pick up on just two. Firstly, what this episode can help us with when thinking about the ‘Unintended Tradition‘ John Wimber (one of the founding figures of the Vineyard worldwide, and founding pastor of the Anaheim Vineyard) has left behind, and secondly the surprising importance of a theology of place to the Vineyard movement.
John Wimber – an Unintended Tradition
The linked paper of the same name that I wrote back in the earlier 2010s (I cannot confirm without my old computer whether it was 2013 or 14 – the latter seems more likely) began like this:
It is clear that Wimber did not set out intending to start a tradition, or even perhaps a denomination. The Innovation and Legacy of John Wimber has been discussed, and is demonstrably the primary element in forming a Vineyard theological tradition. It is possible that the inherent renewal dynamics of this Charismatic movement lend themselves to moving forward, even as they echo the essence of tradition, what it means to be Vineyard. Clark’s aspiration of “an understanding of church embedded in the past whilst also fully engaged in the present” can be seen as being realized in a general way as the Vineyard moves onward. Justin Holcomb’s observation that “the great thinkers of the Christian theological tradition forwent their quest for security and embraced the questions, the stumbling, and thus they teach us”, and within the identified Vineyard tradition this can undoubtedly be applied to Wimber. Risky, practical and simple he may have been, but Wimber and the Vineyard offer a fascinating example of tradition and how it develops.
In a congregational email (I believe dated 26th Feb 2022), Alan and Kathryn Scott made use of the following quote by John Wimber:
“The economy of God’s kingdom is quite simple: each new step will cost us everything we have gained to date. A disciple must always be willing to take that step.”
We might quibble with the way that the Scott’s chose to interpret that saying, but what is undeniable is that in deploying that saying, they continue to perpetuate some level of authority to the words of Wimber. This is theologically significant – even if it is also the opposite of what Wimber intended. As John Mumford notes, “John entitled his own story ‘I’m a Fool for Christ’, and often he would risk looking foolish”. With that in mind, those of us in the Vineyard – attracted to the theology, practice and culture of the Kingdom of God – are not bound to slavish repetition of fallible formula. Indeed, we are arguably very free to ‘do what we like’, as we feel led.
Yet core to the unintended tradition that Wimber passed on is an emphasis on ‘the main and the plain’, on ‘doing the stuff’, and ‘everyone gets to play’. These snappy aphorisms capture deeper theological and ecclesiological commitments (as I’ve explored for example on ‘everyone gets to play’ and church leadership) but – and this is really important – are not intended in and of themselves as being carte blanche for any level of meaning that anyone projects on to them. ‘Everyone gets to play’, for example, is a pushback against ‘ministry’ being restricted to only clergy (hence ‘everyone’), being boring (hence ‘play’) and a duty (hence the more privilege/positive/gift language of ‘play’).
Thus the aphorism being quoted by the Scotts becomes something that actually has quite a clear impact, in my view. In becoming the Senior Pastors of the Anaheim Vineyard, as far as I understand it, they were given a huge amount of power and resource (a church of x100 people, a building, debts, facilities, etc). That was a ‘gain’. I can’t help but think that Wimber, in this situation, might instead have invited those who wanted to follow a vision of departure from the Vineyard, to leave amicably and go on their way. This is a complex and emotive situation – but theologically, we need to be able to tell and speak the truth of what has actually happened. It is not clear to me whether or not the Scotts are ‘spending’ what they have ‘gained’ in making this move. If that were to be the case, to read Wimber’s words in the more likely spirit he intended, one might expect them to be heading elsewhere.
There is another fragment of unintended tradition that I think is relevant, Bill Jackson’s notion that “before John died he challenged Vineyard leaders… to ‘take the best and go'”. On the one hand there is the calling of the Vineyard to be a renewal movement – as Kingdom people we should be as content providing training and encouragement to other churches as we are in resourcing and growing our own – on the other there is a very clear sense that ‘take the best and go’ does not mean ‘take the assets and disrespect those who gave sacrificially to an explicitly Vineyard vision’, but rather a flexibility around the theology and practice and culture of the Kingdom of God as being core to our being as Vineyard, in a way that, like a plant, has both roots and shoots.
This pivot from the sayings of Wimber to the imagery of plants and nature is not unintentional. The Vineyard has long been a church planting movement, and this sort of imagery should (As John Stott reminds us) draw us back to the reality of creation and place. It is to this that I turn for the second part of my reflection.
The Vineyard – more than, but not less than, a church in California
In 2018, I was privileged to give two paper presentations at the Society of Vineyard Scholars Conference, held at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky. In ‘Where are you Church? An Invitation to a Vineyard Theology of Place’ I wrote the following:
- The Vineyard has the opportunity to faithfully and creatively re-state what it is and what it is for now, rather than (and I’m not saying we do this!) gesticulating vaguely at the past.
- The Vineyard has the opportunity to live out the strange words of Jesus in Matthew 10:14 – in obedience.
