Emergent Church in the Nazarene Manual
I have been invited to participate along with Jon Middendorf and Tim Keel to construct “a statement” concerning the emergent church that will be submitted to the General Assembly in October of 2008 to be inserted into the Nazarene Manual.
At first I was very surprised and had a hard time imagining how this would work, but apparently what they want is a brief mentioning of the “emergent church” in a new section at the end of our “Historical Statement”. They want just a few sentences about our most recent embracing of the emergent church in a section that looks forward to where we might go as a denomination.
The Historical Statement begins by mentioning the Wesleyan revivals of the 18th century and the Holiness movement of the 19th century. The History continues to include how a group of independent holiness churches got together and how they were eventually united by Phineas F. Bresee and Joseph P. Widney. The history moves on from there to talk about how we became a “global church” with as recent of events being mentioned such as the creation of “a system of world regional areas” that was adopted in 1980.
The idea is to add a paragraph about our most resent developments and to gently hint to where we might be going in a way that would ease some fears and concerns that some may have about the emergent church. An additional paragraph is being developed by another group along the same lines to encourage us in moving toward more international representation in our church government. For us, the idea is to create a few sentences that accurately depict how the emergent church has been embraced so far, such as in our Seminary, M7, and in our local churches, and how Nazarenes are effectively positioning ourselves to take on the challenges in an increasingly post-modern world.
I was told that it would be ideal if we only mention the term “emergent church” once, so that by it being mentioned at all in our manual it would give it legitimacy and act as a “seal of approval” from our denomination. At the same time, we do not want to mention the term more than that and give the wrong impression that the Church of the Nazarene will be taken over by what some still are uncomfortable with. I don’t think this is a problem, and I think we can construct a “historical / looking forward” statement that talks about how Nazarenes are working to make a difference in a growing post-modern culture.
So, I am writing you all today, April 1, 2008, about this to ask for your help in constructing a small paragraph that I could later give to the others working on this. Jon, Tim and I then will combine and refine all our ideas further. To increase the likelihood of the amendment of our Historical Statement being passed at General Assembly it has been decided that General Superintendents Paul Cunningham and Nina Gunter review our statement before we submit it; particularly because it was Dr. Gunter who originally initiated the idea. Dr. Gunter is an often misunderstood supporter of the emergent church and knows well the "challenges" it faces and the difficulty there can be in effectively communicating about it. So, we have our work cut out for us. Your ideas, suggestions and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Peace,
James
UPDATE 5:00pm 4/1/08: I just received word that Nina Gunter has called a special advisory emergent board (S.A.E.B.) that will include such outside experts like Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Leonard Sweet, and Tony Jones. I certainly think they might be able to help us express all that we want to express about the emergent church in our one short paragraph in the manual.
99 comments:
James
One quick suggestion would be to include "missional" language in this paragraph since it is part of the core values statement and actually has traction in a number of areas that are uncertain or skittish of emergent. The more we can tie emergent to missional the more interest this will have. Curious who initiated this but regardless it is interesting.
Dean
I think that this is awesome! It does at least give a nod to new directions the church is taking. That is really exciting.
I echo Dean's comments about "missional language". Emerging has almost lost meaning with people. I would focus on the how the church is facing the challenge of a rapidly changing world where globalization, postmodernity, technology are changing the context in which we do ministry. The emerging church is one conversation that we as Nazarenes are engaging in to try and effectively live out our missional calling in this new context.
Very cool, I am glad you get to participate.
James--
I think we should all thank Dr. Middendorf, who is the likely catalyst of this initiative (as well as Clari Kinzler).
As the above, I agree that "missional" language carries weight.
I would suggest tying in the missional nature of the Church universal from the 1st-century forward. Tie the future into the stream of tradition: being the church as a missional community in the places where we live, etc., etc.
We'll be sure to pray for you three in this endeavor.
Dean, Greg, and Brian,
I agree that any language about the direction we are moving from in an historical context forward to should focus on being "missional". I think this is a great suggestion.
I also agree with you Greg that the term EMERGING "has almost lost meaning with people." In the context of an historical statement, especially a relatively short one, the mention of the "emergent church" might not be as relivant in a broader diverse context of our denomination.
I also honestly love your statement about the church "facing the challenge of a rapidly changing world where globalization, postmodernity, technology are changing the context in which we do ministry. The emerging church is one conversation that we as Nazarenes are engaging in to try and effectively live out our missional calling in this new context."
If there ever is to be mention of the "emergent church" in our official documents I think something along those lines would be perfect.
Dean mentioned that he was curious about how this was initiated. And I have to confess that I think I did a poor job in explaining where this is coming from. So, I did just adjust the last paragraph of my post to hopefully give everyone a better idea of the source of this this timely news.
I agree with the awesomeness that Greg stated!
I definitely get the ideal of using missional language.
A few of things that I think are important, but have no idea how to communicate in a paragraph.
Dealing with the fallacy of the sacred/secular construct.
Moving from a pessimistic view of the future to a hopeful one.
Relentlessly focusing on those that don't yet know Christ.
To paraphrase, "Salvation isn't just a soul-shaped construct."
A returned calling to intentionally minister to the poor, downtrodden, sick, needy, marginalized.
So many things in my mind....
It's like trying to fit the space shuttle in a green bean can....
This straw breaks the camels back! We have completely lost our identity as Nazarenes. The emerging church supports relativism and the erosion of TRUTH. I once met one of these, so called, emerging church pastors who was ordained--for real. After talking with him merely 5 minutes I realized the church had taken a seriously precarious turn.
All of you out there trying to spread this heresy throughout the church need to be stripped of your membership. How can you claim to be sanctified and believe this crap!
Anonymous,
From what I have seen of the emerging church people in the CotN, is that they are committed to the historic christian faith. And they very much hold to the creeds of the ancient church. What they do not hold to is a modern fundamentalist view of the church and truth.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
To Emergent Nazarenes,
I will fight you against getting this into the manual. I have already begun. You are all deceiving the church. You are destroying the church. Go off and make your own church and leave the Nazarene church alone.
Well, it is now April 2nd and I should let you know, in case you have not already guessed or seen the post on my personal blog yesterday, that yesterdays post was an April Fools joke.
For those that commented earlier in the day, my hints that the "source" of this was April Fools was very subtle. So I did go back and try to add, more obvious, less believable things in it.
Still, I wrote this pretty straight and while conceptionally possible I tried to add subtle details that I hoped would make the careful reader doubt that it was plausible.
I talked to a good friend yesterday that believed it and when I told him that is was an April fools joke he confessed that he had only really skimmed my post. He had a good laugh though when he re-read it.
My friend did get his "revenge" by posting the first dissenting anonymous comment; which he would later confess to me. Thank you Stephen for answering what turned out to be a bogus comment in the loving way you did.
I do not know about the last anonymous comment, but regardless it is clear that there are many people in our denomination who are still very anxious about the emergent church. If the ideas and direction we hope for is to ever be embraced by the whole of those we walk with in our tradition, enough so that it might one day be reflected in things like our manual(not that I think this is the greatest importance in the matter), we will have to keep loving and being solid examples of Jesus Christ.
I greatly appreciated the sincere comments and suggestions about how we would communicate what we are about to our Nazarene brothers and sisters even though the reality of doing so in the Nazarene Manual was pure fiction. I hope this blog will continue to be a safe place for all of us to work these things out together as we continue our journey.
Peace,
James
I'm the second Anonymous and you took out part of what I said. I'm not a friend of yours like the other Anonymous. I still don't appreciate what you are all doing to the Nazarene Church. I know you think and BELIEVE this is where the church needs to go. I don't think you really care what people oppose you think. You KNOW you are right. It is destroying the church my family is in. You have no real idea. I suspect that there is a little bit of truth in your APRIL FOOLS JOKE. Isn't there usually. I expect we'll see an official embrasing of this in the manual sometime.
Second Anonymous,
I removed the part of your comment about Jon because he had nothing to do with this post or this blog and felt it was unfair that my April Fools joke lead to your being upset with him.
Yes, there is "some truth" in the reality that the church of the Nazarene is embracing those of us who may resonate with the emergent church; we are just grateful to be part of a very large and diverse community in the Church of the Nazarene in the spirit of the reconciliation we share in Christ and holiness.
