
Anaheim continues to be on my heart and mind as I have continued to receive emails and other forms of correspondence from people who have been significantly impacted by the decision to disassociate from the Vineyard movement.
This has me thinking a bit more about the purpose of associations, networks, and denominations. Iโve heard numerous people say things like, โJohn Wimber said the Vineyard wasnโt a denominationโ and a lot of appeal to Wimberโs thinking about ecclesiology. For those interested, Wimber actually said:
โHistorically, 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 have the word โVineyardโ in their name, and because of a unified identity, yes, weโve become a denomination. Admittedly, I have mixed feelings about that.โ
John Wimber, Everyone Gets to Play
It would seem, by Wimberโs own words, the question wasnโt whether or not the Vineyard was becoming more institutional, because it was. The question was whether or not it was going to be helpful to further the mission and serve people and local churches. There are, of course, other questions, but having read just about everything Wimber ever wrote, my assumption is that he would definitely have cared about missiology and whether it empowered people.
And that IS the question with the Vineyardโs continued development and growth.
But one thing I think was a huge mistake with the development of the Vineyard movement into what Wimber described as a โdenominationโ was when the national office and its control of the โbrandโ relationship was through the Senior Pastor(s). In other words, VUSA historically has related to local churches through a specific leader. Meanwhile, we have this theology of โeveryone gets to playโ and have historically been pretty low key on titles and putting people on platforms. If memory serves me right, that was one of the major concerns that was had with Toronto and the Kansas City Prophets, right?
I wonder if this issueโฆ the issue of relationships between the National Office and a specific person is part of the problem that developed into Anaheim? Obviously thereโs MUCH more to that situation because itโs hard not to see that Alan Scott is employing a very dangerous approach to prophetic ministry, manipulative leadership tactics, and immaturity as it relates to communicating this change. Leaving isnโt the issue, as there may be some really good and healthy reasons to disengage. The issue is how itโs being done, IMO. And I, for one, would be very curious to know why the mother church of our movement is leaving the movement. Are there things they know that some of us donโt know? Did they see something coming? Was there a breakdown in relationships?
That last question is a big one. If the movement on a national level has a relationship to one particular person, there are virtually thousands of people who are โout of the loop,โ including leadership teams, Boards, and all of the people who give and serve toward making the local church a beacon of hope in their community.
Our structure has historically risen and fallen with leadership. That seems to be the case in all ecclesial models, so I canโt really nitpick that much. Human nature is a funny thing, isnโt it? And while I am an advocate with the current structure because I am, at heart, convinced that the Episcopalian model could be the most helpful to the local church, I must also point out that it rises and falls on leadership. It rises and falls on people.
Let me say that again: Luke Geraty likes the model and structure on a theoretical front. I think it CAN serve our โmovement,โ โassociation,โ or โnetworkโ well. And it can serve the โdenominationโ too. But itโll all depend on people. Will national leaders have the time and energy and gifting to carry out their responsibilities? Will they be empowered and free to do so? Despite having concerns about the process of going from being an โautonomous association of churchesโ to an โEpiscopalian structuredโ group, I think the end result could be goodโฆ could beโฆ depending on people.
So far, in my life, I have seen it either be wonderful and amazing or non-existent. And that is all because of people. This has led me to spend more time in the past few weeks connecting with pastor friends, both in the Vineyard and outside, to continue praying and supporting and encouraging and growing. And itโs really helpful. And organic.
What do you think is most important for associations, networks, denominations, or movements to exist and flourish?

Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks