When western intellectual history is written, the 21st century will be remembered as the “postmodern age.” Among many definitions, perhaps the best known is by Jean-Francois Lyotard: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward meta-narratives.” With the collapse of Marxism as a viable world-view and the absence of a rational explanation for the universe, we are in an age where pluralism, multi-culturalism and relativism reign. How will we cope with this postmodern era?

The church’s embrace of the modern age, popularly identified as the period from the fall of the Bastille to the fall of the Berlin wall, makes this question critical. Modernism was the age of the Enlightenment, the age of reason, the age of the scientific method’s triumph. It was the age where mysticism, miracles, angels, demons, and supernatural interventions were judged naive, the products of childhood fancy. It was the age of demythologizing the Bible. It was the age of humanizing what was left of the “historical Jesus.” It was the age of the church accommodating itself to the secular mindset. It was the age of the Constantinian “national church,” informally established in all its multi-forms, influencing government policy by lobbying Washington. It was the age of the National Council of Churches, its counterpart, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the World Council of Churches. It was the age of the “Consultation on Church Union” (COCU) where “bigger is better.” It was the age of “The Christ of culture” (H. Richard Niebuhr). But this age is over.

While the postmodern era may be the consequence of the fall of the Soviet Empire, its roots lie in the revolutionary ‘60’s, preceded by the “Beat Generation” of the ‘50’s. The arrival of the civil rights movement, the burning of the ghettos, anti-Vietnam War riots, psychedelic drugs, the pill, and rock and roll, where music became political protest and youth editorialized to youth, ended cultural continuity.

The new youth culture was, among other things, an attack upon the modern era. Timothy Leary, ex-Harvard professor and the high priest of hallucinogenic drugs asserted that “reason is a tissue-thin artifact, easily destroyed by a slight alteration in the body’s bio-chemistry.” In this context, the generations were at loggerheads, and all established institutions, including the churches, were under attack. The mainline denominations accelerated their protracted decline (with the exception of the Southern Baptists and other more conservative groups). Symptomatically, Sunday school enrollment dropped more than half for many church bodies. The next generation absented itself. Churches grayed without replacements.

Longing for spirituality, the ‘60’s generation turned east. It was led by the Beatles and other cultural icons, who found Transcendental Meditation, chanting, and mind altering mysticism more attractive than the formal liturgies of Christendom.

It is no surprise that in the midst of this cultural revolution, a new Christian dynamic emerged. The press dubbed this the “Jesus Movement.” By the late ‘60’s a significant number of the “Woodstock Generation” renounced drugs and rebellion and turned to Jesus Himself. They brought their counter-culture life-styles of communal living and folk-rock music into the churches that would welcome them. If turned away, they started their own fellowships. Looking for a spiritual high better than drugs, they celebrated Jesus’ love and the power of His Spirit, many becoming neo-Pentecostals or charismatics. In this context, the Calvary Chapel Churches exploded under the fatherly guidance of a former Foursquare pastor, Chuck Smith. They were known for their informal style, Bible exposition, evangelistic fervor, and culturally current music, born from the “rock generation.” They were also known for a heavy emphasis on the soon return of Christ and the end of the age.

Calvary Chapels were transitional from the modern age. While embracing the fervent spirituality of the new birth, they also held to dispensational theology, a highly rational hermeneutic, and soon backed away from what seemed to be the charismatic excesses of physical and emotional display. A small number of Calvary pastors, however, wanted to continue the Jesus Movement’s assault on the modern age. They gathered around John Wimber, a new charismatic leader, who would build and determine the emerging Vineyard Christian Fellowship.

At his core, Wimber was not a modernist. Rationalism had not indoctrinated him. The modern church did not socialize him. While that church, in its Fundamentalist expression, tried to force him into its theological and cultural mode, he did not fit and burned out. Neither, of course, was Wimber a postmodernist. His influence skyrocketed in the mid ‘80’s. In fact, Wimber was a premodernist, a man at home in the Christian world-view and experience which dominated the church and the West prior to the Enlightenment. As such, Wimber positioned the Vineyard with the potential to minister effectively in the postmodern age.

The theological story of the Vineyard is, in its first phase, also the story of John Wimber, one of the outstanding church leaders of the last quarter of the 20th century. Robert Schuller, TV pastor of the Crystal Cathedral calls him “one of the twelve most influential Christian leaders of the last two decades.” Peter Wagner, formerly of Fuller Theological Seminary, believes that “John was one of those extremely rare people who will be remembered as a molder of an entire generation.” Anglican Bishop David Pytches holds that Wimber has had the greatest impact on the church in England since John Wesley.

Wimber’s Vineyard, like the early Methodists, reflects the spirituality of one man. Although Wimber died in 1997, the leaders he raised up are in place. This church planting movement, less than 25 years old, continues to carry out his mission, experiencing dynamic growth rather than “mainline decline.” Even the “Spirit-led” Pentecostal Assemblies of God has been together for most of the 20th Century. Its history is one of increasing accommodation to evangelicalism, which, with its rational theology (though conservative) and institutional life, has tended to become another expression of church-life in the modern age. How then did Wimber shape the Vineyard and inadvertently position it for the post-modern era?

