Anyone who sets out to write on this subject encounters certain immediate technical difficulties. There is the problem of sources. When a movement is still young, objective, written sources are in short supply and dependence upon oral tradition, personal observation and acquaintance with short-term publications so much the greater.

Then secondly there is the problem of nomenclature. The title of this article with its reference to the ‘house church movement’ is quite misleading despite the fact that it reflects the earlier usage of the movement itself. Some of the groups of churches we shall be describing are committed to not owning property but maintaining instead a pilgrim existence. Others have erected some of the most sophisticated church buildings that can be found today. To suggest that all are ‘house’ churches is therefore far from accurate. The term ‘new church’ has developed as an alternative and enjoys some favour. It refers to the apparent mushrooming of new, independent groupings of churches outside the historic denominations over the last twenty years. ‘New churches’ would have however to include the rapid growth of Afro-Caribbean congregations in the cities over this same period, most of which have their roots in older Pentecostalism and do not share the ethos of the movement under consideration. Further, not a few of the churches involved in the house church/new church movement are no more ‘new’ than they are without regular premises. Rather, they are long-established churches, often Baptist, sharing in the vigour of a new movement. Another possible candidate is the adjective ‘restorationist’ or the noun ‘restorationism’, which seek to identify the movement according to a cardinal theological concept, namely ‘restoration’. Even this term is inadequate, since not all the churches which will be identified necessarily see this concept as their dominant theological characteristic. Despite this, it will emerge as the preferred description in this article since it identifies most clearly the specific movement with which we are concerned.

Already, however, we have been pointed to a third problem in writing this article, the danger of generalization. As a movement, Restorationism is a coalition of diverse networks of churches rather than one cohesive whole. As time has passed the differences between the networks of churches of which it is comprised have become more evident and often quite stark. They are both theological and attitudinal in nature, deriving from the stance or the personality of the dominant leaders. Therefore any one statement about Restorationism is unlikely to be true of all its segments.

A fourth difficulty concerns the state of flux in which the movement finds itself, such that anything written in this article may swiftly be out of date. Indeed, settling down to write has been postponed precisely because new developments were always in hand.¹ If the true nature of present phenomena only emerges in their future development, we are to a certain extent still guessing, in this area more than in most.

Having outlined the difficulties of writing anything, what actually should be written? What follows comprises a summary of the historical origins of the movement, an examination of its current form, an exposition of its dominant theological motifs and a reflection upon its future development.

Historical origins

Restorationism is a later development of the charismatic renewal movement which took root in Britain from the early 1960s. Its fundamental insight was that the new wine of charismatic experience required new wineskins if it were not to be dissipated. These new wineskins amounted to new church structures replacing the stifling and obdurate practices of traditional, denominational Christianity. Although the origin of the movement as such must be located within the period 1970–74,² the ground out of which it grew was already being prepared under the dominant influence or Arthur Wallis (1923–88) in the 1950s. Wallis, together with David Lillie, served as a convenor of three Devon conferences in 1958, 1961 and 1962 concerned with a vision for the restoration of the NT church. These conferences were attended by a number of independent, itinerant and increasingly charismatic teachers who were later to be leading figures in or around Restorationism. The decade of charismatic renewal, the 1960s, saw the emergence in various places of house churches delighting in a new freedom from traditional practices, and the simultaneous movement of established churches in more charismatic directions. From the flowing together of these streams the movement we are calling Restorationism was to emerge.

In the 1970–74 period leaders in the house churches began to come together in worship gatherings in London. They included John Noble, Gerald Coates, Terry Virgo, George Tarleton, David Mansell and Maurice Smith. At the same time and independently, a Welsh evangelist and former missionary, Bryn Jones, was establishing in Bradford a community church destined to be highly influential in that region. In these ways Restorationism began to develop as a conscious movement. Its upward march may then be traced via a series of Bible Weeks, initially at Capel, then from 1976 at the Great Yorkshire Showground in Harrogate and on the Downs near Brighton, which acted as the shop window and magnet of the movement. By means of these events considerable visibility and influence was to come to Restorationism. Many from a quite different church background would attend these events without a full grasp of the growing restorationist philosophy which lay behind them or, when they did grasp it, complete agreement with it. Yet behind the public events were serious attempts to establish two fundamental realities—covenant relationships and apostolic ministries.