You are right, I have no idea what may be going on in the church you and your family is in. If there is damage being done related to these kinds of conversations though it is most likely due to how people are handling these things and themselves more than the actual issues.
I am praying for you and your church community that everyone involved will model the humility, grace, and forgiveness we all share in Christ. Navigating conflict with one another is part of community and I sincerely hope things in your local community can be resolved. Perhaps God can use you as a peace maker in these trial some times.
Peace,
James
Good one James,
You definitively got the conversation going. Oh, and to first anonymous great come-back.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
I too fell for the "joke", I went into panic mode with the idea that Nina Gunter would seek any kind of direction from the listed group. I have been reserching the Emergent Church movement and it's connection to the Church of the Nazarene, and Google directed me last night to your site. I just pray that the movement doesn't share the feelings people like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell and others.
3rd Anonymous,
welcome to our website. I don't think that Nina is one of our biggest supporters; using her name was part of the tip off that this was an April Fools joke. However I do think Nina is participating in the conversation and part of that is voicing concerns one might have about all this.
There is much about the list of emergent voices you listed that I think many of us on this site very much resonate with; that is of course not to say that we agree with everything any of these individuals say.
I would encourage you to take part of the conversation, check out some of our older posts, take your time and listen carefully to what we actually are saying. You still may not agree with where we are coming from but it is a good start to try and understand one another.
Again welcome, feel free to comment more or contact me or anyone of our contributers. We all use our real names and are easily contacted if you have any greater concerns that would take more discussion than a blog will allow.
Peace,
James
Ah, the printed word weaves a tangled web at times.
Anonymous 1,
Thanks for joining in the fray as it were. I hope that you find respect for you beliefs and ideas here and hopefully find it a safe place to converse about some of the issues we face as a church in a changing cultural context, indeed sometimes whether we want to face them or not. From my singular perspective I want you to know that I argue with open hands, and at the end of the day I have to accept that I may be completely wrong.
Dialog about matters of faith is wrought with tension, and I hope we provide a place that helps diffuse that a bit.
Peace,
David
Hey Misters Anonymous,
Could you guys be a little creative with an “anonymous” username? It’s hard enough to follow the game without a program around here. I can not distinguish the “serious” anonymous from the “joking” anonymous.
Thank you for your consideration.
PS Good one, Mr. Diggs.
Boy this sure got me, even on April 3, or whatever it is now. I was sure shocked to read that Nina Gunter was one of our much misunderstood supporters. Good joke, and I wish it was real.
My name is Josh Broward. I'm a pastor in South Korea and a grad of NTS. I'm interested in participating more in this site. How could I go about becoming a contributor? If you want to, you can check out my blog: www.humblefuture.blogspot.com.
wow...haven't been that excited in a while, just to have it blown out of the water! The April Fools' thing never crossed my mind (which I am embarrased to admit - I've been around here long enough to know better) However, I will be contributing to this conversation as well, and I pray that God will cause us to coninue to grow in Christlikeness, even as we disagree. I love all of you and I appreciate your commitment to the Christian faith, on all sides of this discussion. Grace and Peace.
If elected GS, I will see that the name of our denomination is changed to "The Emergent Church of the Nazarene". If we can drop "Pentecostal", we can add "Emergent".
Folks,
NOT as a joke, I think our church should write a paragraph decrying global capitalism for inclusion in the Manual.
Peace~Thomas
...I think our church should write a paragraph decrying global capitalism for inclusion in the Manual.
Now that's funny.
Thomas and Pat,
I certainly think there is an ugly underside to capitalism that as a faith community we should address. Exactly how we can go about these things may be tricky to express in the manual but there are ways that I think we should fight against capitalism taken to the point of tyranny. We certainly have precedents in our manual for taking radical positions to promote social change.
Dave,
That is one more reason why you have my vote for GS (Do I get a vote?)
Josh,
I have been trying to find an email for you, how bout you send me one at james@corridorchurch.com .
Peace,
James
Funny James,
Kudos for an intelligent and humorous post. I bought it hook line and sinker, but it did seem too good to be true. Alas, I enjoyed the anonymous banter thoroughly.
There is no General Assembly in October of 2008, is there?
Peace,
Pastor Steven
Thomas - I've often wondered where you landed in life. Bring your idea to naznet for discussion!
1. This is already likely well known, but "Emerging" refers to the post-modern church movement as a whole, while "Emergent" applies specifically to the movement within the Emerging Church lead by McLaren and others. When we attach "Emergent" to things, we are then specifically placing McLaren's group in a sort of leading position within that attitude. Just saying.
2. In Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren himself says that he doesn't expect whatever the Emerging Church is to become what it fully will be for hundreds of years. It's not so much that the Emerging church has lost meaning, as that people are looking for quick change in a world that, historically, does not change as quickly as people think it will. Technology does not equal true personal change.
3. If you haven't yet, definitely pick up a copy of "Jesus for President" for Emerging ideas on the global economy, military, and American culture. I'm not at all sure how to embrace a lot of the concepts in this book, but I'm pretty sure that if the Nazarene church begins to embrace it, it will change a lot of things. *sigh*
4. Nice April Fool's joke.
5. It's interesting having conversations with people who are against Bell and McLaren, because all that they know of them is what they've been told and what has been reported, and most of that is taken out of context. The most important thing I've found about people who are against them is that the way that they read the bible is only in terms of individual verses and how they interpret them, rather than the context of chapters, books, and the bible as a whole. They have no time for themes or principals, and if even one verse can be found that suits the nature of their need, their cause is served. This is extremely dangerous thinking, and needs to be addressed with patience and love by those of us who will sit down and talk to them. Had a very interesting conversation about Rob Bell's assertion that the Disciples lacked faith in themselves, as per Peter trying to walk on the water... these people I was talking to had defined Faith as something we could only have in God, and that we werne't to have it in ourselves, and God couldn't have it in anybody, because he couldn't depend on anything. My wife pointed out later I should have said "Okay, say confidence there instead, since you've so narrowly defined faith. Bell isn't attempting to use the word the way that you are, so let's find an alternate word to use there." They seemed to want to believe that he wasn't being blasphemous, but they couldn't see it.
Of course, they were also huge fans of Driscoll, and were quite ready to believe his statements about Christ coming with violence and the sword, despite that not existing anywhere in Scripture. People will believe what they want to.
Actually I believe our church should truly return to 1st Century Christianity and repeal all of the councils and creeds as they corrupted us as followers of Christ and made us finders of heretics. For us it begins with the removal of the legalistic covenants that people use to weed us out rather than include us all.
Anonymous,
People have been trying that for a long time and it has not worked yet! The creeds teach us what the Church has always believed.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
But the problem with the Creeds is that they were used at their time to construct a box to put God into. And anyone who didn't adopt the literalness of the creeds was shunned, even to death. Two things that sound incongruent with the message of love and gathering togetherness (excuse the new word) of Christ.
I hear where you are coming from and mean no disrespect. But I can't give up hope that we can truly repent of religiosity which is what the Church was all about. Creeds and Power came together at such a time that made an institution that could lord over people rather than serve the least. I honor the church for maintaining Christ through the years, but they castrated Him along the way and IMHO it began somewhere around the time of the Creeds.
Paul warned the church at Galatia not to allow that legalism to slip back into the freedom in Christ. But a few generations after Paul it began again, with dire consequences for those who would not follow the rigidity.
Peace!
Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments and I understand what you are saying about the creeds, but they do seem to be a very good representation of historical Christian orthodoxy in their simplicity.
The Nicene Creed for example is embraced by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian, the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, Methodism, and many other forms of Protestantism.
It seems to me that it is clear enough to describe historical orthodox Christian belief and flexible enough to be inclusive of many forms, interpretation, and traditions.
Mr. Diggs,
I agree with you that a creed such as the Nicene represent well the orthodox christianity of history, but what I think we forget is what is behind such creeds and what was going on during the time that these creeds were created.
Emporer Constantine was responsible for calling the council of Nicea. He was the man that made Christianity THE religion of the Roman Empire. Not by people's choice, but by decree of law. Somehow that leaves a bad taste in my mouth as it appears to remove free will and starts to introduce forcing beliefs upon people to which they will only and certainly revolt when they have a chance.
