Let's Kill the Covenant of Christian Conduct
Topic: The Covenant of Christian Conduct as it is currently written (particularly paragraph 34) is detrimental to the mission of the Church of the Nazarene to a postmodern world... discuss.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the Covenant of Christian Conduct is that portion of the church manual that gives us Nazarenes the "rules" that we're supposed to live by. This is where they tell us that we are opposed to abortion, that we don't drink, and that we don't play the lottery. Strangely enough it's also where they tell us to conduct our meeting by Robert's Rules of Orders.
Our denomination in the last 50 years has been mired in the sin of legalism. It has only been in the last 10 years or so that this has really been recognized and the church has begun to repent of this cultural sin. In the "good old days" we had our Special Rules (the old name for the Covenant of Christian Conduct) and as long as you didn't break any of those then you must be a pretty good Nazarene. In fact, for a lot of Nazarenes, the old Special Rules were a sort of litmus test for your holiness level.
Don't believe me that we were legalistic (and still are in certain quarters)? Well they changed the name from Special Rules to Covenant of Christian Conduct so that people would no longer be able to point to these "rules" as the "rules" of holiness. Of course changing the name didn't stop them from being rules for a lot of people.
Because of our tendency towards legalism, which has been so deeply encoded into our collective religious culture, many in our church have given up true holiness for the outward likeness of it. I'm sure for many this legalism was rarely intentional, they just got confused. You see, there's the character of a person, and then there is the fruit of their character and sometimes it is easy to confuse the two. The Covenant of Christian Conduct is detrimental precisely because it's leads to more legalism because it focuses on the fruit a person bears rather than the character that yields the fruit in the first place.
I believe that if you have the right character, that is a holy character, then your actions, or the fruit of your nature will be evident and doesn't need to be codified. If you are living in God's holiness then your actions will, by definition, be holy. The fruit of this holiness can never be effectively codified (because it must be contextualized) which is one reason why the Covenant of Christian Conduct is detrimental to our cause.
So how does one get this right character that makes the Covenant of Christian Conduct obsolete? Or put another way, what are the practices of the holiness Christian? Interestingly enough we already have that in the manual too. These used to be called the General Rules but since we're getting rid of the word "Rule" and replacing it with the word "Covenant" they have renamed the General Rules the Covenant of Christian Character.
It is interesting to me that the Covenant of Christian Character has all or most of what we need to do to help foster the holiness life. It tells us what we should do (love God, love others, do good works) and it tells us what we should not do (evil of any kinds). The Covenant of Christian Character is good, concise, and covers all the bases of what a Christian's practice should be.
So why do we Nazarenes still feel compelled to then make a list (which starts by saying that no list could possibly be comprehensive) rather than allowing holiness people to use common sense, prayerful consideration, and God given discretion when deciding about the particulars?
So I say keep the Covenant of Christian Character and scrap the Covenant of Christian Conduct. People who follow the first will naturally embody (and exceed) the latter precisely because of the indwelling Spirit of God which is the true wellspring of holiness.
God Bless,
Kevin Rector
http://blog.kevinrector.com
51 comments:
Kevin wrote, “…So why do we Nazarenes still feel compelled to then make a list (which starts by saying that no list could possibly be comprehensive) rather than allowing holiness people to use common sense, prayerful consideration, and God given discretion when deciding about the particulars?”
Great post Kevin, I’m glad you’re here. I agree that the “Covenant of Christian Conduct” is counter productive. In many ways it can rob the Christian from seeking spiritual discernment in the context of a dynamic relationship with God. It also encourages legalism which allows you to be comfortable in a cheap imitation of holiness rather than a real transformation of heart. So you have my vote, how many more do we need to reach two thirds?
James
Well James, I can virtually guarantee that we'll need more than you and I to get to 2/3 since it would be virtually impossible for me to be elected to the General Assembly. The second newest pastor on the district isn't likely to get called for General Assembly duty (especially with it being in Orlando next time).
But we can keep hoping and praying can't we...
What!! You have to be elected to the General Assembly to vote?!? That’s so modern of us, I’m outraged!! So my vote won't likely count either.
At some point I would like to see the Covenant of Christian Conduct voted out, but we have a lot of work to do on a grass roots level to effect change in our church culture before that would be like likely. In the meantime I think we do well to reflect an attitude of authentic holiness that will in time show just how counterfeit holiness is as a life under “special rules”.
Some may say I am a bad Nazarene for this, but on the contrary I think I am a good Nazarene and a good disciple when I don’t take such legalism seriously. I don’t live my life by the Covenant of Christian Conduct; I do the right thing as I follow Christ.
Thanks again for your post Kevin,
James
After perusing both the Covenant of Christian Character and the Covenant of Christian Conduct to refresh my memory as to the specifics of the content- I think I agree we ought to kill the Covenant of Christian Conduct- for the most part it is either repetitious of the Covenant of Christian Character, much too wordy overall, and/or lends itself to legalism- but perhaps before killing it we could spend some time redeeming from it any good things that would be helpful or clarifying to add back into the "Covenant of Christian Character." I have some ideas of how this could be done, and if anyone's interested, I could start a conversation/project thread on this at emerging Nazarenes
Good post Kevin,
phil
I'm not an official Nazarene anymore, but I still appreciated your post, Kevin, and I agree with you. I appreciate that old school Nazarenes were convicted before God to live a certain way, but when you try to codify that, there's trouble. There are so many of us now who keep those rules because we have this idea that there is some virtue in keeping the rules. It isn't that our experience with God has led to conviction, its just a church culture we've conformed to. What we really need is that same conviction before God to live a certain way, even if that way doesn't end up looking quite like those who came before us.
Thanks, Kevin!
Although my sentiments may be far from popular, I'll give this a whirl.
I wonder why "legalism" has, as of lately, become a buzzword in Emergent circles. Each ethic not quite our forte we dismiss as pharisaical, etc... Are we justified in offering such a polemic, or might we be "de-legislating" along lines of our tastes (though they appear admittedly more urbane) in much the same as our brethren legislate according to moral preferences of their own?
In other words, are we fighting against legalism, or fighting for a discipleship easier to sell, easier to stomach, in sophisticated circles of Emergents-to-be.
(Paraphrased) From Stanley Hauerwas:
"Christians do not believe that we have a right to do with ourselves whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies, our minds, our consciences, because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. They are not your own. They are not private. That means, in the case of the Nazarene Church, that you cannot drink a beer. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us."
You may not make many converts that way. You may make fewer converts, however, in justifying the sin and not the sinner, (Bonhoeffer, loosely).
I was under the impression that, crucial to the Emergent movement, is the doing away with all this individualistic nonsense in favor of a deeper participation in saintly accountability. So we will abscond with the icons and liturgies of our forebearers and yet write off their ethic as simply irrelevant in our cultural milieu? Ehhh, I feel a tension here.
Thanks for your comments Anthony, and welcome to the blog. I think you are right that there is some “tension” in this, but that’s not a bad thing. I think often truth is best seen when we keep the tension, otherwise we can error in one direction or the other.
Anthony wrote, “…In other words, are we fighting against legalism, or fighting for a discipleship easier to sell, easier to stomach…”
I think this is a fair warning for us, and there are those who look for the easier way by this. But in many ways a strict legal code is easier than authentic holy living. Living by a legal code allows us to do what we want inside the parameters of the “law” with out really surrendering our hearts. The Pharisees lived by a strict legal code, but this was far easier than surrendering their hearts to God.
Anthony, I am fighting against legalism because it is an easier way for discipleship and easier to stomach by those in our church culture. In Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, he would take the law, or sometimes the Pharisaical code, and point out just how far it fell short of authentic holiness. To live ones life surrendered to God is much harder than living by a Covenant of Christian Conduct.
Anthony wrote, “…because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. They are not your own. They are not private. That means, in the case of the Nazarene Church, that you cannot drink a beer. If you do, you are no longer a member of ‘us.’”
