M7 - one response
There has been quite a bit of conversation about the M7 Conference. These conversations are taking place via e-mail, phone calls and blogs. At the M7 Conference the denomination desired to invite the postmoderns to the table. It was refreshing to have a seat at the table. And, as those who attended can attest, there were several workshops geared toward fostering a dialog.
However, the plenary sessions were significantly different than the worksops. As you would expect, much of the conversation was "at" or "about" postmoderns - not "with" or "by" postmoderns. That is fine. At least we are now talking.
Since M7, many of the conversations center around this video clip. Taking this clip out of context is unhealthy and should be avoided. Please visit here for the entire address. It is the plenary session delivered by Dr. Nina Gunter.
The discussions that I am a part of are not about Dr. Gunter. Rather, we are encouraged because we see the beginings of a conversation that has needed to happen for over 25 years. And, it looks like it will finally happen. For other examples of the beginings of the conversation view the plenary sessions of Reggie McNeal and Oliver Phillips.
My take on it is this: ORGANIZATIONALLY speaking, postmodernity can be accomodated inside of the denomination by simply seeing it as another culture - similar to the afro- or latino- cultures. It could fit into the Multicultural Groups inside of USA/Canada Mission/Evangelism's Mission Strategy department. Simply let the denomination identify someone to speak for the postmodern culture. Then, that person can sit with the committees and task forces to help the postmodern / emerging voices.
Theologically, Ecclisastically and Epistemologically it is a MUCH longer journey. As I have already taken up a considerable amount of space in my first post, I will not post on these topics at this time. [grin]
For what it's worth: Dr. Gunter listed the three biggest challenges to the church in the past 60 years. I offer my opinion on the biggest challenges:
1. Consumerism in the church
2. Anti-ecumenism (pro-denominationalism and pro-schizm)
3. Sloppy social and biblical hermenutics
"Sloppy social hermenutics" may require some definition. So here you go:
Most local churches, including those inside of our little denomination do not exegete their culture. Many of them do not even have the desire to do so. Consequently, they may not even have the tools either. If we do not know how to read and interpret our culture how can we be led by them to understand how to love them? It is imperative for us as leaders in the local church to be engaged in our culture. It should be that we are engaged with our whole being in the culture where we are called/placed.
This gets into the messy fact that most pastors do not know who they really are. And, when you get people who don't know who they really are leading people with little to no desire to live IN the culture, you wind up with a sloppy social hermenutic.
Peace,
Sean
43 comments:
Sean
I like your idea of integrating post-modernity as another subculture at this point in the denomination. I could see a fit there, as you suggest.
From where I sit, part of what is happening with regards to "exegeting our community" is that we've never bothered before because we lived with the false assumption that our community is Christian.
As we know, urban areas and coastal areas where immigrants tend to settle have more experience dealing with multicultural realities. People in the Midwest, especially Nazarenes in the Midwest or small town America often still experience the Leave it to Beaver life of 1950.
A pastor I love deeply often says "I wish we could go back to the 50's when we had a Christian public life." Are you kidding me? What I'm saying is that for many Amercian Nazarene's we still live in that warped mindset that our country used to be a Christian nation, but now it is threatened by liberals, homosexuals, and the ACLU.
There is truly a generational shift, as we know. Most of Gen X and those younger grew up with multiculturalism as the norm. Most of us, now as adults, don't buy into the "Christian nation" thing. But that was reality for my mom. That was reality for the pastor I mentioned.
They did grow up with mono-culture. They grew up with racism as an accepted way of relating. They grew up with all kinds of things that are hard for me to understand. I sort of can see how they may feel they've lost something. How the world has gone to hell in a hand-basket.
Can I do anything about that as a pastor? I don't know. I pray for a spirit of love, wisdom, and courage. But in the end, I have to remember that we are living on the cusp of the biggest paradigm shift for hundreds of years.
Therefore, we younger ones need to come to the table, as you suggest. We need to create churches that do make sense in this new era of post-Christendom, post-modernity.
I sense the denominational leadership being open to what we have to say. They know they need to understand it and work from within rather than try to hunker down and fight it. "Resistance is futile."
My hope is that we don't bail. That we can be given grace and blessing as we do things differently and say things that might make the old guard uneasy. I'm holding onto hope.
Sean,
I agree with you that our denomination has failed to “exegete their culture”. The only little nuance I would suggest is that the culture of the world around most of our local churches and the culture of our denomination is not “their culture”.
Our church has isolated itself from culture (in the misguided perception that this was holiness) and has created a subculture that is almost irrelevant to the rest of the word’s culture(s) around it. I think Nancy is right the church has the false assumption that our culture at large is Christian. Even more so I think the church has the false assumption that the church culture in the western/modern/American mold is synonymous with Christian.
Because of this instead of making disciples for Jesus in the context of the culture we really live in we try to convert people to church culture thinking we are converting them to Christianity.
This is why many churches are afraid of post-modernity and see it as a threat; the post modern shift is threatening to moderns especially when they marry Christianity to the particular cultural lens of modernity that is currently being sifted.
You are right that our denomination needs to exegete the culture of the world they live in, but they also need to have a better understanding of themselves and understand that there are cultural aspects of the western/modern (and in our case Nazarene) world that we have mistakenly assumed was the same as being Christian.
Thanks for the post Sean, I do like your list of the three biggest challenges for the church in the last 60 years.
Peace,
James
Sean,
Just wanted to say thank you for putting the video clip into perspective. At seminary it flew around like a pregnant high school girl rumor!
What do you think Dr. Gunter meant by Emergent Church as a challenge? Challenges are not always negative... but I have trouble thinking she did not mean this...
By the way, this is my first post and hope to stay conversant with you sweet people!
Grace and peace,
Jason
"This gets into the messy fact that most pastors do not know who they really are. And, when you get people who don't know who they really are leading people with little to no desire to live IN the culture, you wind up with a sloppy social hermenutic."
Sean - you really have hit on something here that is a must to discuss! All too many pastors do not know who they really are. We do not know our call, our gifts, or even have taken the time to understand how our personal and family history has informed who we are! This truley does make for social hermenuetical sloppiness.
If we are to be churches that build communities who follow Christ, then we must know and understand those communities and should really be part of these communities. This becomes really hard when we do not know who we are and what context our gifts complement. Hence we have a lot of the mess we have made.
Perhaps we could help each other out and make lists of resources that pastors or pastor's in training could use to know yourself. I can give a few. I will try to think of some more...
Parker Palmer's COURAGE TO TEACH (this book creates an environment that will allow you to take a good look at who you are as an educator and just in general)
Alan Roxburgh's THE SKY IS FALLING (this is first of all a great book to help recognize yourself as liminal or emergent and then your call as pastor),
These two are a start and so is the Myer's Brigg's and Spiritual Gifts Survey.
I would love to hear of some resources you people have been informed and stretched by!