Nicea made the statements in the creed mainly to fight against Arius and the subtle difference of whether Christ was fully God and fully man (or was He the same substance of God or not). They struck out and said that you could not believe anything other than the fact that He was fully man and fully God and be a Christian. You were a heretic because you beleived differently than the church.
Nevermind the fact that these people may have practiced the love of Christ, or that they had the Spirit of Christ, if they didn't follow the company line, they weren't good enough.
This continued on throughout the history of the church. Charlamagne, the Inquisition, the Eastern and Western churches splitting.
We like to say that these creeds stand for a uniting purpose, but they really were developed in a divisionary manner. Dividing the "real" beleivers from those who weren't. The very fact that we argued the "essence" of Jesus humanity or godliness says that we missed the message. And from that missed message we defined a man-made religious institution that is at best propped up by Christ in hopes that it will have a true change of heart.
I ask you to trust that I mean no disrespect to you or the other readers of this forum. I know you started this post as a joke, but it is an excellent starting point for something even bigger than revival and even bigger than reformation.
Mr. Anonymous,
By no means do I think you are disrespecting me or anyone else here; I appreciate the open honest communication (even if you choose to remain anonymous).
I do have a slightly different understanding of your historical account and Constantine influence on such things like the council of Nicea.
There is no doubt that Constantine called the council of Nicea together to create this creed. But I do think that the church community itself made the decisions what they would include; and even exclude. This did included leaving out the teaching of the controversial Arius.
I don't think though the primary goal was to "fight against" anyone but as different idea's began to arise the church as a whole felt they needed some parameters and definitions of what it meant to be a Christian.
Again, you are right that Arius was left out; but not because their was some great conspiracy against him but because the bulk of the Christian community did not consider his teaching within the essentials of Christianity.
I do think however that as the church would rise in political power under Constantine that they would treat those like Arius and others who questioned them horrifically.
I think the tragedy of Constantine is the blurring of the line between church and state and how he would use religion as a political force to bully his policies and control others. In the end Constantine's legacy would be one that corrupted Christianity far more than preserved it.
However, I do think the council of Nicea was early enough in Constantine's reign that the decisions themselves reflected more what the community of faith at large believed than it reflected Constantine himself.
There is no doubt though that once these "boundaries" of belief were established that Constantine himself and the church he would gain more and more control over took on a conquering mentality that sought to blot out perceived enemies of the faith with equal vigil as enemies of the state.
But like I said, because of earliness of when such councils occurred, I think historically speaking, the creeds are a good representation of what Christians as a whole believed. I do think you are right that their may have been some over reaction to Arius. (Do you think that his ideas should have been included as an orthodox Christian view?) At the same time I think their were some other gnostic ideas that would peak their head up occasionally that equated the body with evil and therefore challenging the physical nature of the incarnation that I think were healthy lines to draw.
I myself generally detest "in and out" language and I think faith, belief , and creed, is far more than statements but a way of life. But it has always been a difficult to find ways to define and express what it is we are talking about and trying to live into.
I can appreciate your reservations about the processes and how this has been navigated in the past and about how they are navigated today. I am with you on this.
You suggest returning to the ways of the first century church. How would you do this? How would you define this? I think if this was possible (and I don't think it is) we would find ourselves in the same dilemma they did and we would have to start navigating how we are defining the WAY of life the uniquely binds our community together.
Thanks for joining the conversation because we have a much better chance of navigating these things by considering all the angles and perspectives we can.
Peace,
James
James,
I appreciate your addition to the perspective on history. I'm right there with you on the crossing of lines between church and state, though I think we are amongst a minority in this country though our founders believed in it. But that's another conversation.
The issue that still remains is that the community decided what made a Christian and what didn't. Possibly I'm arguing the wrong argument, but I'm coming from the point that Jesus defines what makes a Christian and not man, or we must call Christianity a man-made religion (which isn't waht it says it is). Arius and those who thought similarly, along wiith other "heretics", may truly be held in Christ though the church had decided they don't.
Do you get what I'm saying? Man said Arius was not saved because he was a heretic in their eyes. But that doesn't have anything to do with what God may have determined. Man, in his church, has made up rules of the ins and outs without even considering that those who they have deemed out may posses or be possessed by Jesus more than those who did the judging. Make sense?
So what I'm saying is that even though this may have been an early creed and movement by people it was during the ramp up of a new found power. Certainly not from the meekness.
You could almost say, as Muhammad did, that the Jews missed Jesus and the Christians made Him much too complex.
You say that we cannot go back and I agree in practicality. But I disagree that the goal should only be to repeal ourselves back to a time that was one of the largest mistakes of the faith. Deconstruction analyzes past the creeds, though that doesn't mean that some of the spirit of the creeds do not survive reconstruction.
I really don't apologize for anonymity (not that you've asked me to). There are some subjects in which bystanders would love to pick off a brother. I appreciate the ability to participate.
Anonymous,
Your right that in no way am I asking you to apologize for your anonymity. I personally prefer to be in the open and I feel more comfortable knowing who I am talking with; but I don’t want my own personal preferences exclude others from participating. You might consider creating an “alias” however. This way we can differentiate you from other anonymous commenters, as well as help us get to know you and where you are coming from over time as you may comment on various posts; all while still embracing a great deal of anonymity.
As for your point that Christ is the one who determines what individuals are his, I agree. You may be absolutely right that Arius may have been considered a child of God by God despite what the community said. But at the same time I think that there is some healthy tension in the fact that even our “salvation” is not, and should not be, so individualistic. There is a real sense that we are part of the body of Christ, and together we make up his continued incarnational presence in the world. I think this body is organic and can often be miss identified institutionally and it is very human- yet I also think it is in this context that God breathes the fullness of life as we are not only reconciled to God but his work of reconciliation is at work between one another.
I also don’t think our confession of creeds determine who is in and out in regards to who God “saves”. I hold to the virgin birth and I think this is consistent with orthodox Christianity, but I don’t think God uses my confession of this as a litmus test of my salvation. Ultimately, I think our creeds tell us something about the Christian religion and community but to use these things as a way to determine who is going to heaven is simply an abuse and I don’t think is consistent with what the gospel teaches us.
Frankly, I would go further than accepting the possibility that Arius may have been “saved” and say that I think it is possible for those who confess a completely different religion, or no religion at all, to be saved through Christ as well as they accept by faith the substance of who Christ is as he works in their lives even if they do not know to call that substance “Jesus.” How would I know how people have responded to Christ working in their lives or not? I can tell you that I do often see people of different faiths who seem to have more fruit of belonging to the Kingdom of God than many creed confessing, sinners prayer prayed “Christians.”
I do think the creeds are useful for telling us who the early church that emerged from Jesus’ early followers believed him to be. But no matter what, Jesus is going to be who he is no matter what we think; the thing though that Jesus revealed himself to the world and took up residents in the lives of his followers. Despite the flaws and our human missteps God continues to be active in the world today in his body, his community called the church, as he was in the body of Christ throughout the centuries.
I am certainly open to deconstruction, I participate in that conversation myself, but I am not sure what you would base changing things like the Nicene creed on? Certainly it was confessions like these that helped guide the church in the ongoing canonization process that wasn’t finalized until after these creeds were established. Changing our creeds would also open up the possibility of adding to our biblical cannon, and how would we determine that?
I also would be interested in hearing how the Nicene Creed “makes Christ too complex”? Is this a specific leaning toward Arius as an alternative view or something else? What do you think should change in the Nicene Creed, how do you think it reflects one of our “largest mistakes”?
Thanks for the conversation,
Peace,
James
Thanks for jumping in there James,
Creeds are statements of our basic beliefs about God. The Nicene Creed and the Aspostles' Creed are symbols of faith, they tell us what all Christians have believed about God for close to 2000 years. Why? Because they can be proved by Holy Scripture. What we believe about God does matter, we can not just believe in a God of our own liking. When we do, we end up with cults and other heresies that lead us away from the one true God. Who is Trinity, Father, Son and Holy. Spirit. I too wish we could get back to the simplicity of the NT Church. One of the things the creeds do is take very deep theological beliefs and break them down into simple statements of faith we can all understand. I would hope all believers every where could hold to the Aspostles' Creed. I fell like the creeds unite us not divide us.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
James, I'll have to come back to your comment. I appreciate it and will discuss further tomorrow.
For now though I would like to address Pastor Steven's comments.