Taking the initiative once more, Arthur Wallis called together in 1971 a conference to discuss eschatology. In the event this took a different turn. Wallis’s fundamental conviction that the coming of Christ was to be greeted, not with the pessimistic decline of church life expected in pre-millenialism but by a gloriously restored church, gave rise to an attempt to hammer out the principles of the restored kingdom which was to be expected as a prelude to the second coming. The conviction grew that of those who gathered, seven leaders were to be set aside for prophetic or apostolic ministry in the end-time church. They were Arthur Wallis, Peter Lyne, Bryn Jones, David Mansell, Graham Perrins, Hugh Thompson and John Noble. Later this group was increased to fourteen with the inclusion of George Tarleton, Gerald Coates, Barney Coombes, Maurice Smith, Ian McCullough, John MacLaughlan and Campbell McAlpine.

To list these names is itself to trace the subsequent development of the movement. In effect this group was to be a charismatic leadership for the burgeoning Restorationist movement, which was seen in eschatological terms as the emergence of a spotless bride fit to welcome the return of the King. The leaders were to be bound together in covenant relationships and in this way were to be the catalysts of a coming together of the body of Christ, joined and knit together in a way which would supersede the broken and compromised state of the denominational churches. The key element in this restoration was to be the influence of ‘apostles’, charismatically gifted and proven men who would give leadership and direction to the movement. This is the philosophy which began to find expression in Bible Weeks, celebrations and publications.

The rhetoric masked the fact however that covenant relationships were more difficult to forge and sustain than was at first imagined. Accordingly the wider group of leaders was to divide in 1976 as deeper temperamental difficulties came to the surface. Since then the development of Restoration ism has taken place in fragmentation and sometimes in competition. Some of the above-listed names fell by the wayside, others never truly integrated in the first place, others have been marginalized, and in 1988 Arthur Wallis, whose vision was at the heart of the enterprise, died suddenly, adding to the sense that instead of being the decisive and final episode in the church’s history. Restorationism was simply another episode in the long story. The demise of the Bible Weeks and the emergence of other figures in the tradition of charismatic renewal with different and more catholic values, most notably John Wimber, has added to the relativizing of the movement in importance so that it may now more easily be seen as a virile but by no means decisive and final manifestation for the church.

The movement’s present form

At the beginning of the 1990s Restorationism may be seen to be more varied than ever. In 1985 a sociological typography of the movement was attempted by Andrew Walker which divided it into R1 and R2. In R1 was to be located the axis of churches which lay behind the Dales-Downs Bible Weeks, associated in particular with the ministries of Bryn Jones in the north and Terry Virgo in the south. These were characterized by greater ideological precision and tighter relational structures than the churches in R2, a broader category containing the more loosely federated churches in a variety of networks.

The difficulties of typography have increased immeasurably since this early attempt, to the point that each Restorationist network ought now more accurately to be seen as a distinct entity with a particular ethos. My own attempt assumes a sectarian scale, that is to say, a spectrum drawn as it were from right to left according to the degree of sectarian otherness which the groups of churches feel about themselves over against the wider church, and without political connotations.

(1) At the far right of the spectrum are two older clusters of house churches associated with the names of G.W. North and South Chard. Both of these groups predate the more modern movements, the former distinguished by the somewhat esoteric teachings of Pastor North and the latter by the practice of baptizing only in the name of Jesus. Both groups are regarded as in some sense forerunners by the Restorationist movement and have provided personnel for the newer churches.

(2) A full description of Restorationism ought to include a reference to the Bugbrooke Community in Northamptonshire. In the 1970s an ordinary village Baptist Church passed, under the leadership of its lay pastor, Noel Stanton, into charismatic renewal and then into practising the community of goods in the style of the Anabaptist Hutterites. With large numbers of its members sharing households in a simple lifestyle based on community properties, it has been able to initiate and develop several successful businesses, including a major supplier of whole foods. More recently the community’s evangelistic wing, the Jesus Army, has engaged in aggressive and effective street evangelism among the marginalized sections of society. The community is conscious of the historical antecedents to its own positions and has a well thought out theology for its practices. Nevertheless, perceived sectarianism has led to its expulsion successively from the Evangelical Alliance and the Baptist Union. In recent years Noel Stanton has been working hard to re-establish fraternal relationships wherever possible, but the style and aggressiveness of the community clearly poses problems for some.