Peace,
Jason
I too have had trouble with the statement. However, grace prevails. I think the three biggest challenges are:
1. lack of complete and recognized Canonical Heritage
2. lack of realization that proximity is imperative
3. lack of eccumenism that follows a real Canonical Heritage
Canonical Heritage is of course the whole of the Christian Canon: scripture, creeds, images, liturgy, saints, episcopacy, etc.
Wow! I will go back and check out the whole session, but that is amazing. What a perfect clip to show everything that has hampered our denomination. Why are we concerned about Reformed Theology and acting like it is a new challenge? I think Reformed Theology has been around a while. Are we actually more concerned about challenges inside the church than the challenges outside the church? I am flabbergasted. I will add more thoughts after I check out the whole session.
I just listened to Nina Gunters whole address. Amazingly, because of her speech tempo I watched it in 5x speed and caught everyword. Actually made for an entertaining watch. Anyways, in relating this blog topic back to what she said there were some interesting thoughts. Much of what she said was great. We need to be on the watch for God at work in ways we never could have imagined. The future of the church does belong to those who are innovatively and creatively looking for ways to unify God's people in acts of discipleship and evangelism. However, what I also heard, that relates to what we are talking about, is the the "Wesleyan Holiness Gospel" is the sole message we are to promote. She talked about re-Wesleyanize our churches. What if the fullness of our understanding of the Gospel isn't the fullness of the Gospel. What if there are vital parts of our understanding of God that we our reformed brothers and sisters to remind us of. What if we are blind in our assumption that we understand the fullness of God's embodiment of the Gospel through the church. Yikes! Anyways, you guys have posted some great thoughts. Evidently the future is for you....
Sean
Thanks for your post. I really do appreciate it. But I think I'd like to point out an irony. In the above post you said,
"Simply let the denomination identify someone to speak for the postmodern culture."
The irony of the point you made is that you said this as a "postmodern" who desires dialogue with your tradition. But I'm not quite sure if our tradition even wants to dialogue with us, since "our views" might, at times, seem dangerous, shaky, or weak.
To say that the Nazarene church could be in dialogue with "postmodern people" seems to be a postmodern thing to say. (I'm sorry for sounding so cliché and creating an "us" and "them" ... but I kind of don't know how to do anything else).
... but I do hope I'm wrong.
be peace
curtis
I'm not sure Nina was going after Reformed Theology as a whole, but really as a way to say that, especially in the South, many Nazarene Churches are essentially Baptist Churches. I think it's quite true that our denomination needs to remember the holiness language that makes us distinct. Obviously, there are plenty of parallels and traditions outside the Church of the Nazarene that support this position, but give her some credit. It was bold enough for her to say it, you can't expect her to get all the words just right.
i still can't determine if 'greatest challenge' is a bad thing..."these emerging folks are a challenge because they are going to destroy the church in general"...or a good thing..."it is a great challenge to begin to participate in the emerging movement". maybe it's neither.
james, i think you are right on in recognizing that we often are detached from our culture and particularly in converting people to church culture, not necessarily Christ.
anonymous, i think we can lose our holiness language. particularly if no one in our culture understands it. i believe our general superintendants agree...as evidenced by the recent clarification of our mission.
brad
by the way...i think brian postelwait does a great job of identifying the greatest challenges facing our church. his blog is ubanmonk in the list to the right.
Jim Hampton also has some good thoughts regarding this conversation at www.theoskaris.blogspot.com.
Nancy-
I don't know you so I don't know exactly the viewpoint you are coming from; I was bothered by your comments and am about to say so, but please don't take personal offense. It's not just your comments; it's an attitude I see often....you wrote,
People in the Midwest, especially Nazarenes in the Midwest or small town America often still experience the Leave it to Beaver life of 1950.
That's bull crap. As one who has spent many years of his life amongst communities and amongst Nazarenes in places that qualify as BOTH "midwest" AND "small town America," I can assure you this is NOT the case for people who are around 30 years old or younger in these communities, and not the case for a good deal of the rest of them either. The "Leave It To Beaver" comment is usually thrown around as an insult or a derogatory way of saying "those people just don't get it." Do you mean it this way? A good question might be: Gee Wally, what's so wrong with the so-called "1950's Leave It To Beaver" life, anyway? Gosh, Beav, I just don't know. I'd LOVE some comments on this, even if I AM off topic. Sue me. I'm in a cantakerous mood. Anyone notice?
A pastor I love deeply often says "I wish we could go back to the 50's when we had a Christian public life." Are you kidding me?
Yes, the underlying assumptions aren't what they are cracked up to be. But you know what? There are some things about the "50's" that I'd REALLY like to have back (while there are others that, yes, I'm glad have gone by the wayside). Ah, such a poor excuse for a postmodern I am.
They did grow up with mono-culture. They grew up with racism as an accepted way of relating.
This is true of some. It is also true of some today. It is also a vast over-generalization that is exceedingly ungenerous towards those people who WERE and still ARE racially and culturally sensitive/accepting.
OK, rant over, for now. Maybe once I watch Nina's address I can comment more directly on the post topic...if anyone cares....
phil
www.postmodernhope.blogspot.com
www.emergingnazarenes.com
Phil,
I think Nancy’s comments are in the context of a “generational shift”, which she spoke of. This is consistent with the context of Nina’s message considering her generational context as well.
Yes, I can agree with you that Nancy was speaking with generalizations, but it is generally true that the Midwest is more conservative (maybe even closer to the 50’s for good or bad) than the east or west coast. Again she clarified that she was speaking of a “generational shift” as well so it makes sense that her statements are “NOT the case for people who are around 30 years old or younger in these communities” as you say.
I also think her statements about those who grew up in the 50’s as a culture that accepted racism as a norm was not meant to say that our generation has a higher morality than that one. On the contrary she was pointing out the false assumption of the 50’s generation being particularly characterized as “Christian” and the false conclusion by some that we need to become culturally more like the good ol’ days to be more “Christian” today. That is not to say that the 50’s generation had nothing to contribute to the church, just that being “Christian” and 50’s culture are not synonyms. To contrast this no one is claiming that the post-modern world we live in now is “Christian”; in fact most consider it post-Christian.
Phil, I am sorry you were offended by her comments but I think you are right to watch Nina’s videos and re-read Sean’s post to understand the context of her statements better. For the most part we are talking about an entrenched church culture that reflects modernity and some out of date generational assumptions such as “Calvinism, the emerging church and reformed theology” being the “three greatest challenges for the church in 60 years.” We need to better understand the former generation’s context as well as our own before we overreact to statements that seem to resonate or offend one generation or the other.
Peace,
James
Hi James-
I knew I would get an immediate "calm down" type of response. I'm not saying that's bad....just that I knew it would happen.
it is generally true that the Midwest is more conservative (maybe even closer to the 50’s for good or bad) than the east or west coast.