Emerging from the “pagan pool,” Wimber was a jazz musician with the musical group, “The Righteous Brothers,” which he left when converted to Christ. Discovering, in his words, that “God has a book out,” he became a Christian in a home Bible study group, and was raised in his new faith to evangelize his friends. Wimber was staunchly evangelical. The Bible was to determine not only the substance of his faith, but also the adventure of his life. In his words, he wanted “to do the stuff,” namely, to do the things Jesus did in His earthly ministry, like healing the sick and casting out demons in the power of the Spirit.

Since Wimber was not socialized by the church as a child, he looked at its institutions and practices as an outsider. This gave him a critical edge. Although he served as a Friends (Quaker) pastor, Wimber failed to merge himself into traditional church life. Not being a product of the modern age church, he escaped the trap of rationalism with its non-supernatural bias. He often said that his goal was to build a church that he himself would want to attend (implying that most churches didn’t meet that standard).

Wimber left the Friends Church, which nurtured him in the evangelical faith, and became a church-growth consultant, founding the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth. During his tenure, he consulted with hundreds of churches, learning and teaching the sociological dynamics that led to institutional health. As a result, Wimber was a life-long advocate for church planting as the only lasting way to evangelize. Under his leadership, the Vineyard was and is a church planting movement.

When Wimber returned to Yorba Linda, California, to pastor a disaffected remnant from his Friends Church, he quickly attracted a core of like-minded leaders who wanted to continue the emphasis on Jesus’ ministry as the model for the church today.

This original group, as we have noted, came from the Calvary Chapel network. During the Jesus Movement, these churches welcomed the power of the Holy Spirit. Over the years they tended to de-emphasize the free-flowing display of spiritual gifts. Wimber and his fellow pastors picked up the slack. Released from identification with Calvary Chapel, they went on their own to form the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, which soon was nation-wide and now is worldwide.

It is impossible to understand the Vineyard theologically without understanding what drove John Wimber. He forged the fledgling movement, and, in his metaphor, made up its “genetic code.”

What Drove John Wimber?

First, Wimber was evangelistically driven. His radical conversion experience, and early “discipling” by a lay itinerant evangelist, put Wimber on the streets. By his report he “led” hundreds of his friends to Christ over a several year period. Evangelism was always Wimber’s passion and also his frustration, as, in his view, the Vineyard Movement never realized its full evangelistic potential. Later, when Wimber became an advocate of “signs and wonders,” a major reason he focused on the miraculous was because he believed that it would reach those outside the church with what he called “power evangelism”.

Second, Wimber was Word driven. He held to the absolute authority of the Bible as the standard and test for life. He measured all supernatural events, prophetic words, and ministry activities by the Scriptures. In frustration, when a parishioner feared manifestations of the Spirit and asked, “How far is this going to go?” Wimber held up a Bible and replied, “No farther than this.” He joked later that his response was not as safe as the man thought. Wimber interpreted the Bible from the vantage point of historical exegesis and evangelical faith. He avoided the excesses of allegory, and at the same time, heard God speak currently again and again through his devotional use of Scripture.

Third, Wimber was Spirit driven. He viewed the mainline churches as “pneumatically deficient.” He agreed with Gordon Fee that the early Christians were “Spirit people.” Intimacy with God was the heart-theme of his life. The road led through worship, obedience and surrender to the Spirit. As the Vineyard came into being, Wimber’s experiences of the Spirit increased. Power was unleashed as he prayed for people; they were often healed in his living room. Ministry became dynamic and, at times, unpredictable through the presence of the Spirit. One night at the Anaheim Vineyard, much to Wimber’s surprise, the Spirit leveled hundreds of young adults, shaking them and gifting them. Wimber came to see that if Jesus ministered in the Spirit’s power, he was foolish to think that he could do without it.

Fourth, Wimber was prophetically driven. Although his elders theologically suppressed an early experience of “speaking in tongues”, Wimber always had an intuitive sense of what God was doing, and went with it. Later, when a woman prophet wept before him for a half an hour, a frustrated Wimber asked her finally to deliver her message. She replied, “That’s it” (the weeping). He felt as if he had been kicked in the solar plexus. In her tears, he saw the tears of Jesus over him. Again, God spoke to him prophetically, “I’ve seen your ministry, now I’m going to show you mine.” This launched Wimber into doing the “signs and wonders” ministry of Jesus, rather than simply preaching Jesus’ message as a typical evangelical.

Later, when prophets from Kansas City appeared and redirected the Vineyard Movement for a season, Wimber was ready to receive them because of a history of prophetic revelation coming to him and moving through him. His openness to the living voice of God, supernaturally confirmed, also made him vulnerable to being derailed by other people’s agendas. Not wanting to offend God, Wimber was cautious at this point. He often remarked that he let a bush grow to see its fruit before trimming it. After the prophetic period, which focused on the gifted leader in ministry rather than on the gifted church in ministry, Wimber trimmed heavily.

Fifth, Wimber was compassionately driven. He genuinely loved people. He knew how to listen before providing wise counsel. He cared for his family, friends, leaders, churches, strangers, outsiders, and people of all denominations, races, and cultures. He lived simply and opened his home, welcoming people in. He constantly gave ministry resources away. He would remark, “Whatever God has given to me, I want to give to you.” He never hid behind his ecclesiastical authority. He poured himself out at great cost to his wife, his family, his time, his energy and eventually his health.