I agree Anthony the body of Christ we are members of one another, and we have the right to keep each other accountable as members of that body. I think we are exercising that right by calling people to an authentic holy life beyond legalism. And if someone is getting drunk or sinning in any way that damages their relationship with God or their neighbor, then we are obligated to try to restore such a person in love.
As for drinking a beer, I think we also need to hold our Nazarene brethren accountable for excluding people and activities that are not excluded for Kingdom people. As the body of Christ in the Church of the Nazarene do we have the right to draw any circle of “us” that would exclude others in the Kingdom of God from participating with us as members if they wish? Which “us” should we fight for, the Kingdom or the Church of the Nazarene? As a denomination the Church of the Nazarene should be about building the Kingdom, because as part of the body of Christ we do not exist for ourselves. We often act like we do. I do not think we can use an argument for accountability in the body of Christ to support excluding others in the Kingdom who may not agree with specific conduct rules for membership which are not outside a healthy Christian life.
Bonhoeffer, quoted (loosely), “You may not make many converts that way. You may make fewer converts, however, in justifying the sin and not the sinner.” I wonder if we really want to make converts for the Kingdom or just converts to the Church of the Nazarene when we condemn a Kingdom activity like “drinking a beer” and justify the sin of legalism and the right to exclude others from fellowship and membership based on it.
I want real and authentic converts to the Kingdom and disciples in a genuine journey in holiness, more than converts to my denomination and disciples of a legalistic view of Christian conduct. My denomination should be about making disciples in the Kingdom, and as a people in the Church of the Nazarene I think we want to be about that.
Thanks again for your comment Anthony, your sentiments do not have to be popular to post a comment, challenge us or to help us remember not to lose a healthy tension when pursuing the truth. I hope you will continue to participate with us.
James
Anthony,
Thank you so very much for your comment. When I write a post for a blog I really don't want only people who agree with me reading it and commenting. I want other views so that I can be held accountable and so that I might learn from someone with a different perspective. So again, thanks for the comment it was much appreciated.
I'm not sure however, if it is fair to say that "legalism" has become a buzzword in Emergent circles. In fact in all of my journeys with Emergent folks (and almost none of them are Nazarene) the word "legalism" is not one that I hear spoken very often.
But it's something that I speak out against because, simply put, legalism is sin and it is a sin that has existed historically (and still does to some extent) in my denomination. This is more of a Nazarene issue than an Emergent issue and so I write as an Emergent Nazarene about it (note: it's not only a Nazarene issue, there are many denominations that struggle with legalism).
Anthony wrote "In other words, are we fighting against legalism, or fighting for a discipleship easier to sell, easier to stomach, in sophisticated circles of Emergents-to-be.
I am most certainly fighting against legalism because it is a counterfeit Discipleship. I am also not trying to "sell" anything. Selling involved consumption and God is not somthing that can be consumed. I simply want to invite people into a very simple truth that they are to love God, love other, do good works, and avoid evil, and as James said, this is the heart of true holiness.
James and Kevin, I love what you guys said about legalism (keeping the law = holiness) being counterfeit discipleship. That's the crux of it for me. I'm not looking for an easier way to follow Christ (most days). I'm looking for my heart to be transformed, and not just my actions. That is way harder. I haven't had alcohol in years. But my heart has been impure in countless ways, and I would be amiss to feel "okay" about my relationship with Christ because I keep the rules of the church and
Conversely, the problem is that then we feel that we are unacceptable to God when we don't keep the rules perfectly. And since its pretty close to impossible to always keep the rules, we holiness people can end up feeling like we don't measure up a lot of the time. And the real, honest truth is that Christ has made us acceptable before God. We need to deal with the fact that measuring up will never happen. That's why we needed grace in the first place, and why we continue to need it every day. It's what the Gospel's all about.
Kevin,
My name is Buffy and I was introduced to your website by my friend Sandra.
I am a Children's Pastor in a Nazarene Church and I agree. I am a forth generation Nazarene and spent my whole life trying to live up to those rules.
Recently I have decided that this is a silly and at times distructive thing in my life.
Thanks for being willing to speak out.
Buffy
Kevin,
Great post, thanks for contributing.....
This is the one we always seem to come back to in Nazarene world. This is the issue that seems to define the future of our denomination in many ways because it has defined such a large part of our past.
I don't like the way we have created the Christian Code of Conduct and used it, but I don't honestly have that many objections to its existence. There are some really important issues in it that are significant for defining our denomination and give it strength.
As I watch other denominations splinter over the ordination of homosexuals, I don't worry about that for Nazarenes. As my congregation struggles with issues such as euthanasia or stem cells, it is helpful if as a body, we have stands on these issues for people to reflect on.
Us emergents typically struggle with the reality that some of the issues on there seem culturally dated, such as alcohol, and the strict use of Robert's Rules of Order, but overall I think they aren't such a bad thing. I think we are more limited by modern views of leadership, church structure, the ways we plant churches, and the lack of missional identity in many of our congregations.
But, you can count on my vote (it literally means nothing since I am working with the Methodists currently) to ammend or change some of the issues of the Code, but I am not sold on abolishing it quite yet.
Peace-
Greg
I appreciate your insights and the dialogue around this subject. I propose a replacement for the code of christian conduct..."The Emergent CHristian Nazarene Guidelines for Communal Kingdom Community Coping with Confusing Context". Guidelines as follows;
# 1. Do good.
# 2. Don't be bad.
# 3. Don't do anything that would embarrass Mother Theresa.
# 4. Do stuff that would make Jesus Glad.
# 5. Love God and your neighbor & make disciples.
# 6. Never, ever, ever, say "Bless his/her/their heart".
# 7. Don't say "nazarene nap" in front of the never-churched.
# 8. Never call your Bible a "sword".
# 9. Replace dour joyless nazarene facial expressions with "Life is Good" theology.
# 10.Be Glad.
Someone with a deeper well of theological reflection could probably improve on these suggestions.
Just had to come up with another list, didn't you Ken?
I'm with James on this one. I don't live by the "Code". But neither do I rebel against it. Law is always reactive; it cannot be proactive. Sin is not a matter of doing *anything*, because many things can be right or wrong depending on the context in which they are done. No, I'm not being relative--I'm sure we've all seen a prayer chain devolve into a gossip line. God judges the motivations of my heart, and He's not fooled by the externals--like we tend to be.
The way to change the code may be to show our Nazarene family that it is possible to live in harmony with God and man (Wesley's perfect love) and occasionally do things that might seem less than "sanctified".
I hope I'm not embarrassing Mother Theresa...
Ken,
Here are some more suggestions for your list
11. Don't expect non-believers to be holy
12. Acknowledge the church is much bigger than the COTN and has been around for more than 100 years, rejoice in the richness of God's diversity
13. Let people watch football on Sunday Nights already (Maybe that is just one based on my passions)
14. Empower and train women for ministry
15. Listen to Classic Rock, it will make you a better person (Maybe once again that is more my theology)
Peace-
Greg
hello all,
i am new to this conversation as I was just introduced to it by our esteem nazodist brother, greg arthur. i am a lifelong nazarene (in fact i was nazarene before i was christian...anybody relate?) who has recently left a 9 year staff position at denver first to begin a new non-denom start in our area. there are some who would say the "code" in question continues to be the source of growth for the local church's backdoor. many have left as a result of the misuse and misinterpretation of these "rules". i remember growing up how even the most Godly of parents (mine, that is) defaulted to them instead of walking me through the reasoning behind them, therefore, i grew up dealing with all of things i was against and not as much as what i was for.
as we are beginning this journey of faith and leadership, i would covet the prayers and insight of this group. although we are pursuing a non-denom start, majority of our core are 'holiness-folk' and are trying to relate with our community in a real and relevant way...one day at a time, one friend at a time.
i look forward the days ahead
As I was searching for a quote on freedom today for a different discussion, I found another quote from Hauerwas that might play into this discussion, albeit from the flip-side than the original quote given: "But the first task of the church is not to supply theories of governmental legitimacy or even to suggest strategies for social betterment. The first task of the church is to exhibit in our common life the kind of community possible when trust, and not fear, rules our lives." (A Community of Character, page 85)
I really shouldn't post a quote and then not commentate on it, but I will for now. Perhaps I will make comment later.