When it comes to politics, that's generally true. When it comes to vritually everything else...not so much. I'd like to hear from those who have lived in the midwest and in small towns and see if they agree. My town, and other similar places I have lived, has every problem and issue (good or bad) your metropolitan area does, and experiences the generational and historical shifts every bit as much, though yes, it is(barely) more politically conservative. But I don't think politics is the primary issue in postmodernity and emerging/emergent issues...or is it? I could be quite wrong. I certainly have been before.
she was pointing out the false assumption of the 50’s generation being particularly characterized as “Christian” and the false conclusion by some that we need to become culturally more like the good ol’ days to be more “Christian” today.
I don't ever recommend a "good ol' days" mentality. I also don't ever recommend throwing out the baby with the bathwater, which in some cases has and is happening. There are values that were widely held in the 50's that would benefit us today. There are other values from that era that were flat out wrong. I have a suspicion people will look back on us someday and say the same thing. What does that mean for us?
being “Christian” and 50’s culture are not synonyms.
Agreed. Very much so.
I think you are right to watch Nina’s videos and re-read Sean’s post to understand the context of her statements better.
I'm in the process of watching Nina's video as I type this. I understood Sean's post quite well the first time. He's a great guy and well spoken. I made clear I wasn't reacting to his post but to Nancy's comments, and by doing so I might admittedly be off topic.
For the most part we are talking about an entrenched church culture that reflects modernity
No one here possibly knows this in a first hand manner better than I. It's not good because it cripples our ability to do Kigndom work. That's why I participate in the conversation.
I got fired up about those comments, and I believe for good reason. Hope that's acceptable conversation.
I'm smiling, you know... :)
phil
www.postmodernhope.blogspot.com
www.emergingnazarenes.com
Phil,
I grew up where I live now, here outside DC, but I did spend a few years in Olathe Kansas in College, I lived a few years outside of Valparaiso Indiana and I was on staff at a Methodist Church in Webster City Iowa- a town of only 8,000 I think.
Ironically, I don’t think Iowa is a state is that politically conservative, but my time in that particular little town left me with a clear impression that it was kind of culturally conservative. Perhaps that is not the right word for it. In a lot of ways I sometimes felt like I was living in Pleasantville and I struggled culturally to really fit in. I agree with you that there are a lot of qualities of small town Midwestern culture (like I found in Webster City) that I found appealing and even wish I could infuse in the cultures I live in here in the DC area. So by no means do I want to throw out these good qualities as one throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Again, I don’t think Nancy intended to insult the 50’s or Midwestern culture, she was just challenging the assumption that these things were somehow more intrinsically Christian than other times and cultures that some from our Builder and Boomer generations in the church sometimes assert.
Phil, you are welcome to get fired up about anything that fires you up, and I appreciate the conversation. I must admit that I am not that sure of why this got you particularly fired up, so I am just trying to understand. It sounds like you took this as if you and others who live in the Midwest were being called stupid Midwesterners that “just don’t get it”. I really don’t think that was the heart, intent, or context of what Nancy wrote, particularly because she is a Midwestern girl herself right there in Iowa City.
I didn’t hear her comments in the derogatory way you did, but I guess this is a great example of how easy it is to have miscommunication through speaking, hearing, or combination; especially when we are having conversations with diverse groups of people with different perspectives. This also can remind us post-moderns as we are having conversations with our modern church parents that we all need to be patient and show grace so we really can listen and love each other. Communication takes work- but it is worth it.
Thanks for the conversation Phil; its good hearing from you. Sharing your perspective is always acceptable. :)
Peace,
James
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this post. Several of us have been expecting the denominational leaders to offer an explanation on Dr. Nina Gunter's comments. I have recently learned that our denominational leaders are not planning a response to Dr. Nina Gunter's remarks. This somewhat saddens me. I was hoping for a dialog. I am not sure how to interpret "no comment" from our denominational leaders.
As I understand it: "As a one-termer, Gunter is not going to add to her remarks, and progressive leadership has decided that instead of making her aware that they’ll just let her ease herself out. Regardless, the fact that she made those remarks has helped to bring about a strong awareness on the part of leadership that some emergent and post-moderns are here to stay—-and do represent a growing contingent, though many will choose to leave the denomination than wait for it to play catch-up."
Have patience with me as I continue to encourage participation from our leaders.
Peace to you all during our Lenten season.
Sean
a visionary mystic in lawrence, kansas
Not to belabour the point, but I can say when I moved from New England to Kansas City it felt like I had gone back in time 20 years. Sure there are people emerging from the traditional mindset like anywhere else, but it is from a vastly different context, one that I feel comfortable saying is behind the context that many of us who grew up on the coasts encountered.
Why all the hoopla over denominational leadership, their silly quotes, theological mumbo jumbo, trying to determine what geographical aggregates are ignorant-post modern or emergent, etc.????
Why?
If you're really concerned about what's not happening, why not redouble your efforts to win the lost at any cost?? Just go do it! You're the church whether you're emergent or reformed or whatever! Do it!
You appear to be trying to execute the same trickle down evangelism that the organized structure has been about since its creation.
I thought you guys were all about getting it done!
Go do it! You set the standard. Disgrace them with YOUR outstanding results for the Kingdom!
Why not truly begin loving your neighbor as yourself and your God with ALL your capacities?
I can hear the response: We are doing all that.
Really? I don't see it happening!
The Nazarene churches that are actually getting the job done . . . how few they be! . . . are NOT embracing this post modern "emergent" concept and yet are doing very nicely, thank-you, be they midwest, southern, left coast or right coast!
You may desire to claim a few of them but believe me, when they become aware of it, they'll shed you quickly!
It ain't happenin', boys and girls!
If it should happen, show us the example and why bother hanging around a denomination that in spite of some of your all's dreams, really ain't interested!!??
I'm all for your philosophical changes but I don't see much more than rhetoric. You're becoming what you despise in the evangelical community, I fear.
I say all this with much love. I'm sympathetic for your desire to change, but it smacks from this perspective, far more about verbalizations and whose read which book and such.
Just do it! The Good News is NOT that complicated or scientifically lacking. The demographic target matters not in the Great Commission. It's all about you being the church and DOING your part, not endless hot air.
Probably won't be believed, but this is shared with great love and concern. Why would anyone desire to "join" you when you are what you claim to desire to change?
I do trust your day is blessed as never before.
Hardy Ulmet
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
Hardy,
I agree with you that we can not depend on the institution to for “trickle down evangelism” or “trickle down” anything for that matter. The true church is no more an institution than it is a building. The church is the body of Christ and this transcends ours and any denomination or group. I don’t think we are really pushing for our particular institutions to change its policies thinking that by doing this we will be accomplishing Kingdom work. All of just want to be able to do the work we are called to locally and still be connected and in dialogue with our particular tradition and heritage along with the whole body of Christ.
I am sorry that you think that what we type on here is “endless hot air” and that YOU can not see anything Kingdom worthy happening. I wonder what it is that we might see from you and your comments and blog… will we see anything more than just endless hot air??
Of course not, because all of our blogs are nothing but a means to dialogue. Hardy, you have posted comments like this before and frankly I have trouble following them because of your numerous false assumptions about what it is we are saying. You make disjointed statements and encourage us to “get out” and leave the denomination and then you argue against things that we are not even saying.