Compassion drove Wimber’s commitment to Jesus’ healing ministry. He personally prayed for thousands of sick and demonized. He also spearheaded one of the largest relief ministries in Southern California. He insisted that Kingdom ministry must be directed to the poor and dispossessed. He wanted to love the church Jesus loved and expended himself to renew it. In a simple sense, from his heart, Wimber wanted to be like Jesus in every area of his life.

Sixth, Wimber was theologically driven, especially through the writings of George Ladd at Fuller Theological Seminary. As an evangelical, Wimber always stressed “the main and the plain.” He refused to entangle himself in the disputed points of eschatology or ecclesiasticism or sacramentalism. He rejected speculative, esoteric teaching on demonology or spiritual warfare. At the same time, unencumbered by the modern worldview, Wimber wanted a church that would “go for it” in power ministry. He found ample biblical justification for this in the Kingdom ministry of Jesus as interpreted by Ladd. For him, although Jesus inaugurated the present Kingdom of God in his miraculous ministry, overcoming Satan’s kingdom, its full consummation lay in the future. Jesus brought a measure of “realized eschatology” (C. H. Dodd ) which is to continue in the church today. As a result, Wimber and his churches were to minister like Jesus in the eschatological tension of the “already and the not yet,” in a Kingdom come and coming.

The “already” part of the Kingdom raised expectations that many would be empowered and gifted by the Spirit, healed and delivered from demons. This was reason enough for Wimber and his followers to embrace this aspect of Pentecostal or charismatic experience. The “not yet” part of the Kingdom explained why all who were evangelized were not converted, and why all who were prayed for were not healed. abandoning the triumphalism of much Pentecostal teaching (and its roots in Wesleyian holiness), Wimber moved the Vineyard into “faith healing” based in Kingdom theology.

Wimber also realized that faith could never force God’s hand. He often recounted the statement in John’s Gospel that Jesus could only do what He saw the Father doing. Wimber’s task was not to command faith but to see what the Father is doing and participate in it or “bless” it. This distinguished him from an Armenian view of ministry, and made him more Calvinistic. It also prepared him for his own bouts with severe illnesses.

Seventh, Wimber was pragmatically driven. Having become an expert in church growth principles, he applied them directly to the Vineyard Movement. He welcomed Calvary Chapel’s value of being “culturally current” through informal dress and contemporary music. Wimber’s services adopted a modified “rock concert” style with an extended set of songs. The congregation became the choir, led by a band at the front. Worship was not to warm up the crowd. It was an end in itself; designed to give God the praise he deserves and move the worshipper into intimacy with him. As a professional musician, all of this was second nature to Wimber. He not only led worship, he wrote some of the most enduring contemporary music in the church and enabled others to do the same.

In an age of alienation, Wimber knew the Boomer Generation’s need for family. He also knew that a network of small groups meeting weekly could stem the constant migration from church to church. He called them “kinship groups,” highlighting the longing for belonging. He taught his leaders to grow the church “from the inside out.” As people commit to relationships and ministry, lasting church growth takes place. Wimber’s goal was to make the “priesthood of all believers” more than Reformation polemic. He told the Vineyard that “everybody gets to play,” not just the up front leaders and ordained clergy. In fact, the clergy were to “equip the saints for the work of ministry,” rather than do it alone as professionals. They were to be player-coaches. Wimber had clinics and seminars where students learned the theory and then practiced it. The pastoral task was to teach, model, train, release, deploy and monitor a growing army of lay leaders who would do the real work of ministry in the church.

Wimber also knew that the Boomer Generation was self-preoccupied. In a highly psychological age, the healing ministry, especially controversial “inner healing,” addressed this preoccupation. Wimber’s commitment to healing was not utilitarian. He believed in it because it was biblical. He believed in it because people’s pain needed the power and compassion of Jesus. He also believed in it because it worked.

Wimber saw many spectacular healings, physical and emotional, as he prayed for people. His goal was to marshal the whole church into this aspect of Jesus’ ministry. He trained literally tens of thousands in his 5-fold healing model of praying for the sick. Wimber’s concern was to divest the healing ministry from professionalism, emotionalism, hype and exaggerated claims. He wanted his churches to be “naturally supernatural.”

When Wimber modeled healing prayer, he described what was happening to the person while being prayed for. When there were physical manifestations of power, he would often become humorous in order to defuse the tension of the moment. He refused to stage dramatic, Holy Spirit events. He downplayed them. Physical manifestations never validated his ministry or proved what God was doing. At the same time, Wimber experienced the strong, powerful presence of the Spirit in his meetings. He counted on, in his words, God “showing up.” When he taught on healing he expected God “to back up his act.”

Wimber knew that for any movement to sustain itself, it needed decisive leadership (which he provided), structure, authority, accountability, discipline, and continued training and relationship. His young pastors needed direction. They needed vision and concrete goals. Wimber taught how to develop a 5-year plan to grow their churches. This helped them to get organized, learn goal setting, and evaluate success and failure. Wimber was decisive without being autocratic (most of the time). He also knew with Harry Truman that finally, “The buck stops here.” When he had to remove a pastor for immorality, or a church for departing from his authority and direction, he did it. This caused him much pain, and in the case of severing the Toronto Airport Church from the Vineyard, not a little controversy. It was the cost of leadership, which he had to pay.

