Perspective of AVC Canada on Reasons for Disengagement (December 15, 1995)

Gary Best's Letter Regarding TACF

AVC Canada Summarizes Disengagement Events

December 15, 1995
Perspective Of AVC Canada On Reasons For Disengagement
Issued By: Gary Best, National Director, Avc Canada
To: John and Carol Arnott
cc: Vineyard pastors of Canada

Dear John and Carol:

First of all let me apologize for the delay in communicating with you all. Immediately following my recent visit to Toronto along with John Wimber, Bob Fulton and Todd Hunter, I left for Hong Kong to help some longtime friends, John and Jackie To (some of you may know her as Jackie Pullinger). In fact I am typing this letter on the way back from Asia.

Sometimes, however, taking a few days for reflection in the midst of a crisis is helpful in establishing a clearer perspective - certainly I hope that is the case here. With that goal I want to attempt to fill you all in on the events of the last week or so as I have observed and interpreted them. Of course, this is my account and may differ from the perspective of others. I can say, though, that my view is not clouded by any animosity or tension: even during the recent visit the TAV staff (including John Arnott) and I reaffirmed our love and respect for one another. Let me, then, give you a chronology of some of the key events:

Two weeks ago, John Wimber requested that I attend part of the U.S. AVC board meeting (November 27-28) as some serious concerns related to the Toronto Blessing were going to be discussed. What became immediately obvious when the discussion began was that the board unanimously felt that TAV was pursuing a significantly different path than that to which God had called John and the Vineyard movement. In no way was the origin of the Blessing being called into question (we all believe it has been from the Spirit) nor was there any accusatory spirit (almost all of the board members including myself, have personally benefited from the renewal and share a deep love for John and Carol Arnott).Instead, after observing now for some 15 months or so, there was a strong consensus that the theological and philosophical foundation that the Blessing was being constructed upon was significantly divergent from what we have felt is our foundation.

The precipitating issue, by the way, was the recent issue of Spread The Fire which contained two articles defending and explaining animal manifestations as well as one article focusing on ecstatic prophecy. The reason that the U.S. board was even addressing this issue, rather than our Canadian board, is because these articles were in direct contravention to a policy established by this board in September 94 after two days of active discussion and deliberation with the prominent renewal leaders of that time. I was a representative on that board which at the time was the only riling body for the movement - Canada not yet having been released.

When it seemed clear that the tone of the meeting was to recommend to John Wimber that he withdraw his endorsement of the Toronto Blessing and that John himself, as international director of the Vineyard was prepared to release TAV to pursue its own direction and calling, I appealed for another step - fearing that the news would come as somewhat of a shock to TAV (not being expected).In response, the board and John himself assured me that not only had he spoken numerous times in private calling for change but that several other regional leaders had also repeatedly called for adherence to our policy and for corrective measures without seeing any appreciable response. It was clear that they had come to the conclusion that TAV had firmly set their direction and that their lack of compliance was simply an indication that our differences were not just methodological but much deeper. To try then to apply more pressure would be injurious to the movement and to them. The best course of action would be to recognize the differences and release them to what obviously was in their hearts. In other words, their reluctance to respond even to John Wimber's guidance was a sign that John is simply not their leader.

This, then, was the message delivered in Toronto on December 5th. Though I love John and Carol and the TAV staff and have had some precious times with them, I myself agreed, and still agree, with John Wimber's assessment. The meeting of course was difficult, though not in any way accusatory. John Wimber made it clear that a decision had been made and explained his reasons. He did say, however - and this is important to hear - that all decisions made can be "unmade" and adjourned the meeting so that the TAV staff could respond.

Within two hours we received the letter dated December 5th accepting the board's decision to disengage. The next morning I met privately with John Arnott and his key staff and we discussed what this all meant and where we would go from here. In that meeting they raised their concern that our communication process had not been clear as they would have wished. I acknowledged that concern and shared that at least some of their compliant was in my opinion, valid. Bob Fulton, in his attached letter, also recognizes our failure. Nevertheless, I reminded them that there was much communication that had been clear. I asked, "Do we not both recognize that ultimately we are going in different directions?” The clear response in that room was, "Yes, a parting of ways at some time was probably inevitable."

That this was indeed the position of TAV is corroborated by the Internet posting of Richard Riss of his e-mail to John Arnott on Monday, December 4th (before our meeting) as he refers to a phone conversation with Daina Doucet. He says concerning our anticipated disengagement, "Daina mentioned that you see this as a good thing..."This response is before we even met. He also says in his posting of December 6th that "John Arnott and his staff there feel that this is a positive thing - a new beginning, no longer encumbered by various restraints." I found his observations to accurately represent the attitude of the TAV staff.

As a result, we turned our focus in the Wednesday morning meeting to the importance of disengaging in a way that would honour the Kingdom and we discussed the practical implications of this decision. We agreed that it would be wise during the initial period of adjustment - approximately three months - to have our key national leaders separate from any common engagements so that we are not sending mixed messages and adding to the rumour mill. At the same time I made it absolutely clear that this action was "release and recognition of a different calling" rather than "expulsion”. There is a difference between "withdrawing endorsement and support" and opposition. John Wimber is simply saying that to operate under his authority they need to follow his direction otherwise they need to establish their own.

We were and are not "drawing a line in the sand" and forbidding any Vineyard pastors or people from participating in TAV events or activities. Of course, if indeed as a result of our disengagement we do pursue quite different paths it will become more difficult for individuals to keep resolving the tension of trying to actively participate in two different "tracks". Somewhere down the road a decision will have to be made regarding major and minor involvement - particularly for pastors. I, as national director of the Vineyard in Canada will naturally call our pastors to wholeheartedly embrace the calling God has given us within the context of John Wimber's authority and guidance. Presumably, the TAV will do the same. Both John Arnott and myself understand that natural outcome and do not feel threatened by one another's calling. We will focus on walking with integrity and grace today and let tomorrow's issues be resolved tomorrow.

I am not in any way trying to minimize the sadness nor the difficult choices that this brings to all of us. Many of you have been strongly influenced by John Arnott and the TAV yet know that God called you to the Vineyard family. We more clearly understand what it must have been like for Paul and Barnabas and their followers when they parted company. My consolation is that positive regard they obviously had for one another later in their ministry and I hope that we will see the same. Nevertheless, some decisions will obviously have to be made by all of us in the coming days and I recognize that. I am praying for you all and trust that God will make clear to you the primary place to which he has joined you. With God's grace we will find our way from that point.

Please feel free to call me over the coming days if you feel that you need further clarification about anything that I have or haven't said in this letter. I have included as much documentation as I think will be helpful for you in providing a context for my remarks. I will also try to get in touch with as many of you as is possible over the coming weeks as we try to reaffirm the calling that God has given us. I enclose the following:

1. Letter from Bob Fulton to international Vineyard pastors.

2. Letter from John Wimber of all Vineyard pastors.

3. September '94 Board Report.

4. John Wimber Responds to Manifestations.

5. Letter from Todd Hunter to U.S. AVC pastors.

6. Letter dated December 5th from John Arnott and TAV.

7. Open letter from John Arnott and TAV.

With His heart,
Gary Best