(3) The churches associated with Bryn Jones, formerly based at Bradford, have moved from a position of dominance in the movement to an increasingly marginal position. This is in part due to the closure of the Dales Bible Week in favour of more in-house events, but more so to the highly independent and individual line pursued by Jones, which makes him a difficult person with whom to sustain an equal partnership. If the early typology of Andrew Walker is maintained, the only network or churches still in R1 is that associated with Jones, formerly called Harvestime and more recently known as Covenant Ministries. The past few years have seen a number of significant defections from this group at the same time as it has aspired to an American-style upgrading of its resources, including the building of a new headquarters and the associated Covenant College in the Midlands. The separation of the Virgo and Jones churches took place amicably but decisively in the mid-1980s, actualizing what had been perceived for some time as a difference in ethos. Of all the Restoration groups this is the one which appears most independent, most negative about denominational churches and most aloof even from other like-minded churches. Jones has responsibility for some churches in North America and has not surprisingly been influenced by the American scene and notably by prosperity doctrine, a fact which is reflected not least in his ambitious and expensive plans for the movement of which he is at the head.

(4) The Basingstoke group of churches emerged from the former Basingstoke Baptist Church under the leadership of its pastor Barney Coombes. To a greater degree than other Restorationists the group has taken on board the ‘discipleship’ teaching which emerged from a coalition of American leaders called ‘The Fort Lauderdale Five’ in the 1970s. This group, comprised of Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham and Charles Simpson, functioned as the American connection for Restorationism in its early days, particularly providing platform ministry for the Bible Weeks before home-grown leaders had grown in confidence sufficiently to provide their own.

The ‘shepherding movement’, as it came to be called, stressed the need for every believer to be in a relationship of submission on a one-to-one basis. The resultant church resembled a patriarchal pyramid in which all the male members were to be ‘covered’ by an authority within the church. Wives and children were of course ‘covered’ by husbands and parents. It is around this particular teaching that much of the early unease about Restorationism developed, but it was never wholeheartedly embraced in this country as originally taught but usually in an ameliorated form. It is the Basingstoke circle that have developed it most consistently and therefore, despite the overtly outward-looking attitude of these churches, they have been particularly prone to legalism, a sectarian ethos and an in-house group mentality. More recently Barney Coombes’ extensive North American connections have drawn his interest to developing Reconstructionism, a right-wing social and political philosophy developed by R. J. Rushdoony which purports to apply biblical law to social affairs. The consequences of such a philosophy and its espousal in the British context are as yet far from clear but would be worth careful examination.

(5) The most significant feature in recent Restorationist developments has been the emergence of Terry Virgo and his Brighton-based New Frontiers network as the most significant figure in the movement in succession to Bryn Jones. Whereas Jones is an erstwhile Pentecostal and shows some of that movement’s aggressive drive, Virgo’s own background was amongst the Baptists and reflects the more cautious and measured approach of that tradition. Without being an outstanding personality, his combination of pastoral concern, teaching ability and wise counsel plus his ability to gather and maintain a strong team of leaders around himself has led to the formation of a well organized network of churches relatively free from authoritarianism and sectarianism. This now includes some significant Baptist churches which have in addition been able to maintain their denominational membership. In recent years Virgo has developed close links with John Wimber and the Vineyard churches, and these have added significantly to the style of church life found in New Frontiers and have contributed towards a more open and expansive attitude towards non-Restorationist churches.

(6) A small and sometimes overlooked group of churches has its focal point in the King’s Church, Aldershot, and is associated with the names of Dereck Brown and Mike Pusey. Most of these churches have developed from a Baptist base embracing charismatic renewal and have sought to discover more authoritative forms of church leadership.

(7) Gerald Coates and John Noble are amongst the early figures of Restorationism who have gone on to become leaders of a sizeable group of churches associated with Cobham and Romford. While Noble has mellowed into a trusted elder statesman, Coates has acquired a reputation as a colourful and controversial extrovert and entrepeneur. This axis of churches was the core of what Walker described as R2, a more liberally minded and anarchic stream which has wanted to avoid the tendency towards institutionalization found in other places. Although Coates has remained critical of denominations, there has been a willingness to cooperate with others which has also sought to be affirmative and has found particular expression in the Marches for Jesus.