To build leaders, Wimber provided a wide variety of books, teaching tapes, videos, manuals, seminars, and conferences. He also encouraged his leaders to follow suit, which they eagerly did, extending the influence of the Vineyard far beyond Wimber himself. He also sustained and expanded his ministry through various profitable business ventures, including music recording and publishing. This is part of his enduring legacy.

Eighth, Wimber was ecclesiastically driven. He often said that he loved the whole church. This came, in part, from his work with the Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth. Such a wide exposure to congregations and traditions gave Wimber compassion and appreciation for the church in all its manifestations. Being sociologically astute, he knew that successful ministries had to find their “market niche.” No single expression of faith reaches all. He was a grass-roots ecumenicist. This also led Wimber into a church renewal ministry where he taught seminars worldwide to equip the larger church in worship, healing, church growth, and life in the Spirit. His renewal ministry had a huge impact on the Church of England and elsewhere.

When those who were raised in modern churches were encountered by the power of the Spirit, they went through a “Paradigm Shift.” The presence of the supernatural became a part of their experience and was incorporated into their worldview. This radical change resulted in substantial transfer growth and the adoption of existing churches into the Vineyard. Such an influx, however, was not always compatible with Wimber’s passion for evangelistic growth.

In his commitment to equip the whole church in healing, Wimber tackled a class at Fuller Theological Seminary. Through the invitation of Professor Peter Wagner, he taught “Signs, Wonders and Church Growth” (MC-510), which included how to pray for the sick. An optional time of actually praying in the classroom followed. When people shook and fell to the floor under the power of the Spirit, Wimber pushed the academic envelope beyond recognition. Finally the course was cancelled, but only after he gained a national reputation for daring to practice the theory of “signs and wonders” on campus. Wimber took the course “on the road” and taught it to thousands around the world. As a result, many churches began to pray actively for the sick, and the supernatural dimension was restored to their ministry.

Ninth, Wimber was missionally driven. He was a “Great Commission Christian.” This first expressed itself in worldwide renewal conferences for established churches. Wimber wanted to see Christians come alive in the power of the Spirit to enter fully into Jesus’ Kingdom ministry and evangelize their countries. Almost inadvertently, as these seminars multiplied, Vineyard churches materialized outside of North America. Commitments not to plant Vineyards could not be kept. Later, Wimber concluded that they should not be kept. In 1993 he felt released to become intentional in international church planting and adopting existing congregations. By 1998 there were 370 Vineyards abroad in 53 countries. Today there are substantially more.

Tenth, Wimber was spiritually driven. He talked openly, warmly, passionately about his love for Jesus and expressed this in intimate worship. He lived in the Bible so that he could live like the Bible. He experienced the presence and power and gifts of the Spirit operating in his life. He called the gifts “tools” for ministry which the Spirit would provide “on the job” as needed. He referenced again and again an intimacy with God where he heard his voice, received revelation in visions, dreams, impressions, prophetic words, and biblical passages.

Wimber had a conversational relationship with God. He often prayed with his eyes open. Out of the calling on his own life and his track record of ministry, he enjoyed tremendous spiritual authority. Wimber described himself as “a fat man trying to get to heaven.” This was his way of expressing the reality of the supernatural world in which he lived much of the time, especially in quiet devotion or hands-on ministry. His life was pointed beyond this world. Wimber’s radicalism was expressed in his classic statement and question: “I’m a fool for Christ, whose fool are you?”

The Theology of the Vineyard

As we have seen, Wimber’s commitment was strongly evangelical, and, at the same time, surprisingly open. He described the fellowship of Vineyard churches sociologically as “centered set,” that is, with Christ as the center. Faith in Him held the whole together. This contrasts with churches that are “bounded set,” where issues such as eschatology, cultural habits, or liturgical forms define the fellowship. For example, a Calvary Chapel pastor must believe in the “pre-tribulation rapture of the church.” Wimber rejected such careful eschatological defining for his movement.

While being theologically open on many issues, the Vineyard does have a Statement of Faith. It is necessarily a “statement” rather than a “confession”. The statement defines the movement’s theological position without forcing its members to confess the whole. At the same time, it is expected that Vineyard leadership will be in harmony with it.

The statement is structured by “Kingdom theology.” It is cast in the context of God as King, exercising His reign, which while usurped by Satan, was restored first to Israel and then to the nations through Christ who overcomes the powers of darkness. It is the presence of the Kingdom, in the eschatological tension of the "already and the not yet,” which dominates Vineyard thought and practice. It also determines the heart of the Statement of Faith. What then are its major influences?

The Patristic Period

In the context of God as King, Creator and Redeemer, the statement confesses the classical, patristic definitions of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ as the God-Man. It clearly begins with mainstream Christian orthodoxy. The Vineyard embraces the whole of Christ’s church through the generations, separating itself from ancient and modern heresies concerning the doctrine of God.

The Reformation

The statement holds the Reformed doctrines of salvation by faith alone and the final authority of the Bible as the Word of God written. This distinguishes the Vineyard from the medieval church with its teaching of salvation through sacraments and good works and the supremacy of Papal authority. The statement employs the word “inerrent” with respect to Scripture in order to define the Vineyard as having the highest commitment to biblical authority in an evangelical context. This clearly separates the Vineyard from neo-orthodoxy and liberal evangelicalism.