I believe you are correct that the creeds do unite "us", but the us that they unite are those who believe exactly as you do about the creed and not those who may doubt or question parts of them, though believing in the life of Christ.
We can prove anything Scripturally if we want to. And just because the creeds have existed for near 1700 years does not mean they are 100% correct. I would say to you that as much as heresy and "cults" may have led people away from Christ, so has the church. Because the church became its own God. The church put to death those who didn't believe in their own way. A reminder of St. Stephen and his encounter with the Jews, the former Saul.
I don't expect a full conversion to my thought from anyone, but I do hope to have us not venerate the creeds over the life of Christ. Much like James, I believe that many who are not Christians are among the fold of God and will be here in His Kingdom.
I believe we have to seriously consider where we have drawn lines to make scripture ot our liking within the church and not just judge those outside of it for having an opinion about the scripture that is contrary.
Peace!
James,
From the sound of your 2-4 paragraphs you have already denounced the creeds for what they have stood for within the church and draw yourself outside the lines as do I. Not that we don’t desire to be within the body, drawing people to that love and understanding, but that we don’t accept all that Orthodox Christianity has meant. But a point of my message is that the church doesn’t look at the creeds in this manner and people do see them as dividing lines not only of what “we” believe, but what “we” MUST believe to really be a Christ follower. And that simply isn’t true as there are so many Christ followers who follow in the substance and not in name. And I would submit for review that there are many reasons for this, including (but not limited to) not ever being introduced to him, not ever being properly introduced to him, and not wanting to be associated with those who call Him their own.
We can never erase the creeds from history, though there have been many things attempted to be erased from history. But I wouldn’t want that. We need to see and learn from the division it creates. The stumbling blocks that it puts before brothers and sisters who do not believe as literally as others. The front it puts on our people to be wary of “outsiders”. The arrogance that comes from the institution that thinks it holds the keys to the Kingdom of God, that it thinks allows it to do unspeakable things in the name of God. These are important historical references as we move forward to take into consideration. I think we must always be thinking “How is what we are defining today going to push others away from Christ?”
You’re right, changing creeds or repealing them could affect quite a bit. Can you imagine the thoughts going through the minds of the first century Jews? Their essence of their very lives were being turned upside down and this is what I’m proposing now. I’m not sure about the cannon. In all honesty this is likely the more difficult aspect to touch, but I don’t think it is beyond touch.
I don’t mean to say that just the Nicene Creed makes Christ’s “message” too complex. But all of the continual councils and creeds throughout history that dove into aspects of theology that had nothing to do with the message, but only with the messenger makes the message diluted. To tell the truth, we spend a bit too much time in this today in Emergent (and the modern church) as well. We need to break past the who was He, what happens to the elements, predestination vs. free will and focus on living the message for real. We need to be Christ to our neighbors. We need to do whatever it takes to be peacemakers (whether it can be achieved or not). We need to right the wrongs of the church and we need to work to help those that have been injured by the thieves of the world. The creeds do nothing for that.
Peace!
Heretic no more,
I'm afraid that you are sincere, but wrong. Those who reject Christ reject God's gift of Grace, there is no way to the Father expect through the Son. The only way to be apart of the kingdom of God is through faith in Christ. If not, His death, burial and resurrection would have been for not. There are not several ways to God, but only one Christ. What we believe about who Jesus said He was and who the Church believes He is, is very important. To say that Jesus is not true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father changes who Jesus is. Just believing in the life of Christ is not enough. We must believe Jesus is the Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. If He is not the Word made flesh then are faith is just in a man not God who became man. Who was both fully God and fully man. Just believing that Jesus was a good man or a prophet is not enough. There is only one way to be saved, born again or to enter the kingdom of God that is through faith in Jesus Christ as the Church has believe from the time of the Apostles. all others are outside the kingdom of God. Even though God loves them and desires for them to come to faith in Christ. Because Jesus is as He said in John 14:6. . .the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Of course intellectual accent is not enough, it must be a belief that comes from the heart. We have to do as St. Paul says in Romans 10:9, confess with are mouth and believe in our heart to be saved. The creeds help us to do that, even though you do not have to use those exact words. But why not, I've seen no better statements of faith than the Apostles or the Nicene Creeds.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
I’m not sure that you really are talking to me in this statement. I haven’t denied Christ at all. Those who reject the church, or who are rejected by the church, or who do not become one with the church may still be a part of God’s Kingdom through the spirit of Christ.
You say that there “there are not several ways to God, but only one Christ”. But you miss that there are several ways to Christ, to believe in Him, to find Him, to experience Him, to encounter Him, and to express Him.
I’m concerned that you place Christ atop of a foundation of glass. In one statement you say that it is possible by believing different that the death, burial and resurrection could have been worthless. In another you say that if one doesn’t accept him absolutely as entirely God then another support for Him breaks. These tones remind me of Ken Hamm who insists that if you don’t believe in an absolute literal 7 day (24 hour period) creation then the entire Bible is false.
Comments such as these make it more, hard for those who question to grasp onto what they do believe. They put people on sides and allow for pride within the church that “we are the TRUE believers”. When there are so many who are believers in words and/or deed. Give me one who practices the life of Christ in spirit over one who says the right words any day. But truthfully, I long for them both and for them to come together in love.
I am sincere Steven. I’m probably wrong about some things as well. But I have to tell you that I think we all need to search ourselves and see where we may fall short.
Peace!
Heretic no more,
What I said is that if there are many ways to God, then Christ death, burial and resurrection would have been for not. There may be many roads to Christ, but only one true Christ, the Christ of scripture and the Creeds. You said. . ."I believe that many who are not Christians are among the fold of God and will be in His Kingdom." If you are not a Christian, a "Christ follower" how can you be a part of the Kingdom of God? The only way to receive the Spirit of Christ is to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ and to place ones faith fully in the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ. If you have the Spirit of Christ you are a Christian. What you are says is very confusing and will lead people to believe in a christ not of the scripture but of their own making. Which is not the true Christ but a false Christ, not the Christ of the Bible or the Creeds, but of cults and liberals who do not hold to scripture or the Creeds. This is the very reason we have the Creeds to guard against false teaching in the Church. Thats why gnosticism was denounce as heresy. So heretic no more, who do you say that Christ is and what must a person do to be saved?
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
"I believe that many who are not Christians are among the fold of God and will be in His Kingdom.” What I am saying in this quote is those who are not named Christians or as I referred in other posts are not associated with the Church.
You say “There may be many roads to Christ, but only one true Christ, the Christ of scripture and the Creeds”, but I think you drug on your statement too long and that the Christ is the one of Scripture. The creeds are 200+ years removed from the Scripture and are an interpretation of an institution that wished to solidify itself as the ONLY one that held Christ. This was the beginning of putting Him in a Heart Shaped Box and removing His sovereignty.
I know we won’t come together on this as I will continue to interpret at a wider breadth and you will continue to define Him more narrowly as has the church for so many years. I say that false teaching includes defining Him more narrow than He is.
Again, just because Gnosticism and other movements were declared, by the Church, to be heresy does not in any way mean that God would declare them such. The Church, while preserving much good has done much bad. How can we defend the taking of lives when our Savior told us that the meek would inherit the earth? How can we dominate over people when our Savior told us to serve our neighbors?
I think God will in the end be the judge over all human wisdom of who will and will not be saved. I believe from Scripture it is those that are affected so by His message that they turn to Him (not the church) and follow in His path. This includes those of other religious practices that are touched (as our friend James used) in substance by His message and act upon it. No, they are not “Orthodox Christians” as defined by the Church, but they are one’s who follow the message of God as given through Christ and His Spirit to all of the world.
I happen to believe in the literalness of Christ’s humanity and Godliness. But that should not mean that others MUST pass that same test if they believe in only His Godliness or only in His humanity. Certainly it makes it more complex for those of us who then think that parts of the Bible fall apart without both. But for someone with a faith to follow, it is very easy.
Peace
Steven,
Let me also reiterate to you, as I've done with brother James, that I mean no personal harm in my exchange. I know some of the wording can sound terse at times and is a part of the method of our communication. I ask for your grace in these areas as we wander this path together.
Peace,
Heretic Friend--
You seem to have a dualistic understanding of the Church. It appears that you wish to separate the invisible Church from the Church visible.
