Hi Ali!

A simple search doesn’t reveal the answer easily; I’d have to hunt through the archives, which I don’t have time to do at present. Do you happen to have the link?

(P.S. Please use your full name for all future comments as per our comment policy. Many thanks!)

Hi Karen, apologies about the name. My bad. (Do people say that anymore?)

After writing the previous comment, I looked up the Vineyard response. Here’s a link to Jack Deere’s response to the Briefing. http://joshuatongol.com/images/stories/Josh/jack deere response.pdf (you can find it at some Vineyard websites as well). At the end Jack Deere notes that he contacted Phillip Jensen before publishing his response and includes Jensen’s reply.

Sandy, I have been involved in a Vineyard Church before, and I myself am critical of many aspects of the Vineyard movement. I am also not keen on Jack Deere’s involvement with certain parties after he left Vineyard. However, I think it is clear to see that much of the criticism found in the Briefing had more to do with acceptable differences in theological understanding than any heretical views reported by the Briefing articles.

For example, the shocking assertion that Jack Deere didn’t even know what the gospel was turns out to be Deere’s explanation that he was in the middle of working through the specifics of the “gospel of the Kingdom” spoken of in the gospels as opposed to the gospel presented elsewhere in the New Testament - a distinction acknowledged (and I would argue better understood) by many people today.

For all of the Vineyard’s faults, one of the things I admire (and causes me to take what comes from certain people involved seriously) is the willingness to accept where they stuff up - and that includes the evangelistic evening you attended as seen in Deere’s response. I think what this exchange shows is the way that churches (and not just the Vineyard) sidelined the gospel <i>often</i> while concentrating on other topics, instead of incorporating the gospel into everything a la Tim Keller (my favourite practioner in that sense).

Ramble ramble. I need to go to work. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

I appreciate this article alot, as I had just listened to an old Dick Lucas audio series from St. Helens Church in London in which he spoke against John Wimber and his LACK of preaching of Christ Crucified.

I did not know who John Wimber was, and from the article and comments I can now see why Dick Lucas was not very impressed by Wimber.

I should say that as far as bible teachers go, Dick Lucas is my all-time favorite and has been most influential in my growth as a christian.

The problem Lucas asserted was that Wimber claimed to see all through the NT that it spoke of healing people to be the priority of christianity. Thge fact is, however, that all through the NT we in fact find the exact opposite. That we are called to take up the cross of Christ, and suffering is something much more likely to take place in the true believer’s life. Main reason being that are salvation is not completed until we have our resurrection bodies, and that simply has not happened yet.

Saying that we are all supposed to be healed makes many christians fearful that they are doing something wrong or that they “don’t have enough faith” when they don’t get healed or go through persecution or suffering, when in fact the NT says all through it that suffering and persectuion is normal for the believer.

I know I am not putting this in the best possible words, and thats not a surprise since I am no Dick Lucas or Don Carson. I wish I was as good a speaker as either of those two legends, but I am not.

So I just want to say your article has been very helpful for me in making Dick Lucas’s point. Reading what Wimber had to say perfectly completes the excellent teaching given by Dick Lucas.