F&TC,
- J
I like Ken's list. And, for the most part, Greg's additions to it. I'm not all that hung up on #13, I think we need to happily acknowledge that we already do #14 (COTN, I mean) although we can and should do more, and as for #15, well, yes, I'm pretty sure classic rock is in some way essential to sanctification.
I may be to late but...
Kevin,
You say “I'm sure for many this legalism was rarely intentional, they just got confused.” But at the end of the post you claim that the Nazarene Church needs to allow “holiness people to use common sense, prayerful consideration, and God given discretion when deciding about the particulars.” This seems to imply the Nazarenes are “confused” by these rules but they will somehow be able to discern how to act if these rules weren’t around. So my question would be, what makes people so confused about these rules and so enlightened about being able to make there own rules? This brings me to James response to Anthony.
James,
You say that you want “real and authentic converts to the Kingdom and disciples in a genuine journey in holiness, more than converts to my denomination and disciples of a legalistic view of Christian conduct.” This seems a little offensive to Nazarenes in the past that became converts to the “Kingdom” and lived a “genuine journey in holiness” while adhering to the General Rules. Or are we willing to say that these people where not authentic Christians or real disciples of Christ. Anthony’s post spoke of “sophisticated circles of Emergents-to-be”. Do Emergent Nazarenes want to kill the Covenant of Christian Conduct and replace it with a Covenant of theological sophistication?
I have enjoyed reading all the articles. Keep it up.
I've resisted weighing in on this discussion, not wanting to get up on a soap box. I appreciate Lincoln's friendly questions. I think part of the answer to Lincoln’s question is simply sighting the limitations of the medium (bloging, e-mail). It would be better if we could see each others faces—our words entering cyberspace as we pound our keyboards. When we write we should seek to do so with a humility that is not, arrogant, reactionary, or exclusionary. That being said, we will fail. Too, we are just not good enough writers to convey or articulate with the clarity necessary. Moreover, the longer our posts the more opportunity and potential we'll say something that on later reflection we'd wish to say differently. (I'm not trying to short circuit a response by Greg or James; it was just on my mind.)
To the Covenant of Christian Conduct and Character… I'm actually one of the few people that think we should have never changed the titles. I like the General Rules. I embrace them as a quasi "Monastic Vow;" a so called "General RULE," like Benedict. These General Rules are binding for those who would call themselves Nazarenes for the sake of discipline and mutual encouragement towards the fullness of Christians life.
On to the rest of the Covenant: Part of how I continue to answer Lincoln's question is to say the General Rules are the essentials and are binding. They are vows to which we ask the community to hold us accountable. Like marriage vows they beckon us to a fuller experience of relationship together. However, the special rules do not hold the same sway; they are the wisdom of the church (contextualized in time and culture). Now I realize I’m on pretty thin ice, and I can let you in on how I parse this from within the Manual later, in another post.
BTW most Nazarene's don't may much attention to the Special Rules, and accept for a few pockets here and there, legalism is not such a big problem with Xer’s (recovery from legalism may still be; again in another post). I’m not saying the Special Rules aren’t important to those thoroughly acculturated in the denomination (especially those who are 3rd and 4th generation). However, by in large, most congregations within the CON that have been growing (not placing a value on growing) have done so without much attention to the special rules. If you went to a membership class in most of these churches they would look very similar to the same class taught at any other Evangelical church in town. So I’m pretty skeptical that changing the title will somehow renew their significance in the life of local congregations.
All that stuff aside, I put the special rules in the non-essential camp. It doesn't mean they aren't important. Each local congregation and each Nazarene should take into account the "special rules" as the wisdom of the brothers and sisters that have gone before. But I don't see how they can be recovered as normative within our movement given the way they have been misused as well as ignored for such a long time.
Let me try to summarize. The General Rules, by in large, can be helpful in local life of Nazarene congregations. General Rules are binding for those who unite themselves with the worldwide community of Christians called Nazarenes. Looking ahead, the Special Rules, at their best are a lens for reading the history of the CON, and the wisdom of saints that have gone before on how to live out the General Rules, within a particular cultural environment. We are grateful for the wisdom, but we are also sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in our time and place.
So in the end, that’s why I like where Greg comes out in the initial post. Greg originally said,
“So I say keep the Covenant of Christian Character and scrap the Covenant of Christian Conduct. People who follow the first will naturally embody (and exceed) the latter precisely because of the indwelling Spirit of God which is the true wellspring of holiness.”
And, why the renaming of these sections in the manual, to the Covenant of Christian Character, and Covenant of Christian Covenant only further confuses the situation for people in our congregations who are just trying to be better disciples and could care less about being good Nazarenes.
That’s all, fire away.
Peace,
Brian
Hey Guys,
I just realized that I was giving Greg credit for Kevin's post. Sorry.
Peace Dudes,
Brian
Lincoln, Thank you for your comments. Our goal is for honest and open discussion and I appreciate you pushing back a bit and sharing another point of view.
Let me clarify a few things that you inquired about concerning my point of view. I am NOT saying that Nazarenes in the past who were “converts to the Kingdom” and lived a “genuine journey in holiness” and who “adhered to the General Rules” (or special rules – because this is what Kevin’s post was about) were not and are not authentic Christians or real disciples of Christ.
In fact nobody here has said that aligning yourself with the General or Special Rules meant that you were not an authentic disciple of Christ. What we did say is that defining the holiness experience and life with Special Rules reduces holiness to legalism. I think our heritage and our Nazarene fathers understood this and lived an authentic holiness journey out of which came what Brian has called the “wisdom of the brothers and sisters that have gone before us”. This wisdom of our church heritage is captured in the Special Rules or Covenant of Christian Conduct.
I think we would be foolish to ignore such wisdom, but I also think it is unwise not to understand the historical context in which this wisdom came when applying it to living in our world today. Such great wisdom came from a genuine desire for holiness and desire for spiritual discernment in what was then the modern world. For instance, the wisdom to be a non-drinking church during a time of prohibition and while looking at the damage alcohol has done to modern society was very much a contextual application to holy living. Making such discernment had to take into account a different world context than the time of the New Testament where drinking was the norm for society and even for the church. So our Special Rules come from discerning our times and are not universal laws of holiness. It is when we forget that our Special Rules were actually designed to navigate the specific context of our modern world and we legalistically apply them over discerning a growing and changing context that we get in trouble. So, rather than blindly following the Special Rules” perhaps it would be better to teach the reasoning and principles behind how our forefathers made such contextual application of holy living to their modern world. We do have much of this foundation in the General Rules and a great example of how to apply them in the Covenant of Christian Conduct. We just need to teach people to do for themselves what our Nazarene parents did, because even if we updated the Special Rules to apply to our current post-modern times, the times and context are going to change again.
Lincoln, as for killing the Covenant of Christian Conduct and replace it with a Covenant of “theological sophistication” I must point out that I never made such a suggestion. I am not pushing for “theological sophistication”, this was a term Anthony applied to emergents as a stereotype while trying to say that we were perhaps looking for an easier path rather than fight against legalism. This leads me to answer the question you had for Kevin, (though I hope Kevin will respond himself).
Lincoln you wrote, “This seems to imply the Nazarenes are ‘confused’ by these rules but they will somehow be able to discern how to act if these rules weren’t around. So my question would be, what makes people so confused about these rules and so enlightened about being able to make there own rules?” I do not think that the special rules confuse Nazarenes as much as I think they encourage some Nazarenes not to think and seek discernment for themselves in their walks with God. I also think we should not fear that people will “make up their own rules” and do whatever they want. We believe that God is real and active in people’s lives and that he calls us to follow him as Lord in a genuine relationship with Him. I trust God with his people, and only want to encourage people to draw closer to our Lord as His disciples. Jesus blew up the mental models of the Pharisees not because their rules were too strict but because they fell short of a deeper commitment to God. Jesus warned us that our righteousness must EXCEED the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. True discipleship goes far beyond rules and is about being connected with the Lord our God in a relationship. I feel confident if we disciple people in a relationship with God then God will help his people to be able to apply their faith to their lives.