(8) The Ichthus Fellowship in South London must be considered as a Restorationist group, although one which has developed quite independently under the remarkable leadership of Roger Forster and has consistently sought, unlike some of the others, to achieve growth through evangelism rather than transfer. This group is distinctive by virtue of its theology, which is self-consciously Arminian and Anabaptist; its model of church growth, which is strong on church planting while seeking to maintain its congregations as part of one large church; its ethos of emancipation—this is the only group so far considered which actively propagates the ministry of women on equal terms with men and appoints women as congregational leaders; and in its ecumenical concern—Roger and Faith Forster have played significant roles within the Evangelical Alliance and Spring Harvest. While the instinct of other groupings has been to establish their own platform and to guard it jealously, Ichthus has involved itself in Spring Harvest, an interdenominational and evangelically pluralist event which, while others have run out of steam or rationale, has gone from strength to strength.

(9) To the left of the spectrum I have chosen to place the churches which associate with David Tomlinson, based in Brixton. Tomlinson’s career has been a weathervane for tendencies in the movement as a whole. Himself a product of the W.R. North-related churches, Tomlinson became closely linked with Bryn Jones and was clearly recognized as an apostle. By the mid-’80s he had disentangled himself from this connection and moved steadily away from the kind of authoritarianism instinctive to Jones. At the same time his ministry began to take account of considerations largely neglected in the movement as a whole, namely concern for issues of peace, justice, creation and culture. As part of this shift Tomlinson moved with a group of fellow-workers from his base in the North-East to live in Brixton and in due course to plant a church there. While maintaining a Restorationist perspective Tomlinson has come to understand this in a way which is socially radical and liberationist by contrast with the more conservative implications of Jones’s authoritarianism. It is within Tomlinson’s network of churches that the prophetic word has come claiming that the ‘house church movement’ is over, a word taken to mean not that the new churches should go out of business but that as a movement which distinguishes itself critically from the mainline churches it has no future. God’s concern is with all the churches.

(10) A tenth grouping is difficult to characterize at all. A large number of community churches remain unaffiliated to any wider grouping and are all so well integrated with mainstream churches that were it not for the fact of Restorationism they would simply be regarded as healthy and independently-minded congregations. Chief among these is the Sheffield House Church and its daughter congregations under Peter Fenwick, who is widely regarded within and beyond Restorationism as an astute and sane counsellor and a wise father in God.

The diversity of Restorationism should now be plain. Given that in embryo it has been there from the beginning, it is no surprise that the history of the movement gives evidence of the ability of its leaders to disagree strongly. The earliest expectations of an unbreakable covenant relationship binding all together have proven unsustainable. Yet in the last two years gatherings have been held which indicate that a new kind of unity based upon mutual respect and the ability to disagree may well be in the offing. If this is to be achieved it will be more modest than the original hopes while at the same time more closely akin to the kind of unity-in-coalition being sought among evangelical believers across the historic denominations.

Dominant theological motifs

An attempt must be made to analyse the doctrinal rationale of early Restorationism before indicating how this has been modified with the passing of time.³ Restorationist theology arises out of the charismatic movement but reaches back to older traditions which it represents in a modern form. It has been indicated that an immediate impetus for the movement is the search for new wineskins in which to conserve the new wine of charismatic renewal. Otherwise expressed, this means the search for a new way of being the church which escapes from the perceived traditionalism and compromise of denominational religion and which is a recovery of NT patterns of church life. In the belief that the status quo is incapable of extensive reform, Restorationism rejects the liberal option of patient reform from within in favour of a radical restoration of the NT church from the bottom up.

Seen in this light, the movement can be understood to be within an historically continuous stream of church life, reaching back at least as far as Anabaptism, in which the same vision has been kept alive, although variously expressed. The influence of Arthur Wallis in this regard cannot be underestimated, rooted as he was, along with other early leaders, in the Brethren tradition and imbued with an enduring passion for the recovery of NT realities. Such an interpretation of the movement is at once a relativizing statement. Restorationism is another example of a persistent phenomenon of church life which is well documented in post-Reformation history and has its counterparts in pre-Reformation movements against the institutionalizing of primitive Christianity. But it is not something unheard of and totally new in the church’s history.

The theology of Restoration assumes that there is a point of origin against which the current state of the church may be tested and judged. That point of origin is the NT church, which is to be imitated not only in matters pertaining to faith and justification but also in its patterns and forms. Post-Reformation church history is thus understood as a succession of recoveries of lost or neglected truth. Luther recovered the doctrine of justification by faith, Baptists believers’ baptism, Wesley assurance of salvation, Brethren NT forms of worship and participation, Pentecostals the baptism and gifts of the Spirit, charismatics the sense of being the body of Christ, and so on. The present-day Restorationist movement was perceived in the earliest days of its existence as being the extension and possibly the climax of this process.