Hardy, you are welcome to comment here but I might suggest that you slow down, listen more carefully, ask clarifying questions, and talk about one thing at a time instead of being all over the map in every comment. It is hard to really answer back and dialogue with your large and disjointed comments.
Peace,
James
James & Others:
I believe it was our common, esteemed theologian, Paul, who stated something along this line, "Above all sinners, I am chief."
Understand something right up front: I have never and will never make any false innuendos concerning my own Kingdom productivity. As with Paul, I would say it this way, "Above all failures, I am the greatest."
You WILL find much hot air on my blogs but almost always, with no pretense of universal outreach truth and almost always encapsulated in the qualifier: My Obnoxious Opinion.
You may view my response here disjointed or whatever other category you desire to label it. I'm not saying in this case, but normally when such happens, it's in an effort to avoid answering what makes us uncomfortable. I'm sure this was not the case with you?
There were several questions that regardless of how you desire to categorize them, were very sincere in nature. I have read and "lurked" on many of the "emergent" sites. I have read virtually every blog and response. I have read some of the writings you all recommend. I agree with a great deal of what you all purport. I do have severe reservations about the "agenda" and have voiced that in only one other blog which received NO response that I'm aware of.
From my perspective, and In My Obnoxious Opinion (IMOO), the Nazarene "emergent" agenda alienates the vast majority of Nazarene members and seeks to persuade and change the views from the top down. This seldom ever succeeds be it warfare, politics, or theology, and I think it stands even less of a chance of success in this era, than ever before.
Therefore, it would seem to the casual observer, that an independent grass roots effort would be far more successful than what you all appear to be all about.
So, let's go to the videotape and note the original questions however "disjointed" Diggs desires them to be, and repeat, hoping again for some thoughtful response:
1. Why all the hoopla over denominational leadership, their silly quotes, theological mumbo jumbo, trying to determine what geographical aggregates are ignorant-post modern or emergent, etc.???? Why?
2. If you're really concerned about what's not happening, why not redouble your efforts to win the lost at any cost?? (Just go do it! You're the church whether you're emergent or reformed or whatever! Do it!)
3. (Probably won't be believed, but this is shared with great love and concern.) Why would anyone desire to "join" you when you are what you claim to desire to change?
As far as your disdain for my labeling what you felt I had viewed so far as "endless, hot air", you took it somewhat out of context, but I'll allow it to stay. Please note, however, that the denomination you all seem bent on "changing" or "influencing", is the same denomination whose core failure was, is, and shall be what I deemed as their "trickle down evangelistic" approach in outreach. (Who really cares about some change in our missional statement? God doesn't. He's all about just getting it done.) I then suggested, that the methods utilized by the very target of your "influencing" are now being cloned, IMOO, from what I read about you all. (You took my statement converning this "personally" toward the "emergents" and maybe that's a good thing, even though it wasn't intended.) I then stated this, lumping BOTH what I've read here and elsewhere about you all, as well as the Nazarene movement and the church in general: "Just do it! The Good News is NOT that complicated or scientifically lacking. The demographic target matters not in the Great Commission. It's all about you being the church and DOING your part, not endless hot air."
If you cannot handle the depth of my desire to understand you all, then I suggest you desist from responding. I do trust that there is someone, somewhere than can handle sincere, "tough" questions without implying abuse and insult in their context, and simply speak to the issue.
I did appreciate your first paragraph of your response, before you stooped to the categorization of my questions. I think you might reread all the various sites that are up in this arena, whose links I've followed from your all's sites, and see if you don't note a real desire to change things in the CotN. I think ANY reasonable and unbiased reader would come to that conclusion rather quickly, which once again brings us to the question which I voiced weeks ago: Since such change would result in a vast majority of the membership of the CotN either leaving at worst, or feeling very, very alienated at best, why bother with this aspect of your "agenda"? Why not just separate yourselves, as Sean has suggested some have already, and lessen the negative output for the Kingdom, at least in the short term, from your efforts?
I'm responding and taking the time to do so with the hope that you all really do desire to dialogue with those that are very sympathetic to you and your beliefs, but quite suspicious of the outcome of your "agenda". (I know "agenda" is a volitile term, but I can't think of a better one, so don't respond in anger.)
(James, I've read much of your writings and felt various responses to them, but would never label them in the public arena or categorize them as "disjointed", etc. You have problems communicating your intents, often, as we all do. Several descriptions of your imperfect attempts have come to my mind. However, this is not the arena to confront you about that. That is personal. This should only be about the issue.)
I do trust your day is blessed as never before. God bless you.
Hardy Ulmet
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Hardy,
It was not my intent to disparage you by saying that your comments where disjointed; perhaps that statement within itself is evidence of my own humanity and my own problems communicating as you point out I also have.
My intent really was to try to better understand where you were coming from and I had a hard time following your comments; perhaps it would have been better just to ask you for clarification- so I apologize.
Again let me say I agree with you that the best course is not to desire and hope for the denomination as an institution to the work of the body through as you call a “trickle down” philosophy of ministry.
The “hoopla” over the video and denominational leadership is probably also over blown; ironically I think it is so here even after we tried our best to stop, take a breath and not over react. I think for many of us we are still seeking the approval of our denomination; like grown children making the appropriate choices for our generation we still may seek the approval of our parents somewhere deep down. For me personally this is not a big problem for two reasons- one I had left the denomination before, no big deal if I need to again- and two I have more than enough local approval on a district level to keep me feeling safe and secure in my Nazarene relationships. I don’t think many of us have this and so we want the denomination to give us there blessing- perhaps you are right that this is a futile desire; but I can partly understand it.
I think you are also right that we should just do it, and I think that is exactly what most of us are trying to do. We do talk about that on here and various posts and probably more and our other blogs; but blogs in general are more about reflecting and dialogue and I am not sure how much can actually be accomplished in a blog. This particular blog is about reflecting on how our particular postmodern perspective intersects with our common tradition as Nazarenes. I think there is an awful lot of “thinking out loud” that is done here and though we may all write as if we have specific agendas I think it best to understand that this is a context of dialogue and journey.
Hardy, you are welcome to participate in the journey and the dialogue; I don’t think anyone desires to ignore you. I know that I have responded to you before including posting a comment on your blog in response to a question you had about something we were saying.
Again, I am not sure what to do with your comments that we should leave the Church of the Nazarene. You say that we should just separate ourselves, well in some ways we want to do that. We want to separate ourselves from the “trickle down” philosophy that you pointed out, we want to separate ourselves from rigid dogmatic modern paradigms that box in the gospel and personally I want to separate myself from a top heavy bureaucratic system that tends to spend a lot of needless energy on self preservation.