The Eighteenth Century Evangelical Awakening

The statement professes the pietistic and evangelical emphases on the “new birth” for salvation and the resulting life of holiness or sanctification to be lived out in this world. It implicitly rejects salvation by sacrament or infused grace and any libertarian view of the Christian life.

The Modern Missionary Movement

The Vineyard stands under the marching orders of the Great Commission to take the gospel to all ethnic peoples. By definition, it is a church planting movement. With John Wesley, the world is its parish. Thus, in the last 14 years, the Vineyard has gone intentionally worldwide.

The Pentecostal, Charismatic Renewal

The statement witnesses to the manifest power of the Spirit, the experience of that power in the church today, and the presence of all the gifts of the Spirit to build up the church. It does not embrace the Pentecostal theology of a necessary “Baptism of the Spirit,” which must be authenticated by speaking in tongues. In this sense, the Vineyard is “Third Wave” (separated from classical Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal) in its theology, stressing the power of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit without a uniform experience of the Spirit.

The Biblical Theology Movement

The statement puts a stronger emphasis, in its Kingdom of God format, on biblical theology rather than on systematic theology. The statement is written as historical narrative (Heilsgeschichte). Its life and ministry reflect the recovery of the biblical understanding of the Kingdom come and coming. Its message and ministry are an attempt to live out that reality in the life of the church today.

In the Statement of Faith, Wimber’s evangelical theology in a kingdom context is systematized. It represents the conviction of his mind and the passion of his heart. When it was first read to the National Board, he wept. The statement in tract form is readily available in most Vineyard churches, answering the question: “What do these people believe?” Up to now, it has not been relegated to antiquarian interest or something simply printed in the back of a hymnal.

The Structural Growth of the Vineyard

From its origin in Calvary Chapel, the Vineyard was a lose confederation of congregations, sharing common faith, common values and common practices. As a small network of churches, there was a high stress on relationships. Congregations were independent, locally incorporated, usually with a pastor and elders for plurality of leadership. Only the name “Vineyard” was trademarked by Wimber. Pastoral care and submission were personal rather than legal.

While many wanted to make Wimber an apostle, he refused. As the charismatic leader for the Vineyard, however, he had apostolic functions related to teaching, authority, and ministry. He was apostolic as a church planter. He was apostolic in the signs and wonders that credentialed his ministry. He was apostolic in his passion for the gospel and the Christ of the gospel. He was apostolic in his vision for the nations.

For years, being prophetically driven, Wimber led the Vineyard by hearing directly from God. This was not pure subjectivism. He wanted all he heard to be consistent with Scripture and tested by Scripture. Wimber would change course in a sermon because, in the moment, “God told me to.” He would wait for direction from the Spirit as he entered into a personal ministry time of praying for the sick. He operated in remarkable “words of knowledge,” having the ability to identify people God was dealing with in a meeting and knowing surprising details about their lives and needs. He also heard from God in the crisis of making ecclesiastical decisions, often to the dismay of others.

Wimber would publicly repent of sin or misdirection as it came up. He cared little about his reputation or image as a leader. He warned, after Jacob’s wound from wrestling all night with an angel, “Never trust a man who doesn’t walk with a limp.” Wimber built this trust in his fellow leaders and congregations because of his credibility and vulnerability. He kept current through all the crises and struggles of his life.

While Wimber carried a unique authority, he was a churchman and a family man. He loved community; he was never a loner. He was submitted to his wife, Carol. She was his primary advisor and supporter through the years. Once the Vineyard came into being, Wimber quickly formed a National Board. The members were accountable to him and he was accountable to them. At the same time, Wimber had the final word. When the board debated adopting a church into the Vineyard, he ended the discussion by saying, “You get into heaven through Jesus and you get into the Vineyard through me.”

Unity, training, relationship and direction for the Vineyard were built and sustained by national pastor’s conferences. The different phases of the movement and seasons of Wimber’s life: church planting, healing, renewal, the prophetic, missions, can be traced through these gatherings. They showcased Vineyard values, served as mini-renewals and revivals, equipped pastors and recruited new friends into the movement.

The organization of the Vineyard went from a single structure, Vineyard Ministries International (VMI) in 1983, to a double structure, adding The Association of Vineyard Churches (AVC) in 1986. This was necessitated by the sheer growth of the Vineyard and separated Wimber’s renewal ministry (VMI) from church oversight (AVC). The country was broken up into six regions, headed by a Regional Overseer. Under each overseer, were District Overseers and, on a more local level, Area Pastoral Coordinators.

Wimber resisted the temptation to create an administrative structure separated from the local churches. This kept a high degree of trust and support flowing from the national level to the local level and back to the national level. While the Vineyard became structured with congregations networked into area and regional groupings, all leaders must also be pastors. Wimber himself functioned up until the final years of ill health as the pastor of the Anaheim Vineyard. On the analogy of the early church, leaders were not professional administrators or therapists, they were bishops.