Of primary importance is the recovery of apostolic ministries understood as the concomitant of spiritual gifts. After the recovery of NT gifts comes the recovery of NT ministries. Clearly, apostleship is not understood as the reconstituting of the original twelve, who were marked out as being historically unique by the resurrection appearances, but as the recovery of a spiritual function in the church in line with the five-fold ministry referred to in Ephesians 4:11. The ministry is understood to be both enduring and foundational, such that churches which lack the benefit of ‘apostolic input’ are not only missing out but are seriously defective. When joined to a moderated shepherding doctrine, such an approach led to an understanding of church as identical with kingdom and organized as hierarchy through a patriarchal system of authority and submission. This in turn created a sectarian feel to them movement as other churches, even charismatic churches, were regarded as deficient where such hierarchies were lacking or where they were staffed by people who would not be regarded in Restorationism as truly apostolic. Precisely here were found the seeds of tension between the majority of early Restorationists and the historic churches.

The concept that restoration may be coming to a climax gave rise to a heightened eschatological awareness which saw Restorationism as potentially writing the last chapter of history. This was accompanied by a decisive rejection of the pessimistic pre-millennialism in which the majority of the early leaders had been reared in favour of a form of post-millennialism which expected the restoring of the church to its NT pattern to be accompanied by a massive and final revival as the immediate prelude to the coming of Christ. As the NT spoke of the coming of Christ to a church ‘prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’ (Rev 21:2), it was deduced that if the church of the Restoration were to put itself in order along the lines of establishing the hierarchy and entering into submitted relationships, this could itself be the impetus to ‘bring back the King’ to claim his bride. Restorationism was therefore seen in eschatological and almost apocalyptic terms, creating a sense of urgency which sometimes found expression in a ruthless condemnation of the historic churches as abandoned by God and in proselytizing from them. Characteristic traits of post-millennialist optimism are also manifest in the broad range of songs and hymns that have emerged within the movement.

Many critics of the movement would engage in detailed argument over disputed questions of millennialist interpretation. But a more trenchant way of criticizing this theology would be to agree with it broadly in principle and find it inconsistent in practice. The notion that the NT provides the final and infallible rule for the manner of the church’s life can be argued as a respected tradition of essential Protestantism, particularly its radical wing. The question remains whether in finding its ground of critical reappraisal in Scripture it has actually drawn the right conclusions. In fact, Restorationism has tended to find its primary references either in the notion of the restoring of a Davidic kingdom or in the Pauline teaching on submission. On the basis that neither of these points of reference can themselves be understood in Christian terms until seen through the lens of Jesus Christ, it is the contention of this article that Restorationism has been misleading. The teaching of Jesus stands sharply against some of the teachings and emphases which we have outlined and replaces them with a form of church life which is not hierarchical, which looks to God rather than to his servants, and which sees authority displayed and practised in servanthood rather than domination. At these points the movement is to be regarded as a wrong turn, but the Restorationist impulse which goes back to the sources of the faith in Jesus is itself what leads to these criticisms. Restorationism is therefore in principle right in what it attempts to do, but in practice, at these points, wrong in the conclusions it draws.

Here a significant qualification needs to be entered in the light of the previous section. What has been described is the theological rationale of early Restorationism. To understand the present scene it is necessary to grasp that the variety of the movement we have described means that not all have accepted or propagated the teaching as expressed and that, more interestingly, some have moved decisively away from it while still being shaped in thought and practice by the tradition from which they have moved. The reasons for this may be located in part in disillusionment at the early high hopes and aspirations not being fulfilled, incipient differences rising to the surface, or further reflection on what exactly was being claimed in the first place. Outside influences also caused a shift, such as John Wimber, in whom a spiritual vitality that Restorationists would respect is combined with a far more open and catholic ecclesiology. Most significant, however, must be rated the way in which the NT itself, and in particular its witness to Jesus, has brought about a questioning and modification of early teaching. This is most clearly perceived in the pilgrimage of David Tomlinson and is at the root of the break with Bryn Jones. Whereas Jones’ instinct would be to understand apostleship in an authoritarian, patriarchal manner and interpret Scripture accordingly, Tomlinson’s capacity for self-criticism has led to a reappraisal of such a style in the light of Jesus and his teaching and a consequent shift. This does not mean a rejection of previous categories such as apostleship, for instance, but their reinterpretation in a non-authoritarian, servanthood direction. The result is not very different from what many other Christians would be happy to affirm and contributes to a sense of rapprochement with the mainstream. A similar shift may be traced in other strands of Restorationism, although it must also be understood that the theological journey travelled by their leaders is not always imitated immediately by the followers.