But at the same time I am not sure that separation from the body is something that jives real well with a lot of our philosophical convictions. In many ways we also want to be trans denominational and not separate ourselves from anyone; but we have a special desire to relate to our closest relatives and family in the church of the Nazarene because it is the tradition that had nurtured us and embraced us in one way or the other. What I hope for more than anything is a more organic relationship and connection. I don’t need to have “emergent” leaders in Kansas City, or “emergent policies to have handed (trickle) down from the top to the local church. If there are “emergent” leaders and/or “emergent” sympathetic leaders (and I think there are) then more than what they can do as far as policy the greatest gift they can provide is to help keep the channels of communication open for on going dialogue and connection. Again I want to have a relational and organic connection to the church of the Nazarene- I do not care about a relationship based on polity.
I hope this answered some of your questions. You are right to challenge us just to “do it” and to live it. Be patient with us we are still trying to figure this all out. We know we do not have all the answers.
Peace,
James
I finaly got my "Three Biggest Issues Facing the Church" posts finished on my blog, if you are interested check them out at: jarcaines.blogspot.com
Peace, J.R.
James:
I "accept" your answers.
I'm in fairly tight with a few Nazarene churches that are getting things done in the vein you all desire, without using the terminology or the theological changes you all dwell upon. In other words, they're successful, IMOO, because they're utilizing the "new" outreach philosophies you all purport and doing very well at it without the theological baggage (To traditional Nazarenes.)you all seem to insist upon.
Over the years, I've observed Nazarene efforts including my own in my ministry, that attempted "all inclusive" ministries accompanied by fairly dramatic theological change. I've never seen any of them "succeed" in the short term, and they have only seemed to struggle in the long term, to this point.
Their failure was due primarily to their insistance upon new and unsettling to the basic core of the ministries, theological paradigms which the "emergent" leaders insisted were requisite to the church's outreach. As it has turned out over the years, the outreach can succeed very nicely without the theological shifts, and those that attempted to do both, have been left with the results I noted above.
Traditional Nazarenes at the worst and the massive majority, simply vacated the ministries. Those that had the tenacity to hang on, disrupted and in most cases, completely curtailed their personal involvement. The light in their eyes for their churches gradually dimmed and the pride and respect they had held for years, was often extinguished. At the best, the traditional core simply moved aside to allow the change and became spectators of the new approach.
Obviously, this is a stereotype of those that I've observed and from my own personal experience. That has evolved me to the question I voiced earlier and you attempted to answer, concerning your continued efforts to mobilize Nazarenes into this theological shift even though the sacrifice to and of the vast majority of the core, will be devastating.
Your answer did not address the sacrifice of so many to fulfill the dreams of so few, and in the process, to reach a few different target aggregates than we had before. Whether the reaching of those new personnel will result in long term churchmen of the type we've noted is necessary for the longevity of churches, is still a question to be answered. The demographic groups the "emergents" seem most bent on reaching, are not those that I would declare to be potential churchmen or ministry-men of the type necessary for this to happen, in my observance of them to date.
Again, it would almost be comfort and pride that would seem to drive you all to continue to attempt to create this change within the denomination when there is going to be a great cost in personnel. And, it would seem smarter to separate from the denominational roots to whit you all have historically claimed allegiance, and branch out in new, independent and perhaps largely uncharted territory -- if, indeed, your primary goal is to assimilate more of humanity into the believer ranks.
If your priorities lie elsewhere, then I feel you're all about creating chaos when none is necessary to create. We have enough of that already. Why add to the confusion? You are and have become what your resist.
I haven't always been this way as I somewhat slightly noted above. It wasn't until I was willing to begin to attempt to understand the depth of the hurt and disappointment (Regardless of its necessity at even being.) within core Nazarenes, due to such "inclusive" style of ministry accompanied with theological change, that I began to feel work "within" was perhaps not nearly so noble as I had felt it to be, when exodus and doing it out from under the umbrella would have greatly lessened the loss of personnel and probably enhance outreach.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I doubt the efficacy of your all's motives in what you're attempting, if indeed, you're really the careful and analytical folk you like to say you are. It just isn't logical or makes much sense.
But, as I declared to you earlier in another realm, "I am anti-logic and nonsensical to the extreme.", so I hold no moral judgment against you all being such.
Thanks again for your response. I do trust you day has been blessed as never before.
Hardy Ulmet
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
I think there is one thing you seem to be misunderstanding in this process. Granted, I've long jokingly called the "emergent church" movement a bunch of middle-class white guys with too much time on their hands, but there's probably more truth to that than most of us middle-class white guys want to admit.
The point being there are some faults and shortcoming that need to be addressed, but as for the contributors here, the ones I know are indeed doing that of which they speak.
The one misunderstanding I hear from you, Hardy, at least in my perception, is that the emergent movement is trying to get the denomination to change in some fundamental way. I don't believe this is true.
However, I do think the emergent movement is asking for a denominational recognition that there is a new generation of people who are emerging with a different angle on traditional Wesleyan Theology.
I'm a fourth generation Nazarene who grew up in the quintessential Nazarene home. However the traditional modes of expressing theology and understanding God have never made sense to me. That doesn't invalidate them or render them obsolete and I'm not even sure that challenges them. It does, however, present another avenue of spiritual life and thought. I think this blog especially isn't calling for wholesale change, but an understanding and acceptance that what it means to be "Nazarene" isn't going to be the same from region to region or from congregation to congregation.
It's the same message in a different package, but one that is seemingly ignored by our leadership. I think the emergent movement is looking for an invitation to the table, not a whole new set of furniture.
Hardy, I'm a pretty simple guy and don't have too much time to dissect the rhetoric of your well-thought out and well-written points. But I do have a question for clarification: Can you better identify the "agenda" of which you write? What do you see as the goal of the Nazarenes who identify with emergent?
Thanks!
F&TC,
- J
I'm a 54-year-old layman in Indianapolis. I'm concerned that our beloved denomination does not realize that it is becoming obsolete and is not transforming itself into something that might actually help the local church do its mission.
Business as usual won't cut it anymore. We aren't stupid enough to follow rules without reasons and to send money without benefit.
Some of us actually want to follow Christ. Some of us actually want to represent him in our towns and neighborhoods. Some of us actually want more than a club to attend on Sunday.
Ryan:
You wrote, "The one misunderstanding I hear from you, Hardy, at least in my perception, is that the emergent movement is trying to get the denomination to change in some fundamental way. I don't believe this is true."
I'm very new to even knowing about this movement . . . just a few weeks into it, is all. What I did, was devour several web sites via the links that each published, and to be truthful with you, I lost track of which were Nazarene based and which weren't. It's a blur in my memory as to which were what. In addition, I obtained and read a FEW of the recommended readings.
I came away with this understanding be it actual or not:
1. A great desire to relate to a current world in order to expand our impact in areas of humanity we haven't been too successful with in the past.
2. From many of the blog sites and participants, a real desire to change the theological views in the dogma of the Nazarene tradition in order to better expedite #1.
(Now, please understand, I'm just a poor, ignorant Cajun Cahoona without much education. Therefore, I can't utilize the terminology you all seem comfortable with, so simply insert your academic terms in the above numbered descriptions.)