Thanks again for your input Lincoln, I hope you will stick around for more conversation.
James
Lincoln,
Thank you so very much for your post. This dialog is how we are streched and grow, I really do appreciate your perspective.
You said, "This seems to imply the Nazarenes are “confused” by these rules but they will somehow be able to discern how to act if these rules weren’t around."
I might have worded what I was getting at better. What I meant is not that the rules confused people, but that people got confused about the purpose of the rules.
Holiness is not obedience to rules but relationship with God.
I came on this site for the first time looking for Nazarenes who were looking to move the church forward into a worship that connects and engages my generation. I was, however, very surprised to see the first title, “Kill the Covenant of Christian Conduct!”. I would like to respond to that and say that to “Kill” the Covenant of Christian Conduct (cocc) would be to do away with what I would call a “covenant of love” in the church of the Nazarene. There are several things I would like to address on this issue and the first is the accusation that the cocc leads to legalism. I want to point out that legalism was a problem in the New Testament era long before the creation of the cocc. The religious elite had developed a strict and extensive set of ‘rules’ but this cannot be compared to the cocc. This development, although begun with scripture had evolved into a huge set of rules that became based on the writings and teachings of rabbis. But the cocc is constantly being revised to adhere more carefully with scripture every four years. In other words, the cocc is not based on the work of men but upon the word of God. It is a simple practical guide to living out authentic Christianity in our modern day world. It is an effort to provide the gist of scripture as it applies to our daily life choices. And, as for those who would use it the purposes of abusing others (ie legalists), those individuals would use the Word of God itself if they did not have the cocc. A legalist will find some means to turn righteousness into an earned status whether it be scripture, the cocc, superstition, social mores, or some other set of ‘rules’. You cannot blame the cocc, General Assembly or the early Church of the Nazarene for the actions of hardened legalists. There has never been any implication at all that a person’s salvation or righteousness before God can in any way be based on “keeping” or “adhering to” the cocc unless it comes from those whose Christian walk has decayed into legalism.
Second, I would assert that the cocc is not a set of rules (despite the previous title ‘special rules’), but rather a covenant of accountability. What is truly hurting our churches today is not the sin of legalism but the sin of unaccountability! I call the cocc the “duh” covenant. Because nearly everything in it is so obvious as to be almost insulting. But so many today have fallen into the trap of permissive lifestyles that they need to be reminded of what is detrimental to their Christian walk of faith. For example, don’t drink, smoke, use drugs…because it hurts you (duh)! Use of mind altering substances hurts a persons spiritual well being, emotional well being, family life and the community at large. Its just common sense. And so the rest of the covenant. “Don’t kill babies”, its not conducive to a healthy society (duh). Don’t shatter your family to pieces with divorce, it will hurt you, your family, the church….duh. Its just common sense. It shows people that sin is damaging to themselves, family and church. Sin is destructive (or what part of the ‘wages of sin is death’ don’t you understand). And if the cocc is used properly it can help new and established Christians with guidelines of what kind of things are hurtful to a Christians spiritual well being. Is it perfect? No, I agree it isn’t. But that is why it is reviewed and updated every four years. It is a loving attempt to hold our brothers and sister accountable as they try to live out the Christian experience in our modern day world. WE NEED THIS! As a Gen-Xer pastor the greatest barrier I have found in our churches is the lack of willingness to be accountable, the refusal to be subject to any authority but self. That is not an authentic Christian walk!
It is not love to allow someone caught up in porn to think they can live an authentic walk of faith and turn all women into sex objects. It is not love to let people think that being faithful to God in stewardship permits the occasional outing to the local casino to spend an evening hoping to get rich. If you know an alcoholic, is it love to allow that person to destroy his/her life without confronting that person in love? Of course not. But for the tens of thousands of Nazarenes that are afraid to say that “sin is sin”, we have something to fall back on that we SHOULD be hearing read every year from our pulpits. That is what love is, true accountability.
Finally, I would point out that if you make simply calling out individual sins and saying, “don’t do that”, legalism. Then you have to identify Jesus as the supreme legalist. As the cocc says, “don’t use porn or sensual entertainment’, Jesus says, “if you even LOOK at a woman to lust, it is adultery”. Now can you imagine your pastor coming to your home and saying “look brother, I noticed you looking at a girl during my last sermon and I think you were lusting”. Jesus took the “rules” to the next level…the heart. He encouraged accountability and was not afraid to call ‘sin, sin’. The catch is that he did it in love. Accountability and love…that is what makes the family of God so awesome. Without one or the other we are just a social club.
Whether you call yourself emergent, experiential, alternative or whatever, if you seek to live an authentic Christian community there has to be accountability in love. The Church of the Nazarene has put this together in the Articles of Faith and Covenant of Christian Conduct. And I think that this is a pretty good try. Long live the Covenant of Christian Conduct!
Thanks JP, I think when Kevin originally posted this on the blog he wanted to generate discussion that captures the opinions of the Covenant of Christian Conduct from all directions. And it looks like Kevin’s post has generated such a discussion.
You bring up an incredibly solid point about accountability, and I agree with you that this is an issue that is often desperately missing from the life of the body. I want to thank you very much for joining our conversation and reminding us of this vital part of body life. I love this statement you made, “Whether you call yourself emergent, experiential, alternative or whatever, if you seek to live an authentic Christian community there has to be accountability in love.” I agree completely, and in the spirit of accountability in love we are all having this great discussion.
You are also correct that that the cocc isn’t perfect, and I am thankful it is reviewed periodically. However, I believe changes are most often made in response to how the body is moving in terms of re-reading a changing and growing context. In other words the manual does not always lead Nazarenes, sometimes Nazarenes lead the way and the manual follows later. Most Nazarenes did not wait for the manual to allow for discernment about going to the theater and watching movies during a time when the manual had a strict stance against such things. Those who struggle with legalism during the early part of this transition may have had a difficult time allowing for others to re-examine the issue in light of a changing context. In time the manual caught up to the reasonable new discernment concerning movies that many Nazarenes had already been living out. So accountability goes both ways, and we have a process that allows for this.
No matter what I support you completely JP when you say that accountability to the body is vital. We are not our own, we belong to Christ and each other. I have no problem with keeping people accountable in their walk with Christ, and referring them to the manual can be part of that, as long as we remember that the cocc is limited and sometimes behind to discerning a changing and growing context. But it is a good starting place and for the most part (as you named it) a “no duh covenant”. I would also say that the spirit and intent behind it is often more insightful for how we are to navigate our lives than the specific wording of the covenant itself, and we also need to hold each other accountable in our motives and processes and not just our outward actions.
Thank you JP for keeping us accountable, I am still not convinced that the cocc is the best way to do this, but I love it that we can talk about it and continue to work on it together; being accountable to one another in the process.
James
JP,
Thanks for the good thoughts on the COCC. I agree that accountability is a major positive of the Covenant. And I agree that accountability is sorely lacking in many congregations.
I also agree that the COCC is not the cause of legalism. Pride, a desire to seem holy by making others appear sinful, hubris, and a misunderstanding of what it means to live in the Kingdom of God are reasons for legalism.
However, I disagree with your assertion that the COCC actually provides accountability. I am actually glad that we have it, it is good for us, as a people to be unified in our stance towards moral issues. But, the COCC seems to focus solely on the things that we shouldn't be doing. There should be much better sections that highlight the activity of the Christian life, not just the inactivities of the Christian life. I am fine with us taking a stance on Alcohol, but we say nothing about our ministry to those who struggle with alcohol. I am actually for expanding the COCC. Let's not just focus on sins of commission but also sins of ommission.
Peace-
Greg
Thanks for the response to my post! I just realized that I used the words "General Rules" when I intended to use special rules. I will try to be more careful next time. Thanks.