Taking only scripture as my guide, it seems Jesus would be uncomfortable with this dualism. He said very clearly that he would build his Church on and out of people. There is no distinction: the Church invisible can only be the Church visible.
Yes, (we) the Church get it wrong sometimes. But to stand on almost two millennium of balanced tradition (for example, that Gnosticism is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor the story of God) appears to be reasonable. And here I do not mean logical, save within the logic of Christ's kingdom.
To suggest that God is not tied to his visible church is, in fact, a Gnostic notion.
Shalom--
Brian Niece
Brian,
Thank you for joining this conversation. I don’t know that I fully agree that I am looking to separate a visible and invisible church. I can see how one might come to this thought though. Rather, what I see is the Orthodox Church having created an In and an Out, and that many of those on their Out list are really not out at all, though that doesn’t mean they are invisible.
I agree that it would seem that Jesus might be uncomfortable with thought of invisible Christians. But I also think He might have been uncomfortable with a Church that went about dividing, murdering, and placing judgment upon people. But I think I’ve covered this piece in other comments.
I believe that God is tied to the Orthodox Church, but not that the Orthodox Church is the only place that He graces as “we” appear to think. Certainly there have been straying methods of thinking throughout history (some of which I tie into the Orthodox Church), but that does not mean that every one of them that the Church thought was straying really was. And maybe there was a better way of going about challenging it than they did. Perhaps God has used many of these groups and movements to refresh the Churches expression. But when they are conquered by force or just dismissed rather than being invited to conversation we have possibly missed the whisper of God.
Peace!
Conversation and dialogue ... these are definitely prerequisites toward any constructive consensus.
Here is why those of us in my faith community embrace the Creeds. Because they come out of a beautiful and true understanding of who God is. We do not embrace them for how they have been misused throughout history.
The Creeds recognize and acknowledge that our God is a communion of diversity without dissonance. Professing the understanding of God as a community is essential to our faith and practice.
Even with this blog conversation we are experiencing the exploration of diversity moving toward unity.
Taking this basic premise of the Creeds, that cannot be used as exclusionary tools. They are rather intended to be a complimentary statement alongside Scripture that professes then inclusiveness (powder keg word there, I know) of a gracious God in communion.
Shalom--
Brian
Brian,
I think we are closer together than it may appear at the onset. In my first anonymous post dated April 14, 2008 1:08 PM and then in my next pose I was declaring we do away with the creeds altogether. Quoting myself from one of the posts I stated: “But the problem with the Creeds is that they were used at their time to construct a box to put God into. And anyone who didn't adopt the literalness of the creeds was shunned, even to death. Two things that sound incongruent with the message of love and gathering togetherness of Christ.”
When a group comes together in an understanding that this is our central understanding, but makes room for other understandings, that is a completely different thing than what happened at Nicea (and other councils) and with Constantine, Charlamagne, and others throughout Church history. A look back at these show that there was a constant work to be in conquest of the exact nature of God and how people MUST believe.
As I’ve shared, I happen to agree with much of the statements of the Apostles and Nicene Creed, though I don’t think it is a necessary agreement for someone to truly be a follower of Christ. So perhaps in the zeal of my first post, rather than repeal I should mean that we must redefine and recast the visions and purposes of these statements so as to truly show a spirit of inclusiveness. But then to those that these statements have disillusioned a total change of our hearts is needed to truly make way for them to trust.
In my specific case, I won’t hold directly to one of these creeds, though I will agree with many of their statements. In doing so I will leave room in the conversation for those who may not understand the same at the risk of losing the respect of those who would criticize me.
Peace!
Heretic no more,
I mean no animosity toward you or would I anyone who might disagree with me. May the Lord guide you as you seek to follow Christ. It sounds like you have a good foundation if you believe Jesus to be both fully God and Fully man. Even though we may disagree on some pionts of faith. But I won't go into all that again.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
Steven,
Peace be with you brother! I appreciated the discussion.
Peace!
Brian,
Thanks for your comments about the visible church. I agree.
H.N.M (“Heretic no more”),
I would disagree with the idea that gnosticism reflects the reality of the God’s created world and such would certainly be outside the understanding and convictions of God’s orthodox Christianity.
However, let me say that while I believe that a correct understanding of Christian orthodoxy can be found in the creeds, at the same time I don't think that it is Christian orthodoxy that saves anyone- it is only Jesus.
I think that the creeds are an accurate description of who Jesus is, but at the same time he is much more real than these descriptions. I believe that Jesus is alive in the world and is active in the lives of people. I do not have any problem accepting the fact that Jesus, the same Jesus I believed described in the creeds, can work in someone's life and prompt them to himself and they can respond in faith to this prompting without even having a full understanding of the creeds or even embracing them completely.
I think as the church we should hold fast to historical Christian orthodoxy and their expressions we find in these ancient creeds. But we also should make space for God's work in the lives of others for whom one reason or another have not accepted various aspects of what we consider orthodox.
If someone rejects the virgin birth or claims a gnostic belief, I can disagree, and I can even hold to the fact that they are outside Christian orthodoxy. But at the same time I can also invite them to participate in the Way of Jesus that you (H.N.M.) mention in an earlier comment about the ways of seeking to be “Christ to our neighbors” and “peacemakers in the world”. I think leaning into these realities in Christ, participating in God’s reconciling work in the world is living in the reality of God’s saving work.
I believe I can hold fast to Christian orthodoxy while also understanding that God saves through Christ and not ones understanding of Christian beliefs. I do however believe that orthodox Christian beliefs provide a faithful framework for faith as the church continues to represent the continual incarnational presence of Christ in the world. I believe the framework of our creeds gives us a good and accurate understanding of who Jesus is, and helps us faithfully articulate this as our lives also come to reflect the reality of Who Christ is. Again though, I am careful to say that by no means are we saved by them.
HNM,
I am sure this does not completely satisfy you, and I am sure that by saying gnosicism falls outside Christian orthodoxy makes Gnosics feel excluded from the church. I do think that the true, organic body of Christ often bursts out from the confinement of our various institutions, and in the spirit of reconciliation I seek to exclude no one. I think the problem here is not the creeds but our misunderstanding that accent to them is what determines if we are in or out when it comes to the Kingdom of God.
As for your suggestion to redefine our creeds, I am uncertain how one (or even a group) would base redefining the earliest definitions of Christian orthodoxy. You mention that that our scriptures are older than the Nicene Creed, and indeed the text themselves are. However, the church leading up to that point in history all took part in deciding what scriptures to include and what to LEAVE OUT when it came to the cannon; and the entire process did not come to its final conclusion as we know it until after the creeds. The Nicene Creed certainly informed this finalization and it reasonable to accept that the beliefs and convictions expressed in that creed existed long before it was refined and expressed at the council of Nicaea. I say this because of how the creed is consistent with the thought behind leaving out various texts in the cannon; even texts far older than the creed itself. If your argument is to just “go back to scripture” I think this itself has much of the same problems are wrestling with and you end up in a similar place of deciding what is in and what is outside Christian orthodoxy.
I think this has been a great conversation, and I welcome you in it.
Peace,
James
James,
I wouldn’t have missed this conversation for anything. I’ve really enjoyed hearing your heart on the subject. That’s been very important to me.
Earlier I side-stepped discussing scripture intentionally because I know the timing of the cannon and the creeds. This presents a great issue when I suggest changing the creed, but not the cannon. Steven had mentioned how well Scripture supported the creeds and I didn’t want to go too much further with that either as certainly they do.
We in Orthodoxy ended anything being considered Scripture with the closing of the Cannon. Not allowing for any further revelation to be considered divine. You might say that “we” wrote the history book and then we said that anything that is outside of that book is wrong.
James, our hearts and the hearts of many others within Orthodoxy know that “we” have been wrong in writing people in and out of the Church, or of God’s fold to be more specific. Yet we are unwilling to accept that our founding documents, the creeds and the cannon, need to be changed. Yet they are the documents that defined our succession from the Union of the World, and in some ways from God Himself, though we say they were to define us to God. The cannon are our articles and the creeds are our flags. They stand for so much good, but behind them is so much bad. For those within the fold they show bindings to Christ, but for those who are outside they are symbols of oppression, hatred, and violence.
We want to hold on to these documents and flags and say that they really don’t mean all of those things that others think they mean. To “us” they mean love and peace and history. But that doesn’t change the fact that they were created by a people who sought political gain, religious cleansing, and eventually power.