I'm gung-ho about #1. #2 is a far different animal as per my observation and personal experience, as many, many more are negatively affected than can seemingly be justified by #1's new outreach results.
Furthermore, there are very successful Nazarene ministries (Few they be, I understand.) that are accomplishing the goals of #1 without forcing #2 to the forefront of outreach.
In other words, they are attempting to fulfill the needs of the aggregates that we too long have ignored and even driven away, but they are doing so without the theological mumbo jumbo baggage attached. As a result, though they do face forms of resistance, the ministries continue to retain the core constituency accompanied by quite outstanding results in the "new" form of outreach.
Why wouldn't anyone desire this?
Continue to expose the need for the CotN to reach out to areas too long neglected and you'll achieve what you seem to be aching for . . . the church relating to this current era in ways never before attempted. Accompany that attempted action with a mandate for theological change, and you'll end up virtually, IMOO, with a zero sum game if not worse.
You also wrote, "However, I do think the emergent movement is asking for a denominational recognition that there is a new generation of people who are emerging with a different angle on traditional Wesleyan Theology."
I'm all for emerging. Why dost thou need recognition for such? The negative response will not only thwart the outreach results you could merit without the publicity, but will result in you fighting mumbo jumbo fights of little merit, occupying your time that could better be spent in doing the deed. Again, the results will probably make zero sum appear to be a quantum improvement.
If you insist on this, why not release the theological snares that you seem to feel emcumbers you and begin to simply fulfill your vision of outreach outside the CotN? The CotN is NO particular Godsend and God doesn't waste time requiring His harvesters to work only therein. God does have a lot to say about those that negatively affect the Kingdom and thereby thwart productivity.
I see no viable proof that combining #1 with #2 produces positive outcomes. Fact is, we're blinding ourselves to reality if we really believe that, IMOO. It just isn't happening.
#1 is happening without the effect of #2's crippling "agenda".
Good chatting with you. I trust your day is blessed as never before.
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Jeremy:
The "agenda" to whit I refer, is the often stated need in the various sites and especially in responses to blogs posted, of attempting to persuade, influence, and promote change within the theological terminology of the CotN. From redefining what is and isn't sin, to restructuring the very Holiness experience itself which would have a far more tolerant view of sin's effect on such, and everything in between . . . the "agenda" seems to run the gamut of "big" dogmatic mandates.
I agree with the basic thrust of the movement in these areas, but as I've so boringly said so many times prior, my personal experience and observation seems to deny the efficacy of such action . . . many more are "rejected" by the new, emergent "inclusive agenda" than are won.
Trust your day is blessed and I haven't taken up too much of your time.
(This MAY be the smallest post I've ever created in some 20 years or so of conversing in this medium. Let's all rejoice!)
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Randy:
You are the very church that doesn't realize how obsolete it has become, if that is indeed what is happening. You have the ability to change that by simply doing what you know to do.
Theological dogma has always been a hindrance to accomplishing what it is you desire most, so why desire more of that?
Just do it!
You'll set precedent and many others will follow when results are observed. Even traditional Nazarenes as a whole, have REAL difficulty in denying the power thereof and in their hearts, they are open to it. They are seldom if EVER open to dogmatic change anymore. They've seen and experienced too much of it and gotten burned, badly.
They as a whole, like you, desire a haven of rest that is available to all who dare enter. You can set a new standard, by not insisting on theological shifts, but showing with your actions the viability of using the haven as a launching pad to reach those they may not even know exist.
It'll be rough sailing at first even if you're successful, but the fruits will be greater and longer term, IMOO, than if you attempt to somehow achieve this with dogmatic shifts.
Trust you day is blessed. I'm praying for you.
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Hardy,
What you feel is theological “mombo jumbo” is just the way we think about these things; this effects what we do. You mention that we can “have success” with out this “mumbo jumbo”, but our philosophical and theological perspective will color our view of what we believe “success” is.
What do you believe “success” is? How are these traditional, modern, Nazarene churches succeeding? (I am not saying they are not, just that I want to know what kind of things you are qualifying as successful.) Your answer will give us insight into your theological and philosophical point of view that I am sure you will feel is more than just “mumbo jumbo”. Your advice to “just do it” is good, but what it is we will actually “do” will depend on your understanding and perspective on the gospel.
Peace,
James
James:
Simply put, let me answer your question this way, by quoting a "friend" of mine: "Because of the oikodomic thrust of ecclesiology is restricted through pretheological paradigms (that are influenced by spiritualizing and technocratic assumptions), which do not sufficiently take into account the incarnational character of revelation, the specific cybernetic implications of biotic church development -- in particular those growth automatisms which can be verified empirically and which, in the context of a creation-oriented interpretation, can be explained as theomatisms -- are often not well understood."
Comprende?
Or perhaps this will make it more clear from another quote: "My take on it is this: ORGANIZATIONALLY speaking, postmodernity can be accomodated inside of the denomination by simply seeing it as another culture - similar to the afro- or latino- cultures. It could fit into the Multicultural Groups inside of USA/Canada Mission/Evangelism's Mission Strategy department. Simply let the denomination identify someone to speak for the postmodern culture. Then, that person can sit with the committees and task forces to help the postmodern / emerging voices. . .Theologically, Ecclisastically and Epistemologically it is a MUCH longer journey."
Or,perhaps this will motivate you with its intended clarity, "But I would like to look at this statement for now in the context of post-modernity and the emergent church (which I believe has invested interest to burst out of its seemingly exclusive anglo/western context)."
I'm an ignorant, uneducated slob, I know that. Still, there are times I tread in spatial realms of my own personal verbosity. I'm not attacking you or others for such silliness without recognizing my own failure in that realm, although I understand I'm not nearly on the same level as you all. I refer to it ALL, including my silly vocabulary, as "mumbo jumbo".
Still, when you state, "What you feel is theological 'mombo jumbo' is just the way we think about these things; this effects what we do." -- I'm left to ponder the obvious answer to the rhetorical question that erups within, "Really?" (By the way, when we use parens in writing, then have to include further parens within the original parens, we double the amount for the words that are dealt with in such a manner within the original set, correct? We use two parens if single parens are already envelping the words in which we're trying to insert new words. Why then, do we lessen the amount by half, when we have to include quotes within quotes? Wouldn't it be more consistent to place 4 quotes on either side of the words in question rather than just a single apostrophe? This question has plagued me my entire trek on this rock and with the clarity of the issue well understood now, perhaps someone can help me with this?)
The denomination has been verbalized almost to extinction and now we're attempting to further complicate matters by changing our mission statement. Name me one grass roots God-slave who gives a rip about our mission statement and then ask how much it motives them or affects what they do!
Our terminology should have NO effect on our obedience to Him. We simply do the right thing. We can use terminology to attempt to clarify our actions for people, then perhaps and hence, the need for mission statements, but the validity of such statements and verbalizations should always come after the standard has been raised in productivity by our own role model. That would constitute a grass roots change, IMOO.
When we attempt to theologize change in order to "affect" our outreach or as you say, "what we do", smacks highly of the trickle down evangelism the CotN has been participant to for so long, and thusly you appear to have become what you desire to resist.