As the Vineyard grew, rather than continuing as a lose fellowship of independent churches, relationally connected, pressure came for denominational structure. At the national pastors’ gathering in Anaheim in 1988, the process for a Vineyard constitution was in full gear. “Hearing from the Lord,” through his wife Carol’s dream, Wimber aborted it. Few church leaders would have risked such a move. But, as we have seen, Wimber was prophetically driven. He was ready to call everything to a halt and leave hundreds of pastors flabbergasted, once he felt God had spoken.

Also, probably Wimber’s sense was that if the Vineyard lost its cutting edge (in sociological terms, moved from being a sect to being a church ), it would no longer be a force for renewal, innovation, and contemporary, experimental ministry. It would no longer be Spirit-led; it would be law-led, submitted to the structure about to be put in place. At this critical juncture, Wimber opted to keep the Vineyard as a renewal movement made up of entrepreneurs. He also honored the ex-Calvary Chapel old guard who cherished a loose federation. He was willing to live in the tension between freedom and order, not sacrificing one for the other.

As the Vineyard grew, administrative and structural changes followed. These included appointing a National Director other than Wimber to oversee the U.S. church (Kenn Gullicksen and then Todd Hunter), intentionally planting mission churches abroad and releasing national churches from the control of the U.S. Vineyard.

Beyond Wimber

With the passing of John Wimber, the Vineyard could simply become another institutionalized denomination or it could continue to be a force for church planting and renewal. Would there be the predictable “routinization of charisma” (Max Weber) after the departure of the charismatic leader? Would the Vineyard freeze its assets, live off its capital investments, and memorialize its founding father? Or, would the Vineyard be true to the highest values of Wimber? Would it hear the voice of God, be prophetically driven, continue Kingdom ministry in the “already and the not yet,” and carry on its church planting mission throughout the world? Considering that the average movement has life for 40 years, the Vineyard found itself in mid-life crisis.

How does the Vineyard look as it enters the 21st century? Are Wimber’s values and practices intact? Does Kingdom theology still determine Kingdom practice?

The Present State of the Vineyard

A pastoral survey, designed by Professor Don Miller of the University of Southern California, gives a fairly objective fix on the current Vineyard. In reviewing the statistics, it is clear that the Vineyard mainstream lives out Wimber’s Kingdom values. A smaller wing is still committed to the prophetic-holiness emphasis of the early ‘90’s. A “seeker sensitive” wing, like the Calvary Chapels, downplays overt manifestations of the Spirit in Sunday services for the sake of outsiders. How then are the things which drove Wimber, driving the present Vineyard?

First, Wimber was evangelistically driven. Today, according to Miller’ study, over two out of three Vineyards regularly extend “altar calls” for salvation. The rest do sometimes. Backing this up, about a third of the Vineyards showcased conversions with “salvation testimonies” either regularly on Sundays or at least several times during the past year.

Half the Vineyard pastors report “leading someone to the Lord” a few times a year. One in five average once a month and over one in ten report two to three times a month. When asked about the importance of maintaining a strong emphasis on evangelism, almost eighty five percent replied that it was either “very important” or “extremely important.” In sum, at the beginning of the 21st Century, the Vineyard continues to be an evangelical movement.

Second, Wimber was Word driven. Miller found that most Vineyard pastors hold a high view of Biblical authority. Eight out of ten consider Bible study either “very important” or “extremely important.” A little over half hear God speak through Scripture “weekly or more.” A little less than a quarter hear God speak similarly two to three times a month. Almost seventy five percent of all Vineyards devote from 30 to 40 minutes to Sunday preaching. Another fifteen percent give 45 minutes. Two thirds of the pastors report that half or more of their sermon content is biblical exposition. The Bible continues to have a foundational value in the Vineyard.

Third, Wimber was Spirit driven. With reference to the gifts of the Spirit, Miller found that ninety eight percent of the pastors have received the gift of tongues (Spirit given prayer language). Eighty percent pray in tongues weekly or more. Prophetic and healing gifts are also reported or implied.

With reference to the signs of the Spirit, while about fifty percent of the pastors report never being “slain in the Spirit” (Pentecostal for being physically overcome by the Spirit), another forty percent experience this a few times a year. Ninety five percent have experienced physical jerking or shaking from the Spirit. Over thirty percent do so at least a few times a year. Close to fifteen percent do so monthly or more. Close to eighty percent have either laughed or wept in the Spirit, half a few times a year and a quarter even more frequently.

For the larger church, the question is asked whether the Holy Spirit effects decision-making. About two thirds of the pastors responded “somewhat,” and a third responded “greatly.” This means that over nine out of ten Vineyards expect some degree of the Spirit’s leading their ministries. Almost one out of three are highly dependent upon the Spirit for guidance.

About half of the Vineyards experience “singing the Spirit” (singing with the gift of tongues) either regularly or sometimes. A little over half report “rarely” or “never”. Over forty percent celebrate free flowing dancing in the Spirit regularly or occasionally. For a little under forty percent, this is rare; it is absent from about eighteen percent of the churches. The Vineyards seem to be evenly divided between more controlled and more spontaneous expressions of worship.

When asked if the gifts of the Spirit should be downplayed publicly, over eighty five percent either disagreed strongly or simply disagreed. Only a bit over ten percent would put a lid on such expressions. Almost eighty six percent is happy with the corporate expression of the gifts. In sum, most pastors report a dynamic personal relationship with the Holy Spirit and many report substantial Spirit activity in their congregations.