In another post here we are talking about racial and ethnic diversity within the CotN and the General Superintendants. The idea is that representation seems odd because of Colonialism and a broader representation would be better. My thoughts are along these lines, but much deeper.
I love the fact that you and others don’t agree with the in and out theology. I admire that you want to reclaim the creeds for what they should be. But I believe that in the end they stand as a patch on our sleeves that connects us to a historical group that brought terror into the world and begs to have itself removed from the world in the same way. Certainly not a movement of Purveyors of Peace.
Peace.
Just dropped by to read.
I am real confused in reading the posts of original anonymous - he/she seemed to be so against the "emergent/emerging" church - yet sounds like and even beyond what I have read of McLaren, Bell etc..
Just my thoughts - good conversation to read. Another thought I have just had - If as in John 14 - we trust the trinitarian language of Jesus being fully God, fully man - you have seen the father in me...and in the father you find me. So can we find any seperation in believing in God without believing in Jesus - if Jesus is to be found in the Father are we not believing in Him when we are believing in the Father - even if we don't claim to believe in the son. Are we beyond the trinity and able to split our belief and not find Jesus when we find the Father. Just my thoughts. and bowing out now- because I have neighbors walking through the door to serve.
Sorry for the confusion. The posts from the 14th and 15th marked anonymous without a signature were from the anonymous who eventually signed as "Heretic No More" (Me).
You might consider these opinions further out than McLaren, Bell, ... But after reading everything McLaren has written as well as being quite versed in Bell, I'm not sure that either would judge me harshly. I won't go as far to say they would agree, though there may be some basis for that opinion in one of their writings. Specifically pointing towards colonialization. But again, I will take all the credit in my anonymity (sp?).
I agree that if we adopt the trinitarian view we should also believe that belief in one or the other is belief in all without stating belief in all. Hmmm. But then many would take the opposing view that though the three are the same, they are individual entities and therefore we would have to accept the individual entities in order to truly believe in their version of the one.
Though I accept on faith the trinitarian view, I think you can only imagine that I would never expect that of someone to call them a true believer. Their belief is outside of this definition.
Peace!
Anonymous,
Jesus says in Matthew 10:33. . ."But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." With out Jesus, there is no way too the Father. . .John 14:6. To deny the Son is to Deny the Father also. The trinity is one God with three persons within the God head, to deny one is to deny all. You can not just say, well they believe in a god so therefore they believe in Jesus. Yes they may believe in a god, but they do not believe in the God who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
Steven,
With all due respect you are putting words in people's mouths and interpretting their hearts without ever having experienced them. I may be doing the same in this statement. But I find much contempt and judgement in your statements. Were it not for a strong calling from God in my life, your statement would have me saying "I don't want to know the God you are talking about".
Peace!
heretic no more,
With all due respect Anonymous asked a honest question, so I gave a honset answer. You don't want to know the God who suffererd and die to defeat sin hell death and the grave. The God who became like we are that we might become like Him. I'm sorry, but what God do you want to know the God of Oprah. Come on man let's get real, either you believe in the God of scripture or you don't. The reason you find contempt and judgement in my statements are you do not SEEM believe in absolute truth. Your problem is not with me but with scripture and the creeds and what the Church has held to for 2000 years my friend. Open your heart receive the truth and fullness of the faith, Jesus is the Truth. There is no contempt here, just trying to speak the truth in love brother. If I did not care I would just write you off as a heretic.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
Steven,
I appreciate your concern for me that is so great that instead of attracting me to Christ it makes me want to run from Christianity. I respect your right to believe as you do. I didn't mean to interrupt your interaction with another member of the conversation. I had thought you were correcting me as I had given both my take and the "orthodox" take. I can certainly see how one would interpret and understand Scripture the way you do.
I do take extreme exception that you feel I ned to recieve the truth. Well, let me change that. I'm glad that you want me to. I know that I haven't found it yet. I'm sorry that you feel you've found the end of the road for truth and that it is fully defined for you, because like us all, you have not. You have merely stopped along AN interpretation and refuse to accept other interpretations.
I truly wish we could be closer on this. I'm sorry for any discomfort I've left you with. I challenge you to think outside of what opressors defined for us. I wish that you would at least look to bring me closer rather than push me out. And I wish you would not place such judgement on others as you did in your previous email.
My apologies to all if my comments are disrupting.
Peace! Shalom! Assalamu Alaikum!
Steven and H.N.M.,
I certainly uphold and embrace the Trinity, but I also think the terminology itself begins to fall apart the more we try to describe it. Again, I am talking about our terminology and definitions here of this great mystery. Jesus and the Father are one, I would say that “absolute Truth” is found in the PERSON of Jesus Christ as he it the Word of God, Truth, and the divine incarnate in the world.
I think HNM, whether himself or he advocates for others, is talking about the sincere wrestling that come with trying to understand and embrace such a mystery. When you say he does not seem to believe in “absolute truth” in regards to our understanding of a particular definition, I would have to say that I would reject the absoluteness of such human definitions of God’s mystery myself.
Again, absolute Truth is a person, the person Jesus Christ, which goes beyond our limited ways of describing and defining truth. I hold that the Trinity is the best attempt we have in describing such a mystery as it points to the reality of who God is. I will defend such a position that has been the testimony of the church for over 2000 years as a faithful description, but I also understand that God is much, much bigger and can connect with humanity on many levels; even with those who have not embraced, at all or completely, a Trinitarian definition of the mystery of the ONE God.
I think it important for the credibility of our testimony regarding the truth of Christ that we hold fast to Jesus as absolute Turth incarnate while at the same time humbling ourselves and understanding that ABSLOLUTE (which means complete, total, and unlimited) truth is only in God himself, personified in Jesus Christ, and not in our descriptions, definitions, and understandings no matter how faithfully they point to God.
Peace,
James
James,
That's what I have been trying to say all along, that Jesus is the Truth. I know no other way to speak of Christ than how the Church has for 2000 years. Certainly God is beyond our fully understanding or comprehending, yet He has revealed Himself to us in ways that he has give us enough of a revelation of who He is in scripture that we can have that epiphany of who God is as Trinity. And the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth. The danger is not in seeking God or wrestling with the eminenceness of God but when we disregard the revealed truth about who God is, as it has been believed by christians for 2000 years. And I'm not saying that H.N.M. is doing that. But there is always the danger of doing so when we try to figure things out all on our own. Hmm...what kinda god would I like to believe in. You know what I'm saying. I'm speaking in generalities.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
James, thank you for your interpretative skills.
James and Steven, I believe that even saying Absolute truth is in the Life of Christ "can" be challenging, though not "wrong". This is true especially during any wrestling stage or even unknowing stage. But there are so many who will accept the truth of His life that will not accept the doctrine that has been "created" or "defined" around them. This becomes even more evident when we look at the history of the Church that has created this document.
I have just completed watching two movies, during this conversation, that were of great interest to me before. One is Zeitgeist, which you can see online. It has three parts, one showing Christ as adapted from Egyptian lore and used to manipulate people, two showing 9/11 conspiracies, and three showing World Bank conspiracies. Now I put none of these three sections higher than my learning and understanding of Christ, but I find them interesting perspectives that people have. If nothing else I do believe that they show what "power" can do and what it "can" make people below it think.
The second movie was a 1976 flick called The Message - The Story of Islam. After recent studies in Islam this was a must see. It predates much of the US conflicts with the mid-east and presents a pretty fair Hollywood adaptation of the Prophet Muhammad, enough so that the Islam councils agreed to its historical accuracy.
Here's why I bring it up. What I see as the message of Christ and the initial message of Muhammad are all but identical. They both came into this world during a time that man had fallen so far away from God. In Jesus life it was the legalism and judgment of the Jews who had made the laws their Gods. In Muhammad's case it was the pagan Arab religions that worshipped idols.
In both of their cases, institutions followed their lives and it was in them that we see twisting of Scripture to meet the ends of establishments. Now, not being a part of Islam, I won't sit on the outside and place judgment on their entire church as I don't know their struggles as well. I do know they have extreme voice like we do that definitely mash the Word.
But for us, I believe that even in our "best intentions" we do the same today by not allowing this freedom in Christ to figure out who God is, which is figuring out who Jesus is and how it affects our individual AND societal lives.