When you inquired about "success", the easiest Nazarene ministry that came to mind and the one I've had the most interaction with in association with some personal knowledge of its innner workings, is VERY successful in the very realms that you desire this entire denomination to adhere to via your top-down strategy. It's the easiest to share about, so I'll use it as my answer to you.
Every week, they assimilate between 900-1500 children up through young teens, in various programs which they've ascertained their surrounding community was grossly in need of. They meet those needs in a very admirable, professional way.
In addition, there are 600-900 adults that are utilizing other ministry focuses of the church, which they determined by regular surveys of the community were needed, and they add to those routinely. These ministry points of emphasis change with the changing needs of the demographics of their surrounding community. They're always in flux.
They have a fully registered psychiatrist as well as a psychologist, on retainer, who always have weekly meetings addressing the psychological needs of the surrounding community.
They staff and finance a crisis pregnancy center in addition to strong food for the hungry and help for the needy outreach programs. They weekly have ministry groups which help the higher income folk correctly prioritize their budgeting, spending, giving, etc. They cater to the upper income via golf outings, fairly expensive retreats, dinners, fellowship groups, etc.
In essence, they meet the needs about as much as any church I've ever seen, of the community in which they're located and do so "successfully". This translates into assimilation from newfound believers attracted into the corporate worship setting of the church via the various ministry focus groups, that are then descipled lovingly into becoming the type of churchmen which elongate the life of a church via their involvement, their giving, etc.
Don't get me wrong: This is not the perfect church, IMOO. They have shortcomings of which I'm aware beginning with how the staff handle themselves at times, etc. But . . . they are fulfilling the needs of a changing society around them, building long term churchmen in the process, and reaching sectors of the lost in that community that have never before been touched by the CotN.
Giving is up, numbers are up, lost won are up, etc., etc.
And . . . they have done so with NO attempt at changing the traditional Nazarene paradigns that have existed in this church for decades, in the realm of theology or needless mission statements. (On the front end, anyway.) Sure, they have one, a statement, but that does not have anything to do with what they do! They just get it done!!!! It's descriptive of what they are successful in doing for the Kingdom.
In their corporate worship, they only run about 800. But that doesn't begin to tell the tale, does it? Their outreach and productivity quotient for the Kingdom is simply vast compared to the relatively low number that join in traditional, corporate worship.
You need nothing more than what
Christ gave you: Love your neighbor as yourself. Traditional Nazarenes are your neighbor as well as anyone else. As uncomfortable as some of you have voiced being in the CotN with all its various failures, why would you EVER desire to put that discomfort over on others and credit it to love or God? You've lived the discomfort. Why continue it or be responsible for payback? Why not simply love them, do all you can for the Kingdom under their parameters, and if you're still uncomfortable, out of love, leave and accomplish your calling where nothing but comfort will reign within?
A "successful" church, IMOO, is one that will attempt to meet the needs of the community around them as best they can, and by so doing, this will almost always result in more won for the Kingdom. (Yes, I just was talking the damnable "numbers" vernacular there. Try to take "numbers" out of Christ's commands for us and note what little stimulation to reach the lost is left.)
Nina Gunter was only verbalizing what the vast, vast majority of Nazarenes feel about your issues, when they're verbalized in the theologically encased verbiage you all utilize. They're scared to death that this may finally result in their exodus from this great fellowship they've learned to love and depend upon. I'm not in agreement with their feelings, however, those are not morally damnable feelings and they are entitled to their own comfort in worship, as you desire to have for yourself. As a whole, they finance this denomination and have literally given much of their lives to it.
What right have emergents, who as a whole, have relatively little to no impact on the day to day operation of this institution and have given relatively little of themselves or their resources to maintain its longevity in comparison . . . what right have they to attempt to mandate theological shifts in a trickle down manner?
If you have needs do what you must do within the confines of the CotN, forget the theological "agenda" and just do the loving thing to reach the world that we appear to be avoiding, at any costs.
If you need to somehow motivate yourself with theological mumbo jumbo to chart a path for outreach for you to follow, then do it elsewhere. Your results will be much greater and quicker and with far less negative fallout to the Kingdom.
"Minimize the fallout above all else." How about that for a mission statement?
I've enjoyed chatting with you. I do trust your day is blessed as never before.
God bless.
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Hardy- There is absolutely no way I can respond to everything in your 1500 plus word response to my question. I will respond to your statement, “If you need to somehow motivate yourself with theological mumbo jumbo to chart a path for outreach for you to follow, then do it elsewhere.”
This blog is “ELSWARE”, this is not an official Church of the Nazarene website where we are trying to change Nazarene policy. We are simply being ourselves and sharing our story with one another for mutual encouragement. We have opinions on many things but we realize that we are just one voice in the body’s conversation as a whole. I am sorry that you feel that Nina Gunter and so many others find us so threatening.
We are not forcing ourselves on anyone or demanding that anyone change their views. As post modern disciples of Christ within this tradition we only want to be included in the conversation like everyone else and invited to the table- and the denomination has begun to do this because they are interested in being relevant to the growing post modern culture.
Again- this blog is one of our “else wares”; when we create our own space to talk amongst those of us who happen to be like minded then please don’t come into it and tell us to get out. Even though we created a space for ourselves here, we want to welcome everyone into the conversation; but you just seem to want us to stop having it.
Peace,
James
James:
I simply thought I was answering your queries in thorough detail. I do have great reservations about your all's real desires, your potential demise (As I sympathize greatly with your beliefs.), and thought we could discuss those. I feel we did that fairly well and drew several others in, but I shall retreat into a quiet lurking mode on this topic for now as I feel is your desire. (Bet you're relieved, huh?)
I will say this: If you claim you all do not desire theological change within the CotN, I would suggest you reread this blog, others you link to, including the responses with an unbiased view. I think you will come to another conclusion rather rapidly, if you dare do so. That's all I've been trying to say . . that approach is doomed to failure and will result in your sincere efforts becoming simply fadish, IMOO.
It has been good chatting with you and everyone else, and I trust your day is blessed.
www.christiancadence.blogspot.com
www.lafayettenazarene.com
Hardy, theology is always a work in process and has been evolving and refining by the body of Christ since Jesus first called followers unto himself. There is no reason to think that this won’t continue. The question isn’t if we desire theological change, because change is as inevitable in this arena as it corresponds with cultural change and understanding. We are not ones changing it because change is coming from an ever changing cultural context that is unavoidable. I think you may be right that “emergent” may be a fad, but I think that much of the post-modern paradigm shift that emergent is attempting to wrestle with will have a lasting impact on the church for the future. We are only willing participants along for the ride. If others are not interested in coming along for the ride then they do not have to. But whether you want to participate in the conversation or not, it will not stop change.
Peace,
James
I am tired. That was far more reading than I intended to endure. In fact I'm not sure I even understand what I just read. That may have to do with the fact that I'm recovering from three days of a 103 fever.