No problem Lincoln, we knew what you meant and you made some great points. Thanks again for your comments and contribution to the conversation.
James
Everybody is so nice around here. It makes me happy to be a Nazarene. I'm not a hundred percent sure where I stand on either side of the discussion. First I would like to say hello to two of the names that I have recognized in reading this post. First to Brannon Hancock. Hey man its been a while hows Scotland? And to Lincoln, you dont know me but your parents have been unbelievable influences in my Christian walk. Your dad was my DS in Alabama and then when I moved to Trevecca in TN. Well back to the discussion. I hope its not to late. While I dont know whether we should get rid of them or not I believe so strongly that sometimes these "special" rules do get in the way of our doing Christ work to further the kingdom. The reasons are that so many have abused these rules as measuring stick of holiness. But at the same time they have been a guidline that leads us on the right track. What saddens my heart is that these specific rules are obviously more negative than the General ones. If we are going to remind are fellow christians of specific evils to obstain from, should we not also encourage others in our "rules" of certain specific "goods" that Christ gave us as well. I also dont have a manual in front of me so some of which I might suggest might already be in the General rules. I know that Christ told us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the orphaned and widowed. My personal favorite and the example that I use way to much probably is when he did the job of the most humbled servant (washing the disciples feet) and then told us to go and do like wise. It's in the Book of John I think most of us have read it. Maybe one of our rules could say "give up your time and feed homeless people". No that's just crazy talk and besides that to "specific". I know that our Church strongly encourages that we as Nazarenes humble ourselves and serve others, but what I think this post was started on was the disapointment that we are more concerned sometimes whether there is going to be dancing at someones wedding (which by the way I get married to Elisa Oakes in 19 day and, yes we are having dancing at our wedding, and yes I am a Nazarene Youth Pastor, and yes the reception is in the Family life center of a Nazarene Church {just not the one that we pastor at})than our responsibilty to the poor and the down trodden. I just want to say this website is a breath of fresh air. Nazarenes coming together and talking about ways that we can better transform our Church into looking like Christ and doing his work.
So nice to see Rob Allred around here - finally someone I know in the real world.
Also, so nice to see that this conversation is still going on - I've not checked in on the blog for a few weeks and it will take me a few hours to get caught up on new comments and new posts, but, if I haven't said so before, let me say unequivocally: THESE CONVERSATIONS GIVE ME HOPE FOR OUR CHURCH.
Peace to you all.
I know it really does bring hope. I actually got this exicited, little kid on Christmas morning, feeling on how we really actually have a voice. Makes me want to get up share Christ love with somebody. Ok I guess i have said enough about how encouraging this site has been. Another nazarene longing for change through conversation is Brandon Sipes. He has a Blog called The Kingdom is Actual . I hope he doesnt mind me mentioning it here. He is also hoping to start up a Nazarene Discussion Page. I like that we dont have one unified page because it creates opportunity for many more voices, but it would be nice for all of us to get together say on Phil's new site , which I love the orginization oif it, just the lack of postings. I realize that in our Conversation that we really dont want to throw around the title "emergent" or "Post-modern" too much, but it's great to know that there are "others" out there than the few I have come into contact with. I have a feeling that there are a lot more of us then we even might think that want to make a Positive difference in our denomination, but most importantly in the Body of Christ. Hey guys is it ok if I invite some of my other "emergent nazarene" friends to come and play? I qoute brandon as well saying "THESE CONVERSATIONS GIVE ME HOPE FOR OUR CHURCH."
In Christ Unfailing Love,
Rob
I wanted to correct my first post those things about serving others are in the General Rules.
(4) Being helpful to those who are also of the faith, in
love forbearing one another (Romans 12:13; Galatians 6:2,
10; Colossians 3:12-14).
(5) Seeking to do good to the bodies and souls of men;
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick
and imprisoned, and ministering to the needy, as opportunity
and ability are given (Matthew 25:35-36; 2 Corinthians
9:8-10; Galatians 2:10; James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:17-
I still think we could include some positive "specific" rules. As Christians, especially those claiming to live out holiness, it is far more important the acts in which we do participate in rather than those we obstain from. This is to say that if we are living in love and serving others with the love of Christ, I really dont think we need to worry about the things we are not suppose to be doing.
In Christ
Rob
I'm sorry if I'm repeating something already said here, I couldn't bring myself to read all 30-some comments.
The only comment I have to make at this point on this issue is to agree with Urban Monk on the issue of the name change from "General and Special Rules" to "Covenant of Christian Conduct". The reason being that these rules are apparently no longer meant to describe the Nazarene church and its practices, but the practice of a sincere Christian. Does this mean those outside the church who do not follow our own selective rules are not Christian?
Overall, I don't have a problem with the idea of listing some practices and behaviors that identify both a church body and a person belonging to the Kingdom. I think the language is what becomes problematic. You find all over the manual language that expresses the idea that if you are a part of the denomination and participate in any of the "forbidden practices", then you are "Putting yourself in peril and hurting the witness of the church." This is stern language for people trying to live out the Kingdom in a very diverse society.
It is not so much the rules and doctrine, with which I have myriad disagreements, but the idea that there should be no dissension, no diversity within the body.
Can't we express some statements about our historically held beliefs, practices we believe might be helpful to a devout life and then express our willingness and desire for a diversity of belief and thought within our denomination?
I have some other general thoughts about this whole process, the Emergent Nazarenes, since I have started something similar with some other Nazarenes I know. We are not identifying with any particular ecclesial movement, but are hoping to engage the church and begin to ask serious and pointed questions about our denomination.
Perhaps more later...
Interesting comments...and you don't have to be under age 30 to agree with them!
One point, it isn't so much "what" the Special Rules say, it's what we do with them. I agree that many of them are "duh" rules. It is a "duh" point to say that alcohol can ruin one's life. However, where I draw the line is what the COTN does with the special rule about alcohol (etc.). Yes, alcohol can damage one's life...but not everyone suffers from that problem. Where I think the church err's is when they exclude people from participating in official church life due to breaking one of the special rules. We don't allow an individual to teach a class because they have no problem with alcohol and drink a glass of wine from time to time...yet, the bitter gossip is free to teach. We tell the recently saved individual that as soon as they give up cigarettes, they can request membership, yet the person who is stabbing the pastor (metaphorically) in the back is free to become a member. This is where I have issues with the special rules...it's not the rules...it's what the church does with them.
Yes, I'm over 30 and sliding down hill fast, but I long for a change and am fighting against the legalists in my church.
Cindi
I am sensitive to the fact that legalism is sinful and can place a burden on the back of believers that is unneeded and detracts from the basis of Christianity – salvation by grace through faith. I am also aware that many people, when faced with legalism, act as Christians but never know Christ. These are lives that we pray for and work to share the Good News with every week in person and from the pulpit.
1. When I was ordained as an elder in the Church of the Nazarene, I committed before God and the church that I would support the doctrines and teachings of the Church of the Nazarene. How do you who are pastors handle your commitment at ordination, and how do you handle your membership classes? I am not looking for your theological answer, but your practical answer.
2. A second concern I have is in regard to the specifics of the Covenant of Christian Conduct. Our Covenant of Christian Conduct states, for one example, that we encourage members to avoid “dancing that detracts from spiritual growth and breaks down proper moral inhibitions and reserve.” Would those who are against this statement in the manual say that believers should dance in ways that detract from spiritual growth and breaks down proper moral inhibitions and reserve?
3. I have been a pastor now for 12 years, a short time I admit. However, since that time, I have sat across the table from a large number of broken families who have participated in the very things that our Covenant of Christian Conduct encourages people to avoid. In many cases, it was participating in these very activities that led to the dissolving of the marriage. Certainly, the breaking of their commitment to this covenant was only a symptom of the deeper sin involved (a sinful heart). But their lifestyle only made the decision to walk away from God and family easier.