I do offer and extreme view myself, and I accept that sitting on this fringe is dangerous. But sometimes we need someone on the fringe to help us to see how dug in we are and to see that we may need to un-entrench ourselves from views that could be much too limiting by people who sought to control the minds of people for their own gain. It’s much easier to win an election if you can kill off your opponents before the polls. Look at Hillary and Obama. Looking for any misstep, to trap one another and send them to their political death. And McCain sits in the wings like a vulture for the same purpose but with ability to use that his proud party already came to a decision and doesn’t fight like the other party.
Jesus told us to “Love God with all our mind, soul, strength, …” and then he said “and Love your neighbor as yourself”. He defined our neighbors by telling us to go to the ends of the earth spreading His message and by giving us the story of the Good Samaritan. Dude, if we have to take religion any more deep than this and parse out His humanity or His Godliness then we’re lost. If Oprah comes on the air and tells us we need to care for our neighbors, I don’t care if she’s a human or a god, she’s right. Actually, I apologize for using Oprah, though I’m leaving it in. You could insert any name of anyone there. If Hugo Chavez came on tv and said this, we should listen.
We as Nazarenes, well some or most of us on this board, but I know you, James and I are, we are guilty of adding to the Bible and to what is right or wrong with parts of our Manual. I’m gonna pick on the alcohol thing for a moment. As a covenant driven group, I think it’s fine if our small covenant group is going to decide not to drink, though I believe the reasoning is not well defined and I know many of our group that reject this. But we go further in our manual to say we should do all we can to prevent others from being able to drink. We miss that Jesus made wine for the wedding? Oh, maybe it wasn’t fermented. But no matter how it is, it defies scripture and adds on to what it means for a Nazarene to be a Christian. It is in subtleties like this that the creeds were created and the cannon was determined and the interpretations of the cannon has been used and abused for 1600+ years.
Jesus presented a simple faith, a faith even a child can understand, but we make it into a faith that deals more with massive theological intricacies than it does with Him.
Peace!
Steven,
Yea, I know you have been saying that and that you hold fast, as I do, to Jesus as the Truth. I do think though that we have to be careful that we do not hold up even “revealed truth” the same as the absolute truth that can only be found in the actual person of Christ. I am not saying that we toss aside the faithful testimonies of the church through out our history; absolutely not. I am saying though that our understanding and descriptions that are revealed to us by even the scriptures are not as absolute as Jesus himself.
I can understand where HNM is coming from, and I can receive him as a brother even if he questions the Trinity. At the same time I am not ready to surrender the testimony of the church as reflected in our creeds, but I also understand that God is still far bigger than even the church’s testimony. I don’t believe the church’s testimony, whether creed or even scripture is “absolute”, but it certainly is faithful to pointing to the One who is.
I also think it is faithful enough that I am not sure how one would modify it or on what bases it could be modified on. You are right, that navigating who God is not something that can be navigated as individuals; especially when we understand that God has been present with humanity and communities within humanity for centuries. Our scriptures and creeds connect us back to those communities, and despite my appreciation of where HNM is coming from I don’t think that we can separate ourselves from their testimony. I still do not know what HNM thinks we should base such amendments of orthodoxy on?
I think I have tried hard to understand where you and HNM are coming from; in some ways I fall into the middle I suppose. I am not afraid of the questions and even some of the good points HNM makes (I think he makes several). I am also not afraid to receive him as a brother out of both respect for him and the great mystery that we are all wrestling with here. I often think that the church can sometimes make idols out of the faithful testimonies of God that we rely on and treat them as absolute when only God is absolute. We have set up our descriptions and pictures of who God is as being completely all God is both deep and wide; even though our descriptions are just pictures that we can easily find the edges of. I think in this same poor spirit the church has often been guilty of an idolatry that would persecute and cut off those who would not conform to images and pictures of God that were presented in such a way that God could be contained by them.
Though I hold fast that our scriptures and early creeds give us the most faithful descriptions of who God is, I can appreciate HNM questions because it reminds me that these great testimonies of the church that I have received and am committed to pass on are a great mystery and only shadows of God’s greatness created by his perfect light shining through the humanity of the Church.
I think this conversation reminds us of the healthiness of the tension between revelation and mystery and can compel us all to seek him even more diligently as he continues to call us deeper.
Peace,
James
Sorry HNM, I think we were both responding at the same time and I did not see your last comment when I posted mine. I don’t want to write a long reply to your most recent comment, but I don’t want to ignore it either. I will say that I do agree that I don’t think Jesus came to create a new religion- at least not in the sense that we typically associate religion with today. Christianity does not save no matter how orthodox it is, and as a religion Christianity can fall into the same kinds of traps as other world religions and is guilty of corrupting the “simple faith” and message of Jesus that you mention at various times through out history.
I don’t think though our problem is with the creeds, but it is how we have often religiousized (is that a real word?) them and our faith.
Peace,
James
Peace to all,
Have a Blessed Lord's Day.
In Christ,
Pastor Steven
As a fellow brother in pastoral service within the COTN, I appreciate the fact that there are Nazarenes who are attempting to broach the topic of the "Emergent Church" by taking contemporary Postmodern culture seriously while introducing the subject matter to the General church. I must also confess that while I have had minimal exposure to recent trends in Theology, I am still in the process of becoming better acquainted with the "Emergent Church" project.
With that concession, I would simply proffer a suggestion reminiscent of James K.A. Smith, who posits what he calls a "More Persistent Postmodernism"! That is to say, one ought to maintain a certain degree of "caution" towards some "Emergent Church" conversations, as he contends that some can unwittingly degenerate into another Modernistic "culture-relevancy" project at the end of the day.
Hence, the core of his suggestion is that the best way for the Church to be Postmodern is to be "ancient".
I will be curious to see the inaugural comments in the Historical Statement of the new Manual!
Personally, I have enjoyed becoming better acquainted with Smith in the last year or two. For those unfamiliar with his writings, his work is rich enough to contribute to the Radical Orthodoxy Project (See "Speech and Theology"), his "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism: taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church" is accessible for a much wider audience!
James,
You know that one beauty of this form of communication is we could both be speaking at the same time and still be heard in the end. Where in person one of us may have let the other speak and then things would have gotten off track and the other may have missed their opportunity.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your response to both Steven and I. As I have not given you any idea to "change" the creeds, I understand your hold to them for the true spirit of them which does speak to a wonderful truth. I believe that if more of us in our communities were open to others expressions and questions and painful scars that we might find a definition that would bind us together in a more visible manner.
Please don't mistake that I agree with a trinitarian doctrine that is consistent with our definition in the manual and within scriptual text. But what I don't do is believe that it is an essential to salvation or even to following Christ. That's one thing that makes this conversation awkward, I belive very similar to you (James and Steven), but I believe that this exact expression is overly dogmatic and divides more than it brings together.
Peace!
It has been fun following this conversation - even if demanding because of the sheer volume of comments. With this as the 66th comment, I think this post may rank as the single most popular post ever on this board.
It seems to me that the root of this discussion is a basic question: what is the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy? HNM (along with many others, not included in this discussion) seem to say that orthopraxy trumps all and is all that REALLY matters. Stephen (along with a host of others even more traditional than him) might say that orthopraxy with out orthodoxy is one step off from meaningless - just good works with no faith - or being sincerely wrong, etc. The relationship of these two fundamental pillars (orthodoxy and orthopraxy - and you might even throw in orthopathy, though this is by far more ambiguous) seems to be the greatest question of the emergent church. What do you folks out there think about this?
HNM, a personal question, which you may be willing to answer since you are anonymous. You express a great deal of sensitivity and compassion for those who are or have been excluded. I wonder if the roots of your compassion here may be in a personal experience of exclusion. If so, would you be willing to share it with us? It might be helpful for us to put a practical, current story along side this theological, historical, philosophical discussion.
Josh, Thanks for joining into this conversation. I’ve loved playing the orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy words and meanings for a while now. But, not just to be difficult, I would suggest that my line of thinking is saying that the definition of orthodoxy is incorrect and tied to an institutional preservation and domination theory rather than to the life and example of Christ. But from an orthodox view point, I understand what you are saying and why you are wording it that way. From that viewpoint (if it is unmoveable, or for those for whom it is unmoveable), I would say that orthopraxy can show us the orthopathy of Christ in people who may not follow the orthodoxy of the historical church. We would likely still get hung up on definitions of these terms and what each of us and each of the readers may define them as in their minds, but I think that leaves a fair enough view in a concise manner. I would add that all of these ortho’s are man’s interpretation and understanding and that God’s sovereignty trumps everything.