We are thus led to conclude that Restorationist theology is in transition. Much of the early extravagance which tended towards sectarianism has faded away and a variety of theological stances is left, the majority of which sit quite happily within the mainstream evangelical coalition of theologies, but some of which, not yet purged from idiosyncrasies, are on its margins.

Future development

Many Restorationist leaders have been trenchant critics of the denominations while being blind to the fact that they themselves exhibit many of the characteristics of denominationalism. Of course, while a denomination is defined as a legal federation of churches in some form, Restoration churches can imagine themselves to be outside this particular trap. If on the other hand denominations are defined as groups or networks of churches which distinguish themselves self-consciously from other church bodies and display common qualities, practices and sense of identity, then Restoration churches are as, and possibly more, denominational than the rest. This produces several tensions.

The stronger the sense of identity and common purpose to be found among a group of churches, the more likely they are to be effective in corporate mission while at the same time becoming a definite sect or denomination. This is the road taken by the Bryn Jones group. As an alternative, being a denomination can be avoided by loosening formal ties and maximizing the freedom of each local church. This is David Tomlinson’s road but it leads to the danger of loss of identity and thus of the sense of common endeavour. The Virgo route seems to be to maintain strong relational links between churches but so to straddle denominational structures that they act as a bulwark against the new network itself being seen as a denomination. The other groupings are sufficiently small as yet not to face the issue so acutely.

Future moves are likely to mean that the trend towards diversification continues while a new sense of new-church coalition develops simultaneously despite it. The diversification will be manifest at the level of theology and style and will be largely dependent on the new movements with which each grouping chooses to identify itself. The connections with Wimber (Virgo, Coates), prosperity doctrine (Jones), Reconstructionism (Coombes) or issues of peace, justice and the integrity of creation (Tomlinson) lead in very different directions. The most crucial decision to be made will concern whether or not to merge with the evangelical mainstream as it becomes progressively more charismatic and informal. The influence of Restorationism must be seen not only in those bodies which are directly allied to it but also in the ways in which numerous Baptist and Anglican churches in particular have accommodated themselves consciously or unconsciously to the trends it represents. Between many churches of whatever background there is now very little to choose in practical terms. All of this points to a merging of Restorationists into the mainstream while maintaining a sense of their own distinctives. Those groups which resist this tendency will inevitably distinguish themselves more and more surely as denominations in their own right with all the paraphernalia which belongs to this state.

What has God been doing through Restorationism? To acknowledge that the movement may be a prophetic sign commits no-one to uncritical acceptance of all that it offers. As a sign against the excessive institutionalization of the churches, their formality and inflexibility, the movement speaks loudly. As a witness to the idea that the NT speaks of the form of the church and not just about personal justification, and that this witness is to be received and obeyed because the church as a covenant community is the focal point of God’s saving activity in the world, it speaks louder still.

---

¹ The phenomenon of the ‘Kansas City Prophets’ has emerged into the limelight after the writing of this article. Too late for inclusion in this survey, it will be examined in a future article.

² The origins of the movement are most fully documented by Andrew Walker in Restoring the Kingdom: The Radical Christianity of the House Church Movement (Hodder & Stoughton, 1985; rev. edn. 1988; reviewed in Themelios 12.1), and Peter Hocken, Streams of Renewal: The Origins and Early Development of the Charismatic Movement in Great Britain (Paternoster, 1986; reviewed by the author in Themelios 13.2). See also Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements(Zondervan, 1988; reviewed in this issue).

³ For fuller appraisal see my The Radical Kingdom (Kingsway, 1986); Max Turner, ‘Ecclesiology in the Major ‘Apostolic’ Restorationst Churches in the United Kingdom’, Vox Evangelica Vol. XIX, 1989, pp. 83–108; Andrew Walker, ‘The Theology of the “Restoration” Housechurches’ in Strange Gifts: A Guide to Charismatic Renewal, eds. David Martin and Peter Mullen (Blackwell, 1984), pp. 208–216.