4. Scripture gives us many examples of early church leaders giving a culturally relevant “Covenant of Christian Conduct”. Read Ephesians 5-6, as just one example. How about the directives for overseers and deacons (1 Timothy 3)? How about the dress and behavior of women (1 Timothy 2:9-15)? Was Paul, who wrote the very Scripture that we quote on salvation by grace through faith, being legalistic? I don’t feel that he was. I think he was giving practical solutions to cultural issues of his day.
5. One of the major issues is our current world’s lack of interest in accountability. “Don’t tell me how I should live. I am a Christian in my own mind and that is all that matters to me. What is right for you is not right for me.” That is not a biblical concept at all. Following God is always done in community. We are to be accountable to one another. We are to help one another follow Jesus. We are to “judge” one another within the church. The passages that speak of “not judging lest you be judged” are spoken to unbelievers, false followers of God (Pharisees). To the believers, we are called to point out when a brother has sinned against us (Matthew 18:15), run after and bring back someone who has wandered from the truth (James 5:19-20). Recently, I was told of a school teacher who was driving drunk and was put in jail overnight, and ultimately found guilty of a DUI. The school system fired her. They said that driving drunk was unbecoming of a teacher of children. My guess is that if a pastor in the church removed someone from teaching the 3rd grade Sunday school for a DUI, he/she would be accused of “judging harshly.”
6. Authentic holiness is always biblically connected to a pure life. It is not a works-based holiness where a believer is saved by grace then works to be holy. It is a grace-based holiness where the Spirit of God cleanses the heart by faith and the result? Purity of heart and life.
My input is that the Covenant of Christian Conduct is not the issue at all. The issue is, "do Christians have the right to address specific cultural issues as a community of believers?" I say, "yes, biblically, we do."
Cindi H. Wrote: "Yes, alcohol can damage one's life...but not everyone suffers from that problem."
Cindi, you may be over thirty, but you have a lot of growing up to do. You have completely missed what it is to be the Body of Christ. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it. 1 Corinthians 12:26 "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." If ONE life is lost, if ONE soul perishes because of the consumption of alchohol, ALL of us have lost something. Alchohol is EVERYONE's problem. Just wait until your children become tempted by it. Don't make excuses to justify your own actions. If you're going to look down on the "legalists" for what they have tested and proven to be true, you'd better have sound biblical reasoning to back yourself up.
Answer me this...What BIBLICAL reason do you have to allow you to consume and intoxicating bevarage? What BIBLICAL reason do you have that says using mind altering drugs is okay? Even the FDA admits that beverage alcohol is a drug. This is a trend that I see in modern Christianity: Excuses for improper, immoral behavior and a blatant lack of Biblical reasoning. Why is that? Because you're so busy coming up with excuses to justify your actions that you don't take the time to read AND understand your Bible. You don't take the time to seek the counsel of the One whose name you profess. Rather, you seek the counsel of ungodly men and women.
And btw, gossip is not okay. If you look through the "General Rules" you'll notice that paragraph 27.2 section 5 speaks againts quarrling, gossiping, slandering and the like. You'll also notice that each such section of the manual is backed up by scripture.
We need to stop throwing labels back and forth at each other and simply call sin what it is. The COTN is NOT a denomination that believes in eternal security... Throw that one out to those who gossip and "stab the pastor in the back". Unbridled tongues will ruin a church just as fast as anything else.
Well, Kevin, you've definitely stirred up some controversy.
I would be one of those pastors who has been called "legalistic" simply because I firmly believe that Holiness is not just something that God does in us, but is also manifested by the way we live our lives: How we talk, act, dress, entertain ourselves, etc. All of those issues are relevant to holiness not just because "that's the way 'holiness people' act," but because of our impact on other people. All too often I've seen so-called Christian people smoking, drinking, cussing, hanging out in bars, gambling, clothing themselves with nothing left to the imagination...
I'm not going to address all of these issues here, but let's take just one example. Modesty in dress. Should Christian people be dressing themselves in a way that is sexually alluring? Absolutely not! Why? Because Christian people don't do that? NO! Because of the affect that we have on other people. How can a Christian, in good conscience, dress in a way that is going to cause other people to fall victim to lust? They can't! Furthermore, if you ARE causing someone else to sin, either directly or indirectly, YOU are the one who will be held responsible for it.
Mat 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
This is not "legalism", this is concern for the spiritual well-being of both the saved and the unsaved around us.
As for the "Covenant of Christian Conduct," This is not a list of dos and don'ts. This is not something that was written down by a group of Pharisees to keep people from sinning. This is not a section of the manual that was written just to make things more complicated and this is by NO means a comprehensive LIST of all the things we are supposed to do or not do because we are Christians. Paragraph 33.3 specifically states the following: "In listing the practices to be avoided we recognize that no catalog, however inclusive, can hope to encompass all forms of evil throughout the world. Therefore it is imperative that our people earnestly seek the aid of the Spirit in cultivating a sensitivity to evil that transcends mere letters of the law; remembering the admonition: 'Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.' (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)"
The entire purpose of the "Covenant of Christian Conduct" is to address specific hot button issues that are of extreme debate within and without the Church.
Consider the controversies in many churches over homosexuality. As a matter of fact, the very hotel where we held the Wisconsin District Assembly, just a month or so prior, held a district assembly for the Methodist Church. The members of that convention were drinking in the bar, cussing at the hotel staff, smoking outside, and picketing in the lobby with signs demanding that homosexuals be permitted into membership and not discriminated against. If you remove the "Covenant of Christian Conduct" from the manual, this is exactly the type of scene that you can expect to find in our future Nazarene District Assemblies.
This portion of the manual is necessary to demonstrate throughout the Church and to those who would join or criticize the church what our position is on those hot button issues. It's not like it's a list of dos and don'ts in a "hair, hemline, and hellevision" fashion. I have a very serious problem with the attitude that we should be allowed to be members in a particular organization, while not being held to a specific standard. Unfortunately, this is the way the WORLD works today. "If I don't like rules I'll just change them."
In an era when so many churches, Christians, and non-Christians are confused, conflicted, and divided on these very issues the Church of the Nazarene, and individual Christians, must make it VERY clear where we stand.
The ONLY change that I would make to the existing Covenant of Christian Conduct would be to remove all mention of Robert's Rules of order. While necessary for church / board proceedings, it has no place in this section of the manual.
Scott,
You've hit the nail on the head brother.
Scott Rainey wrote, “My input is that the Covenant of Christian Conduct is not the issue at all. The issue is, "do Christians have the right to address specific cultural issues as a community of believers?" I say, "yes, biblically, we do."
Scott I agree with your last statement emphatically, ironically this is the very reason why a Covenant of Christian Conduct can sometimes be a problem. When you make rules to navigate through a specific cultural context, what happens when that culture change? Perhaps it would be best to equip people with the tools necessary for discernment rather than giving them rules to blindly follow. I actually think there is more value in our Covenant of Christian Conduct to understand them as an historical record of how our fathers navigated their current day rather than set as unchanging absolute rules. There is a lot of wisdom there; even if our context changes and we need to adapt we can gain a lot from looking at how and why they made their decisions.
Scott, I don’t think I can answer all 6 of your questions in this forum because it would be very long. I will say we have talked a lot about the value of accountability to one another in many of the comments above. If you would like to discuss any more of your concerns I would be happy to do so by email if you would like to contact me. Thanks for your comments.
Grover,
I understand your passion about the tragedy and heartache those for those who have suffered because of alcohol abuse, this is a horror that nobody is condoning. However, your response just shines light on the problem of defining holiness in our lives through “Special Rules”. You say we need to get back to calling sin what it is….sin. Sin is anything that causes damage to one’s relationship to our neighbor and God. Certainly drunkenness will do this and the Bible clearly forbids this, but this didn’t keep Jesus from loving his neighbors by providing the wine at a wedding party. You see it is all about context and finding the best way to love God and our neighbors in that context.