- The Vineyard can show that our theology, culture and practice of the Kingdom of God are more important and more powerful than any leader, institution, or local church (Even as we celebrate and champion leaders, institutional health, and the vital importance of the local church.
- Everyone interested can choose to go to God first – in prayer – regardless of our feelings.
I
Prayer changes things. We should be praying for both the Scotts and VUSA, for those who are part of Anaheim Vineyard, and those who have been shaped by it in any way. We should pray for truth to out, reconciliation to happen, and people who don’t know Jesus to come into his Kingdom.
The prayer that I want to close with is one that Jay Pathak, the National Director of VUSA, wrote. It is simple, but powerful:
“I pray that each of your churches will experience the power and presence of the living God this weekend. And I’m praying for each of you that you will experience that Presence every day in your own lives. Come, Holy Spirit.”
For further reading
On issues of leadership, power and influence
- Marcus Honeysett, Powerful Leaders
- My blog post, Leaders who Limp
- Marty Boller, The Wisdom of Wimber on Wimber’s leadership and other things.
On some of the theological issues
- The two linked papers, ‘An Unintended Tradition‘ and ‘Where are you Church? An Invitation to a Vineyard Theology of Place‘.
- On the charismatic theological spectrum and where Vineyard is, theologically and historically speaking, a blog post ‘We Believe in the Holy Spirit‘.
- My review of Alan Scott’s book Scattered Servants. I liked it!
- Three posts on ‘Unburying the Lede’, which deal with some of the background theological issues live in the Vineyard, on ‘Identity‘, on ‘Jesus‘ and on ‘Dominion‘.
- My friend and American Vineyard Pastor Luke Geraty has written something really helpful on the denomination/movement/network (ecclesiology) question.
Brian Goodwin
Thank you, Thomas
Patrick
AWESOME!
Pam Olsen
If God is really calling Allen Scott to disassociate from the Vineyard, why doesn’t he just leave and Anaheim Vineyard can get a new pastor? It looks like he wants the millions of dollars that belong to the Vineyard Anaheim.
Patricia Tanaka
It is a good decision by Alan and Kathryn Scott.
Brandi
Thanks for sharing this from a theological perspective. I attended a Vineyard church right after college and loved how it lived “on mission”.
One view I have yet to see anyone tackle is the possibility that God has called both the pastor and the Anaheim Vineyard to leave the movement. I don’t understand enough of the structure – but believe the Vineyard USA would want churches / leaders following the Holy Spirit. As you are processing – would you be willing to share from that angle?
Brian Goodwin
I think perhaps that people within the fold are reticent to take that position, at least very vocally. It was painful to many and to show a gracious tone to the leaders at the Anaheim Vineyard as they left, was in many ways, too much to ask.
Daniel Pelletier
In essence Alan’s decision put many people in that congregation in a difficult place. Many were put in a position to leave the premises, homeless and hurt, until the Fultons bravely stepped up and re-instituted Anaheim Vineyard in a new building.
It seems strange that Alan has made no effort to address the turmoil he created or that his decision to leave the Vineyard didn’t include actualky leaving the Vineyard congregation that hired him and never asked for this change. Instead many feel kicked out and ignored.
I have no idea what Alan is thinking or feeling so I hesitate to accuse or judge him. But it does seem like the Christian thing, the mature thing, the confident thing, to address the situation more fully to Vineyard USA, the Fultons, and whoever else was/is considered a stakeholder.
Raoul Duck
Vineyard has always been a transitional movement. As you noted, it was born in a time when church identity became less important and personal connection became more important. A decentralized church without apostolic authority will be prone to atomization.
Church planting, in my view, is partially structured like multi-level marketing. You’re building a down line of itinerant churches that then consume the intellectual property resources of Vineyard USA and the Wimber family. How does the financial and legal structure of Vineyard contribute to the church. What proportion of church earnings are transferred on the up line and does the investment made by a large and profitable congregation drag on its financial results?
Sorry, if my questions offend. All institutions are powered by finance. Judas, after all, was the money manager for Jesus and the Scriptures allude to his break with Jesus was over his diversion of funds. I’m simply reminded of the bad break made by the Albany, Oregon Vineyard when Denny Cline decided to develop his own IP and disaffiliate with Vineyard. Something that occurs again and again.
As a 50’s baby, I came of age when MLM’s and Vineyard/Calvary were booming. Wimber, as a session musician, understood the power of copyright law and intellectual property rights. His legacy to Evangelicism was less theological and more legal and financial. He was a visionary who did with faith what Bill Gates did with software, in his own limited way. If you disagree with me, I suggest reading the T&C of the Vineyard Website. It’s as protective as a software license or NDA.
Fr Brendan (Brant) Pelphrey
I knew John Wilber briefly in his visits to Hong Kong, as I was teaching theology at the Lutheran Theological Seminary HK where he spoke, and also working with Jackie Pullinger. My wife remembers me convincing Jackie not to listen to the “shepherding” voices and “Kansas City Prophets” who said she needed to be under a man’s authority. But we were already discussing historic Orthodox theology, and I later became a Greek Orthodox priest. Somewhere I heard that before he died, John also became more interested in Orthodoxy, along with some members of Vineyard, and this influenced him to change his perspectives of some things. Is this true?