Fourth, Wimber was prophetically driven. Miller found that over eight out of ten Vineyards have prophetic utterances either “sometimes” or “regularly” in their services. As we have seen, the Spirit affects the decisions of over eight out of ten Vineyards “greatly” or “somewhat.” It is probable that this often comes through some means of prophetic revelation.

On the personal level, over forty five percent of the pastors give a public prophecy “a few times a year.” Another twenty percent do so “once a month,” and over sixteen percent do so “2-3 times a month.” Almost five percent do so “weekly or more.” This means that close to ninety percent of Vineyard pastors receive and give prophetic revelation at least more than once a year. Four out of ten do so at least monthly.

When asked to value “a prophetic ministry,” over half judged it “somewhat important.” Close to a third replied “very important,” and over five percent called it “extremely important.” Like Wimber, the Vineyard continues to be prophetically driven, with a strong prophetic wing of over a third of the churches.

Fifth, Wimber was compassionately driven. His Kingdom theology demanded ministry to the poor. In the Vineyards today, according to Miller’s study, over one out of five find this “extremely” important and almost one out of two “very” important. This is a high value for over two thirds of the churches. The other third judge this ministry “somewhat” important. Two out of three churches give one to five percent of their budget to “social outreach ministry.” One in five give six to ten percent.

The healing ministry also delivers compassion in a Kingdom context. Most Vineyard pastors personally pray for the sick. Less than five percent have never seen someone physically healed through prayer. Over forty percent report such healings “a few times a year.” Over twenty percent report the same “once a month,” and a bit under twenty percent report “2-3 times a month.” Over eight percent see physical healing “weekly or more.”

No wonder almost three out of four Vineyard Churches view praying for the sick as either “extremely important” or “very important.” The rest judge it “somewhat important.” To back up this value, almost eighty percent of the Vineyards had “testimonies of healing/miracles” in their services in the last year.

It is not surprising then that almost eighty percent of the Vineyards offer healing prayer in their churches “regularly,” and the rest offer it “sometimes.” Likewise, almost seventy percent offer prayer for deliverance from demonic influence either “regularly” or “sometimes.”

Healing is alive and well in the Vineyard. Most churches live out the Kingdom through praying for the sick and delivering the demonized. In the Vineyard world-view, as people are healed, Satan’s kingdom is undermined and God’s Kingdom is manifest.

Sixth, Wimber was theologically driven. Miller found that the Vineyard continues to be evangelical in its theology. When asked if Christ is the only way to salvation, over ninety eight percent “agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Again, when asked if the devil really exists, over ninety eight percent either “agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Most Vineyard pastors clearly hold the foundational truths of Kingdom theology.

On the issue of authority, when asked whether the Scriptures are "inerrant, literally accurate,” almost thirty percent “agreed” and over sixty percent “strongly agreed.” Almost ninety percent of Vineyard pastors embrace the most conservative doctrine of biblical authority.

Seventh, Wimber was pragmatically driven. As we have seen, a small group ministry will hold people in our dislocated culture and “build the church from the inside out.” According to Miller, close to ninety eight percent of all churches report having them. This is one of the highest Vineyard values and practices. It facilitates Wimber’s dictum, “Everybody gets to play.”

One in five Vineyards have a non-charismatic “seeker service.” This is one pragmatic response to the tension between evangelism and church renewal.

Eighth, Wimber was ecclesiastically driven. When asked if Vineyard churches should network outside the Association of Vineyard Churches, Miller found that over two thirds agreed or strongly agreed. Over one in three churches, however, hold a more exclusivistic attitude: they “disagree.” One percent “strongly disagree.” They seem to have missed Wimber’s vision here.

Ninth, Wimber was missionally driven. In the early ‘90’s he released the Vineyard to go worldwide. Miller reported that most Vineyard pastors are engaged in cross cultural mission activity, locally or internationally. Almost half participate “a few times a year.” One in ten do so monthly, and another one in ten is even more active. This means that about three fourths of all Vineyards are “Great Commission” churches.

When asked if three percent of the local budget should go to national and international church planting, almost nine out of ten either “agreed” or “strongly agreed.”

Tenth, Wimber was spiritually driven. For Vineyard pastors this is implied by their commitment to Bible study, experiences of the Spirit, praying in tongues, personal evangelism, prophetic activity, healing the sick, and ministry to the poor and cross-cultural missions. Wimber defined all of this as life in the Kingdom.

Pastors engaging in spiritual disciplines also demonstrate a strong spiritual life. In Miller’s study, all most forty percent observe “sustained silence” a few times a year, and close to twenty percent do so at least once a month or more. This accounts for about six out of ten pastors.

Almost fifty percent of Vineyard pastors spend a “day or more in solitude” a few times a year. Fifteen percent do so once a month, and over five percent do so two to three times a month.

Over fifty percent of Vineyard pastors fast several times a year. Close to twenty percent do so once a month, and almost as many do so at least two to three times a month or more. Fasting is a part of the life-style of almost ninety percent of the Vineyard pastors.

Another spiritual index is the hope pastors have for the future. When asked if “the best years of the Vineyard are still ahead, ” over forty percent “agreed,” and over another forty percent “strongly agreed.” Over eighty five percent of Vineyard pastors face the future with optimism.