Because we have a rule in our manual that was formed in the context of the prohibition after seeing the heartache caused by alcohol abuse you are convinced that drinking is biblically a sin. Not only this, but you insult your neighbor and tell her she needs to “grow up”, that she makes “excuses to justify her actions”. What actions, the action of disagreeing with you and that drinking responsibly is ok? You tell her she “does not seek the council of God” and she “seeks the council of ungodly people.” All of this because of her opinion which does not go against scripture, but discernment found in our manual. In the context of the comments of this discussion who here failed to love their neighbor?
Grover, your response could be considered “exhibit A”, for how having a rule in our manual can cause us to lose perspective of what real sin is, and more importantly what real holiness is. It is not that you do not have a valid argument for why abstinence from alcohol may be best, or why the COTN should keep such a position, it is that you were willing to stomp all over your neighbor while trying to make your point. It is the fact that you did this in the name of holiness that shows us the danger of narrowly defining holiness through the special rules people have defended to the point of hurling unjustified accusations at their neighbor.
I do not know if you intended to come across this way or not, I do know it is very easy to misunderstand someone when all we can do is type and read. I hope I am just misreading your comments; but so many people come across so unloving and with so much unjust condemnation toward people in the name of holiness because of our church culture of Special Rules. This makes many of us question the necessity and effectiveness of theses rules to truly equip our people for holiness.
James Diggs
James,
You wrote, "When you make rules to navigate through a specific cultural context, what happens when that culture change? Perhaps it would be best to equip people with the tools necessary for discernment rather than giving them rules to blindly follow."
I disagree with your first question, if you can disagree with a question :-). And I agree with the statement that follows your question.
It is my belief that "Christ through his body (us)changes culture" rather than the culture changing the way believers live. So, your question, I believe, is not a good question. When would dancing in a way that breaks down proper moral inhibitions ever be appropriate for the Christian? When would supporting gambling ever be appropriate for believers? When would supporting the social sin of alcohol ever be appropriate? etc. etc.
As the culture changes, the culture will introduce new ways to sin against God. We can anticipate some and address potential dangers before they come. We must react to others. I am a pastor and sense that one of my responsibilities is to protect the sheep that God gives to me. I take this responsibility with fear and trembling.
So, the issue for you is not that we have a covenant of Christian conduct but that we always keep it "up to date"? That is the current process we have with General Assemblies. If you, as one voice in our denomination, disagree with one of the issues, speak out in love at your district assembly and let your brothers and sisters in Christ speak in love to you. To me, if I believe something, but most other Christians believe something else, I ought to reconcider my beliefs. The church through the centuries has corrected itself in this manner. God does not bring confusion or division, rather light and unity.
On your comment following the question, I continually attempt to train people to be discerning through discipleship and believe that this is extremely important. Well said.
I believe the spirit of this conversation has never been whether or not certain behaviors or practices are or aren't harmful for Christians. Instead it is about, how in a new era we best disciple people in the way of Jesus.
I think it's fair to have a conversation (not withdrawing loving fellowship) about how our common life as Nazarenes is at times organized in a way that may not benefit believers growing in grace and moving on to perfection in Christ. This is of particular importance for those who are privileged to be pastoral servants.
I’m reminded of the spirit in which this movement was started when Bresee (quoting someone else) said, in the essentials, unity—in non-essentials, liberty—in all other things charity.
Though Kevin's initial post was intentionally stated in a provocative way, this tread (including Kevin's post) has been about how we as Nazarene's can more fully embody the message of holiness we treasure.
Brian writes, "Though Kevin's initial post was intentionally stated in a provocative way, this tread (including Kevin's post) has been about how we as Nazarene's can more fully embody the message of holiness we treasure."
If this is the case, then let's start there. "How can Nazarene's live and teach the message of holiness?"
Reality is that when you use the Covenant of Christian Conduct as legalism for the starting post, you will have a mixed bag of people who "jump the bandwagon". You cannot avoid the discussions that have occurred. Some will support the "killing" for theological reasons. Some will support the "killing" because of anger from memories of people who held them accountable for one of the listed sins while living a Christ-less life. Some will support the "killing" for practical reasons: "The covenant makes me feel guilty because of the life I live." In the great city of Houston, Texas, where I live my walk with Jesus, most fall into the third category.
Scott,
You wrote, “If this is the case, then let's start there.”How can Nazarene's live and teach the message of holiness?"
I think this is precisely the problem; it amazes me that some would not be able to find a way to teach about holiness if we did not have the Covenant of Christian Conduct. It is very sad that for many in our denomination holiness has been reduced to a set of rules when it really so much more.
Secondly, you mention not avoiding the discussion that has occurred and people only wanting to get rid of the COCC to free themselves of guilt. I don’t think you can avoid the discussion that has actually happened here in these comments; no one here said they did not want accountability or to be free from guilt if they chose to live a rebellious life away from God. There has been lots of discussion in these 40 some comments and accountability has been something everyone has agreed with. In the context of the actual discussion no one has jumped on our “bandwagon” because they just want to escape accountability and guilt and wanted to live “Christ-less lives”.
Thirdly, conviction is something that comes from the Holy Spirit not the Covenant of Christian Conduct. I don’t think the COCC keeps people on the straight and narrow, a relationship with Christ Jesus does this.
Finally, whether you agree or not, the reason suggested here for “killing” the COCC has been to raise the bar for holiness and not lower it. The COCC is a tool in our denomination; the discussion is centered around whether this tool is effective or not as it is being used. Kevin Rector who started the post along with many others felt that it was not effective so it should be tossed out. I think this is a valid discussion and consistent with our history as we continually review and revise our manual. As for how we teach holiness with out the COCC, I think this has also been discussed in the post and the plus 40 comments.
James
James,
I am sorry, but your four points do not reflect my comments above.
1. You are presuming from my question, "How can Nazarene's live and teach the message of holiness?", that holiness for me is a set of rules. Wrong. I simply was addressing Brian's refocus off the Covenant of Christian Conduct and suggesting a better place to start is an open ended question rather than beginning with such a controversial opening blog. I realize that my suggested question would certainly have not brought this many comments....
2. You suggest in the second point that I said that people want to get rid of the COCC to get rid of guilt. You might notice in re-reading my comments that this was the third option I mentioned, but the one that I encounter most in my area of the country. I never suggested that those in the blog above have adopted this option personally.
3. Conviction does come from the Holy Spirit. But, has the Spirit ever used someone to speak truth (positive direction or caution) into your heart? He has in me. Don't forget that we live in community not individualistic Christian lives.
Kevin originally suggested, "keep the Covenant of Christian Character and scrap the Covenant of Christian Conduct." He is certainly entitled to his opinion. Here is my opinion.
I believe both are beneficial.
Moses was given the law (as first seen in the Ten Commandments) by God. Jesus, when asked what was the greatest commandment said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:38-40)
Why did Jesus not say, "you can do away with the full list of commandments. Just follow these two and forget the specifics of the former"? Rather, he said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)
It is completely bibilical, experiential, rational, and traditional in Christian community to define in specifics how to live out the greatest commandment. All of the New Testament writers did, as did Jesus Himself.
In your zeal to promote your point, please don't suggest that it is legalistic sin for people to use real life examples in accountability with one other.
Scott,
I don’t think that it is legalistic or sinful to use “real life examples” as a guideline for accountability with one another. The problem is when we reduce accountability only to specific guidelines without taking the time to consider context. I have already said in a response just a few comments up that I felt that there is practical wisdom in the COCC.
You asked why Jesus didn’t just throw out the other commandments because he said you can hang all of them on loving God and your neighbor. I think you are correct when you say that the other commandments give practical advice in living out the two greatest commandments. The problem is that the written law does not completely cover every possible example and context as mankind interacts with God and each other over history.
You are correct that Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to complete it. The written law was a description and picture of holiness, but as a description it was incomplete and unable to completely describe holiness the way the person of Jesus Christ does. The reality is any written code is limited by the limitation of human language and context.
Sometimes the written law oversimplifies things that are more complex and can not cover every possible nuance of an issue. A relationship with Christ makes up the difference for when the written law fall short in describing the best way we can love God and our neighbor in any given context.