I have no desire to contend with the breath of this discussion, but simply with Hardy's honest concern about theological change.
"Theology changes"
Reflection on the mystery of a God who desires relationship with God's own creation is ongoing and will never cease to change. And unchanging theology is a theological fiction.
Yes, I stand as one who believes the theology of the Church of the Nazarene, along with the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ must change. It must change in the same manner as it has changed in every generation, in every new culture and language.
Theology is not revelation (thank God).
The Church of the Nazarene exists because it confessed a theological nuance. Now, I'm with Hardy, that the CON is not nearly as special as we make ourselves out to be. It's really about the Kingdom of God, and God is using a whole lot of us crazy people to fulfill God's purposes.
But, theology has changed and it will continue to change. Even within the CON we have shifted theologically (both in official doctrine and popular assent) within our short 100 years. In fact we have that potential every time the General Assembly gathers.
I doubt very much you will find many in this dialog who would not with deep conviction confess the creeds as well as reverence the scriptures as inspired and authoritative for the people of God. So, I'm not sure what substantively there is to fear about most within the emerging church conversation. Most us are opperatating openly and successfully within the institutional church. What is often in question is not the affirmation of essential dogma but the articulation of doctrine as the church adapts to societal and cultural change.
Most of us would with Bresee and other say "In the essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all other things charity.
For better or worse, those who have chosen to look at our postmodern culture as an amazing opportunity for the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are the "emerging church." Many of us have embraced this label and used it to find encouraging and insightful conversation partners. For others it has been the catalyst for new ministries and the permission they needed to take new risks and forge new partnerships for the sake of the kingdom. We are all for the most part who we were 6 years ago, before "emerging church," or "emergent," gained popular acclaim or publishing rights. Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously. Likewise we are at times taken too seriously by others. But I believe this to be true. Christianity will not be the same in the Western world in 2050 or 2100. In fact we are beginning to see signs of revival in Europe long ago declared post-christian. It looks as if the church will eneviabely continue to boom in the Southern Hemispheire, but in the North the trend continues to look like decline. I'm not sure what the answer to this all is, but I'm betting my that the Spirit has is leading myself and my brothers and sisters in a direction that will be fruitful for the Church of Jesus Christ.
So, as it goes, I'm not overly concerned that the CON recognize the "emerging church." I worry about unneccesary witch hunts. The institution will always be behind new movements. Contemporay worship the result of the "Jesus movement" in the 70's; Church growh straegies in the wake of Willow Creek; "The Quest" is the wake of "Purpose Driven Life."
For the most part, what is discussed on ths blog is an expression of living breathing communities of faith living intentionally incarnational lives faithfully witnessing to the love of Jesus. The ones I know of are successful indeed.
I think another good thing to remember is that the various blogs out there are not necessarily connected. I too used to read most everything with the word emergent in it across the internet. However, I found that a lot of people are using the emergent label as an excuse to whine and complain about all sorts of things. I found none of these helpful.
I don't even really consider myself emergent, although I do resonate with much of what is said on this blog. The only reason I continue to participate here is that, above all, the major contributors are committed to unity.
One hallmark of true emergent thinking is unity. This often requires us to allow the progress we'd like to see move slowly so as to remain in good relationship with our brothers and sisters.
I agree that there needs to be a multitude of voices speaking calmly around the table. I'd suggest giving more attention to those "other" voices who insist on unity rather than those who insist on radical, drastic change.
We're all in this together, but it is the "together" that is most important.
This is a random comment..but not all that random. I was not sure how to contact you in a less random way. I've followed your blog from a distance and really enjoy seeing what other Nazarenes are thinking.
I'm a Nazarene who works at Korean Nazarene University.
I'm going to the Amahoro Africa Conference in Uganda in 10 days. It it is the gathering that Emergent is doing. I'll also be visiting Kigali,Rwanda and remembering the genocide in a face to face way.
Amahoro-Africa is the first global gathering for Emergent. I'll be blogging about it of course. I thought this community would be interested in it. I would LOVE to dialog about what I'll be learning and how I see it connecting with what it means for us to be Nazarene. You all might help me connect what I'm experiencing/hearing to our own Nazarene church. Is anyone interested?
Let me know.
P.S. You can contact me at
julenetegerstrand@yahoo.com
or www.tegergirl.blogspot.com
Julene,
Thank you so much for the “random” comment; I was glad to get to hear from you and learn a bit about your journey. I think many of us would love to dialogue about you will be learning and experiencing in Amahoro-Africa and how these things especially connect to us as a part of the Nazarene community. I have just sent you an email so we can talk more about it.
Peace,
James
WOW I stumbled on to this from a Pastor friend's web-site. I have been telling him that I would like to start a Deep Discusions group for discussions of this nature. Unfortunately I have A.D.D. so most thoughts and paragraphs below are randon and disjointed (this sentence in fact was added midway through my post).
Attending a KC area Nazarene church means there are several seminairan's here and the thing I truelly find MOST alarming is the lack of Bible knowledge from so many of them. ThThe young adault group that I spend most of my time with has well over 25 Nazarene College grads and 12 Seminarians and yet more than half of the seminarians have not even read the bible completely through even once. How can you expect to base your life, your work, and your Future on a book you haven't read.
I hear Dr Gunter say that Calvanism is a major concern for our church and truthfully at this time I think Wesleyan can be just as bad. Nazarene just like Calvanist church base SO many of our opinions, doctrines and assumptions on men who did NOT live with Christ. I have spent alot of time studying and I just don't find where either way has the corner on God.
I have always said what if we all have it wrong? What make's us so sure the "Holliness" is where it's at. So many times Christ got angry with his deciples because they just didn't get it. They spent sp much time arguing who was going to me on his left and right, that they couldn't even undertand the simplest parables. Christ came to LOVE, show LOVE, give LOVE, and provide Love not sell doctrine. Look at all his direct teaching and mircles it's about helping others, showing love, and harvesting the crop.
I have heard new Nazarenes ask so many times why do we do things that way. I feel so many times the church as a whole (including Nazarenes) are more Pharastic in thier approach to God than what he ever wanted.
I know there is truth out there and I ask Him to reveal it.
Stiving for Humility
~Bart
It seems that you guys assume that those who are over 30 don't "get" the emergent church. This is laughable and it reminds me of a statement made during the 1960's that said, "Don't trust anyone over 30." As someone who lives in the "backward" midwest, and one who happens to be 41 years old, these comments are sad to me. I think you could be short selling some of your biggest supporters.
Anonymous,
Looking over the comments and discussion on this particular thread I can understand your statement. Ironically, I am closer to 40 than 30, and there are older contributors on this blog from around the country (and world) including the Midwest. I don’t think anything we are talking about here is really beyond d any particular demographic of people and though it seems revolutionary to the younger of us that are embracing it; it is just because we haven’t lived long enough to know that there really isn’t anything new under the sun.
Thanks for your comments, be patient with us because I know that our journey isn’t always pretty.
Peace,
James
Post a Comment