From Miller’s survey, the conclusion is clear. For a large majority of the Vineyard, the “realized eschatology” of the Kingdom still defines ministry. Most churches are strong in biblical preaching. Most churches give calls for conversion. Most churches regularly pray for the sick. Most churches expect and experience prophetic ministry. Most churches are active in serving the poor. Most churches are committed to church planting and missions.

The Vineyard preservers in this style and substance of ministry, despite mixed success and the loss of Wimber through debilitating illnesses. It lives out the eschatological tension of the Kingdom come and coming. This cannot be stressed enough. Ladd’s Kingdom theology, as interpreted by Wimber, determines both the values and practices of the Vineyard.

Wimber succeeded in demonstrating that the church is “the eschatological people of God.” This means, necessarily, that the Vineyard is open to the future, living both in “the already and the not yet.” The immediate context for ministry, as we have seen, is the postmodern age. How is the Vineyard positioned for it?

The Vineyard and the Twenty First Century

As we have seen, the church in the west is entering an age characterized by pluralism, multiculturalism, and relativism. The modern age asked: “Is it true?” The postmodern age asks: “Is it real?” Any gulf between head and heart, theory and practice, intention and action, will be lethal for ministry. Any church claim, theology, agenda, program or leader will be subject to deconstruction. In our cynicism and skepticism, we want to know: “What is really going on?” Years ago Bob Dylan said that it was his intention to take off the masks and see what was behind them. In “When He Returns” he asks, “How long will you falsify and deny what is real? How long will you hate yourself for the weakness you conceal?” These are the postmodernist questions that the church must answer.

We hold that John Wimber was a premodernist. He shared the world-view held by most Christians for seventeen centuries. He took the ministry of Jesus in the Gospels at face value. He refused to explain away the miraculous or relegate it to another dispensation. He embraced Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom “at hand” as his own. But he also wanted Jesus’ agenda for ministry to be his and to be that of the Vineyard.

A central text for Wimber is found in Luke 4:16-21 where Jesus enters the synagogue, reads from the Isaiah scroll, and announces that this Scripture is now fulfilled “in your hearing.” What Scripture? The Scripture which proclaims the empowering of the Spirit: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me….” The Scripture which calls for Kingdom ministry: preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom to the prisoners, [proclaim] recovery of sight to the blind, release the oppressed, proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. Wimber not only devoted his life to this; he trained his churches to do the same. He insisted on both the message and the ministry of Jesus: the church is to be an instrument of the Kingdom, experiencing, however imperfectly, the messianic age to come as it breaks into the present.

To minister to the postmodern world, the church must have transparent integrity. With the grip of rationalism broken, supernatural, biblical faith is competitive within a pluralistic culture when it is demonstrated in practice. Its reality cannot be hyped or faked; it must be seen as “naturally supernatural.”

The Vineyard is positioned to minister into the new postmodern openness to the supernatural. It expects God to “show up” in worship and in ministry times when the sick are healed and the demonized delivered. The oft-prayed, “Come Holy Spirit,” is uttered with a high expectation that the Spirit will visit, sometimes dramatically and overwhelmingly. For the Vineyard, the Spirit is not merely imminent, He is transcendent. He often moves with empowering and gifting beyond our control.

The Vineyard theology of Satan and demons equips it to face the dark side of the post-modern world. The Vineyard rejects the illusions of humanistic optimism or inevitable progress. These old myths are dead. Kingdom ministry, however, does not breed cynicism or resignation before the powers of evil. It has its triumphalistic side. Jesus is Lord. His name is above every name.

Postmodernism has a lingering idealism, hoping for change. Kingdom ministry meets this hope. Vineyard ministry will credibly reflect this as it touches the sores of society. Praying for the sick; hands on ministry to the poor, the addicted, the marginalized point the way to the presence of God’s Kingdom.

With Wimber’s stress on community lived out in small groups, the Vineyard is ready to rebuild fractured family life, heal grief and loss, provide training and discipleship in ministry, and build accountability for the addicted. In our increasingly isolated and technologically sophisticated world, ministry without small groups will be no ministry at all.

To be postmodern is to have “no meta-narrative.” Everyone has his or her own unique story. While biblical faith does have its meta-narrative, the Vineyard starts with the manifest presence of the Kingdom. In this “power encounter” “my story” is intersected by “Jesus’ story” in the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. Now His story makes sense of mine. Through this (word and deed) I am drawn into the Big Story, the meta-narrative of the biblical world-view.

As the Vineyard faces postmodern pluralism, major issues surface. They include the full empowering of women as ordained pastors and church planters, the empowering of the next generation of leaders without unnecessary educational credentialing, US multiracial and multiethnic churches which share Vineyard theology and values but not “Vineyard” (US) culture, and the demand for justice for oppressed minorities. If the Vineyard is locked into ‘70’s and ‘80’s white middle class ministry and fails the postmodern challenge, it will be apostate from its own mandate to be “culturally current.”

Success is the biggest danger for the Vineyard. All renewal movements easily accommodate to the mass culture, especially once they get position, money and temporal power. What will prevent the Vineyard from moving from “sect” (high tension with the world) to “church” (low tension with the world)? There is no easy answer. A saving grace may be for each Vineyard leader to repeat after John Wimber again and again, “I’m a fool for Christ, whose fool are you?”