So I am not saying that examples and guidelines are legalism, only when we reduce holiness to these guidelines are we being legalistic. The manual used to have rules saying that women can’t wear makeup or jewelry. Not that long ago the manual forbid dancing and going to the movies altogether. Drawing these absolute boundaries without any regard to motives and context and setting up these boundaries as a prescription for holy living is legalism. I think over time we have compensated for some of this in the manual and allowed our people to exercise good judgment and take context into account as they follow Christ in everything. But the reality is the COCC or Special Rules were originally intended as a prescription for holy living which reduced holiness to just avoiding specific things.
I think we can recognize that some in our tradition may be prone to legalistic tendencies and still embrace the larger and greater contribution of our denomination as we have always perused holy living by loving God and people in real and practical ways.
This particular post by Kevin linked legalism to the COCC in a way that is true for many Nazarenes despite the purpose or intent of the document. I would find it hard to believe that you have not encountered a good number of Nazarenes who leaned on the COCC in legalistic ways over the years you have served as a Nazarene Pastor.
Kevin’s suggestion was to remove the COC Conduct and keep the COC Character. I don’t think Kevin needed to state his opinion in any other way; though the title comes across controversially, he said exactly what he meant. Then discussion began around why this may or may not be a good idea.
Scott, I understand your opinion and I understand that at this point our opinion may be the minority one. But whether you agree or not, I do not think that the questions raised here are unreasonable and beyond examination. The COCC is not untouchable or it would not have been periodically amended. It is not ridiculous to see a correlation between some legalism in our church and the COCC. Though you can argue that correlation does not prove causation the wisdom of our denomination in the past felt it needed to move some issues in the COCC from absolute rules to those that called for discernment based on context. So, while Kevin’s post may be a minority opinion that makes the majority uncomfortable, it is not that absurd of a question to ask and explore.
Thank you for your comments Scott, you do not have to agree with any of us to be welcome to share your point of view. While this has been a great discussion I do fear it is limited by the ability of this format to really listen and explore it with the kind of dialogue it deserves. Because of the number and length of comments we are beginning to repeat ourselves because we can not keep track of everything that has been said. Myself and others are willing to continue the dialogue if anyone wants to contact us by email. I just think the comments here are becoming overwhelming, and the conversation is becoming difficult to follow and be productive. Thanks again, this has been a great discussion.
James
Grover,
You assume too much. You stated, "Don't make excuses to justify your own actions. What actions would that be? Are you assuming that because I don't think 100% of alcohol use is wrong, that I must be a drinker? Well, surprise, surprise...I do not drink...nor use mind altering drugs, as you also suggested. Comments like those make me wonder what else you assume about the people you meet every day. The Bible is FULL of comments about people consuming alcohol. But this isn't about alcohol, it's about legalism...and you have given us an example of the legalistic poster child.
You know nothing about me...and you have waaaaaay missed the mark on my character.
Cindi H.
Cindi,
I think it is obvious to everyone that Grover was way off base in his comments; that’s why I also addressed this issue with him. I think the assumption that you drank was not as bad as the assumption that if you did drink you would be a Godless person. I think there is solid reasoning behind abstaining from alcohol as a believer as stated in the COCC, but I do not think we have the right to hold this self righteously over the heads of others who do not hold the same conviction. This turns a reasonable conviction about how we can appropriately deal with alcohol and its abuse in today’s world into a self righteous position that is followed legalistically and used to condemn other unjustly. I do not believe this was the intent of the Covenant of Christian Conduct, but it is certainly used that way by many with legalistic hearts.
Thanks for your comments Cindi. I am sorry you were singled out unjustly by Grover, but you handled it well. I want everyone to feel that this is a safe place to share their opinions no matter what they are. I look forward to more of your thoughts and comments.
James
you need to realize something about middlke eastern culture. Israel specifically does not have the problems of alcoholism that we do. So many people want to talk about being culturally relavent. Our culture, whether you drink or do not drink, automatically equates drinking with drunkeness. Consider the commercials you see for various alcoholic beverages. Nearly every one of them shows tough looking guys having a great time with women who are hardly dressed at all...of course, I'm just being legalistic again. Are companies that promote such things companies we should be supporting? I, personally, do not buy Clairol products because of their herbal essences commercials. But going back to alcohol, I don't have the referance before me, however, there is a verse in Proverbs that specifically warns against drinking alcholic beverages. It says that we should not even LOOK at wine when it is fermented. I don't have the energy to fight this battle with people I don't know. We have enough problems in our own community. This type of discussion is pointless because no one will ever "win". Meanwhile, souls are being lost to hell because we don't want to offend anyone. Remember that Paul said that all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. I won't be posting on this site again. Feel free to delete my comments if you need to. I'm disturbed by many things I've seen here and through links that I've followed from this page. I'll not address any of them because you'll simply disagree with me and call me "legalistic", but I press toward the mark for the prize of the HIGH calling of God... I'm not going to settle for a compromise between true holiness and the desires of the flesh. Like I said, Feel free to delete all my posts. Unless you'd like to hold me up as your trophy legalism "postor child".
Grover,
If I'm hearing your tone correctly, it sounds like you were offended by some of the comments about you previous posts. Maybe you even took them personally. I would not blame you if you did. Ironically, I think you and Cindi might be in solidarity at that point. I think she felt equally offended and hurt by what she thought was a personal attack on her.
This really highlights the big drawback of this medium for communication. As you pointed out that we are at time talking with people, "we don't know." It requires us to be extra graceful in our communication.
Thanks for letting us know that you are from a different culture than most of us. This makes your contribution especially important. Because most of us are from North America we tend to have a pretty limited vision of the world. We need to listen to and talk with our brothers and sisters around the world to get a fuller picture of the kingdom. The Kingdom of God is much greater than any of our individual perceptions of it.
I completely understand that you may be too hurt and too upset to continue communication with us. We have not always been graceful with others. Forgive us.
As I have read your posts I do know that while there would be much agreement with you concerning the essentials of the faith, on these and any number of issues we may continue to see them from different angles. Indeed this may mean that you will think we are askew and even heretical. But I must tell you that most of the people I know who contribute to these posts love God and people deeply. Indeed many have given their lives to this pursuit. In addition, most of us have a deep love for the Church of the Nazarene as it embodies a portion of the tapestry that makes up the Church of Jesus Christ.
And while we only know each other through this imperfect medium, if we where to meet I have little doubt that we would embrace you with the peace of Christ.
If we don't hear from you again, may the peace of Christ reign in you heart and life.
Peace,
Brian
This is my first visit to this very exciting journey. I have to say I have been blessed and excited to read all of your posts. Let me say that it is good to see old friends and married brothers (love you man)on this site working it out!
As a pastor let me say I am torn by this discussion. The only real problem I see with the COCC is that there are some things that are listed that are not sins. This therefore leaves some Christians out of the organic body of our church (membership) and force them to become a fringe part of our churches rather than take there place as part of the organic community.
My suggestion would be to not "kill" the COCC but to "tweak" it and make them not an issue of membership but a, as said before, a special vow or call that help us in our strivings to "fight for our king." Isn't that the call of Holliness? The call is in no way legalistic (I do agree that the COCC has been used as a platform for legalisim in the past) but a call to live our lives from the inside out proclaiming to our king that we will devote our lives to Him and the pusuit of Him.
Now some have argued, and rightfully so, that the COCC is a box and holiness is expected to work inside that box. But if we put on our organic and liquid emerging glasses and take another look at this modern document we begin to see "the intention" rather than the modern paradigm it was crafted in. What is the intention? To call us to live our lives in the pursuit of our Christ. Do I agree with every literalistic part of this modern document. no, but do I see beauty in the intent and in the call? definately!
Grace and Peace,
Philip
Phillip
I think your comments are fair and objective concerning this complex issue. I think you are right when you say that the COCC is productive our harmful based on what lenses we are looking at it through. Thanks for your comments and welcome to Emergent Nazarenes.
James
Post a Comment