John Manning
Tom,
Thanks for this post. While I may have some different perspectives and thoughts on the departure of Vineyard Anaheim (now Dwelling Place Anaheim), I think you captured the heart of what I hope will come of this. I think this is an excellent time for VUSA to do a deep dive into self reflection. There have been other churches and leaders that have left the Vineyard, some under circumstances that were obvious theological differences. But some have left quietly with an attitude of “take the best and go.”
I am no longer attending a Vineyard. This is partly due to simple geography. There is not a Vineyard where I live. But while geography has played a role, there are also some theological differences that have caused me to pause and reflect, knowing that while the DNA is inseparable, certain nuanced emphasis are simply not of interest to me (of which I see no need to go into detail). Also, there is a broader scope of the Kingdom that has drawn my interest and, through the leading of the Holy Spirit, has opened up a broader view while simultaneously allowing me to have a more laser-like focus on how I would prefer to spend this last third of my life (which I pray allows me to reach my mid-80s).
Thank you for being honorable in this article. While your bias is certainly present, you masterfully focused on the “main and the plain” of the topic at hand, i.e. how this affects the Vineyard as a movement. I certainly hope that nothing goes to waste in this. My prayer is that VUSA and the world-wide Vineyard comes out of this season of mourning and into a clarity of vision.
Please take this in the spirit I am writing, a spirit of love and admiration. You did do double-speak in this article. You did it skillfully and graciously. You, on the one hand, stated that the Vineyard is not about a place, but (in my own interpretation of your words) an essence, or, as we say, a DNA. At the same time you spoke of Vineyard Anaheim as a place (among places) that carries a historical significance. To this sentiment I make two statements:
1. I am thankful that, in one sense, the Vineyard has finally reached a place where John Wimber is truly a part of the past. Please understand that I STILL quote Wimber constantly. I look to him as an icon in my theological DNA. I couldn’t get him out of my understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom if I tried. But as we see the generation die off that knew him personally the gap will grow wider. This gap needs to be filled with a new generation of believers who carry a Vineyard DNA into a vision for the middle of this century rather than grasping for the experience of the last quarter of last century. I think it is significant that Jay and Danielle have taking the reigns here in the US for such a time as this. They have an opportunity to set the tone for the next 50 years of the movement.
2. I am deeply saddened by the very public chastisement of the Scotts and the Riddles, who were called “liars and thieves”, that their motivations were somehow motivated by pride and they were stealing buildings for their own purposes. Also, that they are somehow theologically off because they have simply stated they are being led by God to disassociate. Mind you, all of those things could be true. Personally, I have not seen this pattern in what I have seen and read of the Scotts and the Riddles. And I am not here to defend their actions (not to get into a discussion of how those accusations are truthful or not). But what i can say with conviction is that this very public and harsh treatment of them, even if there was a tremendous amount of grace and mercy and repentance, has created such a gap between them and their former Vineyard family, that I cannot imagine how deeply difficult it would be for them to come back into the fold without some deep spiritual healing. Somehow they have managed to move forward with ministry and have remained mostly quiet, restraining from reacting (at least publicly) to some of the very vicious attacks. While the emotion of the loss is certainly understandable, the public viciousness was rather offsetting.
My prayer is that at some point in the future the Vineyard movement and Dwelling Place can come to an amicable, relational position that will swing the doors of the “place” open for fellowship again. As bad as it is that the iconic building had changed its name, what is far worse, in my opinion, is that there now exists a barrier (to say it lightly) that will keep many from entering the building. And while the Scotts and the Riddles did indeed withdraw from the Vineyard, there seems to be no evidence that they wanted nothing to do with the Vineyard in any way, shape, or form. I pray that is still their heart’s posture. And my hope is that the legacy of Wimber will continue to be both a movement called the Vineyard and a historic “place” that the many cuttings that became Vineyard church plants can look back on with deep admiration as they become their own mother vines making their own cuttings to create more sacred places across the globe.
Again, thank you for this. Your writings continue to amaze me. You are truly a gifted servant.
Your brother in Christ,
John Manning
John Manning
Sorry it looks like this. I did have separate paragraphs, but for some reason it uploaded as one very long paragraph. Blessings.
Russell
Thank you for this article. I think arguments founded in Biblical explanation are the strongest form of argument.
And for Vineyard churches, those founded on a ‘Kingdom Theology’ are the ones we look for.
I am sure that when Jesus returns there will be no more denominations, and that Jesus will be the head, and we will be united under Him.
It is because of this Biblical foundation and headship of Jesus, that I am happy to worship in a Vineyard church.
I pray for healing for all those affected, and that time will bring reconciliation for all those involved.
May God give Jay Pathak wisdom and faith as he leads through these difficult times.