Actually, I’ve answered to many people, without anonymity, my concerns with the church as it has affected me in my years. I would like to temper sharing too much of my direct story as it is quite revealing. Let me offer though that still within the last few years I have come into contact with so many lives of people who are still being pushed out for not having a full belief. They cannot accept a literal creation story, the beginnings of man through Adam and Eve, the stories of fallen angels, the flood, and such that are a part of the first 10 chapters of Genesis. They wonder about Jesus being human and being God. They ask questions and are told that if they do not believe they are not Christians. And for that they distance themselves and/or rebel entirely.
I read Wesley and understand that his view of Prevenient Grace extends to those who do not know Christ, and offers a possibility of a saving Grace through however they respond to that Prevenient grace in their lives. Whether they are ever “Christians” in name or not. I look at our brothers and sisters of Islam and read their history and know that the differences between our two religions is as wide as a line drawn in the sand by a staff. Certainly our broader view is much different when extremes mark us all and we stand polarized against anything different than us. But it wasn’t always that way. Early on the Christians protected Muhammad in his nations fight to flee from pagans who would kill them for believing different than them. Boy, that sounds all too familiar.
I am friends with many and a student of Buddhism. Though there are vast differences in some of our orthodoxies, there is too much similar in what I see to believe that God is not at work within and through both of us. I find it sad to know that the one group that the Buddhists are most concerned with (in Western Buddhism) is Christians, because we have been so harsh with them and often spread much falseness of their practices.
You see, it’s not a one-time issue that I’ve had that leads me to this conclusion that our orthodoxy is out of line. It is a historical trend and a current practical environment that makes it observable. Many would criticize this observation method. But I feel that it is equally defendable in that it is a balance of experience, tradition, scripture and reason. I would likely be more criticized, though would feel just as well if I defended it as divine inspiration.
Peace be with you!
HNM,
With all do respect, you have no idea what prevenient grace is all about. It is the grace that goes before, it is the grace that enables us to respond to God's offer of salvation. The key word is respond, if you reject Christ you reject God's offer of salvation. To know Christ is to know the Father, Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father expect through Me. The New Testament church new no other way to God but through Jesus. I would say you are better describing universalism, not prevenient grace. I would much rather be talking about how the Church can live out the faith of Christ in the World today and how we can reach out to the marginalized and poor of this world, both in word and deed. But you have made this about theology. Was it not John Wesley who said that on the essential doctrine there must be unity, on non-essntial things liberty and in all things charity. Yes all truth is God's truth, but at the same time we must know the truth that will set us free and that truth is in the person Jesus Christ. We can pray that all people will be saved because that is God's will. But then that brings us full circle. "How must one be saved?" And if you believe what Christ taught and what has been believed by the Church always. It is to believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Prevenient grace is a wonderful way to understand how God's is trying to bring all people unto Himself through FAITH in Christ. For salvation is only by grace through faith, we are not saved by works but unto works. The problem with ALL other religions is that they are all religions of works not GRACE and Grace is a person Jesus Christ. Right faith does matter, thats what orthodoxy is all about, otherwise you end but with a heterodox mess. I'm a gentlemen so I will give you the last word my heterodox friend.
In the TRUTH(JESUS),
Pastor Steven
Wow, Pastor Stephen, that was a greatly ironic post. You started out saying "with all due respect," and then proceeded to show very little respect, saying immediately that HNM "has no idea what prevenient grace is all about." Even if that is true - and I don't think it is - that was an extremely unGRACEous way to say it. You closed by saying that as "a gentleman" you would "give the last word," even as you yourself spoke a last word.
I understand that we are treading in hot theological ground, but I want to encourage you to reign in your temper for the sake of mutual discussion.
As for the theology itself, I don't agree with everything that HNM has said, but I think he is possibly closer to Wesley's thought than you. I could not find the reference to this, but one of my favorite images from Wesley is the idea of grace as air. God provides grace to all of us, but we have to respond (breath out). Until we respond to the grace we already have, we can receive no more grace. HNM seems to be saying that there are people out there who are breathing in and out who have never heard about Christ (or responded through the orthodox church), yet they are still actively responding to the God who is working in their lives. This strikes me as very Wesleyan (with an admittedly postmodern twist).
OK, I went to my bookshelf: Randy Maddox "Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology."
"Grace is the Holy Spirit at work in our life, initiating and sustaining our recovery to Christ-likeness," (86). Surely we would not limit the work of the Holy Spirit to the limits of the Church.
"Wesley argued that those in whom God's Spirit is acting must, by a spiritual re-action, return to God the grace which they receive, for God does not continue to act upon a soul unless the soul re-acts upon God" (86-87). - This was the whole breathing analogy.
"Prevenient Grace should not be considered a gift from God, but the gift of God's activity in our lives sensitizing and inviting us ... With God's approach our faculties are increasingly empowered, to the point that we can recognize our need and God's offer of renewed relationship, and respond to it" (89-90). Surely God is actively present with all people and actively drawing all people to himself regardless of their awareness or consent to Christian orthodoxy.
OK, that's probably enough for now. As we debate theology and praxis and all other issues relating to following Christ in a radically changing world, please, let's remain humble and kind.
Steven,
I understand your emotion and how much my words appear so wrong to you. I am tugging at something that is immoveable in your, and many others’ minds. I accept that I do not hold 100% truth or that I am right and you are wrong. I do believe there is truth, but as I’ve said before, I’m sure we have all not found it completely in our world. Yes, Jesus is truth, but we all interpret that in different words and thoughts and feelings. The Orthodox Creeds capture what those in that time period felt, with what I believe was other motives as well, in words that meant something in their community. I will continue in my position as it is modified through all means of learning (including your reactions).
I’m so glad that Josh brought up Maddox’s book “Responsible Grace” because it was exactly the text I was considering when I was discussing the part of Prevenient Grace that I presented. Yes, it is the grace that is sent before, along to all throughout the world, looking for a response. But as I said, our friend Wesley thought a bit further outside of the box than many of us that this could involve a response outside of the “name of Christ” and more in the “spirit of Christ” (my words, not his). I think it was James (Diggs) that used the term earlier “substance of Christ” which I believe was also used by Samir Selmanovic in his sermon “Finding Our God In The Other” (can be found on emergentvillage.com and revolutionnyc.com).
“A heterodox mess”? Is it a mess because God and Jesus then do not fit into our nice and neat little orthodox definition? See that is a point I’m trying to make. We have that type of a mess already based upon the narrow definition we have that was written into stone tablets by man and not by God. I think you are right that we need to follow Jesus, but not by a word, but in our lives.
It saddens me that you feel that ALL other religions are based ONLY on works. It is easy for it to appear this way, but without understanding the “motive of their hearts” then we have little room to say this is completely true. It appears to me that you feel it is more important for me to participate in the “work” of believing the dogma of orthodoxy than it is to be motivated in my heart to love and care and practice sharing and caring for others in the world. In that way, I am saying that the Creed itself is then an idol. The creed isn’t and idol, it is a statement of a faith. But if we take it so far as to say that it MUST be understood exactly as it is written, then it is and idol, or a god unto itself.
We’ve really crossed so many paths here that I may just be stirring the pot too much. I hope you can read through my words and read my heart. I appreciate the offer for the last words, but I don’t want the last word. I want the conversation to continue here or in other forms/topics/posts. I think that is the spirit of the emergent conversation. Varied people coming together and sharing, learning, discussing, discovering, considering, growing, … I appreciate the tension between our views and encourage you to read the Maddox text that Josh and I referred to. Actually, I don’t recommend it as it is dry, long, lacking in white space, … But it offers some good info. I also appreciate any other articles, books, or places that you might find interesting perspectives on the topic.
Peace!
Josh,
Thanks for jumping into this conversation; I love the breathing analogy to prevenient grace. I agree that is very Wesleyan. Thanks for sharing it.
HNM,
You caught me, I did borrow the term “substance of Christ" from Samir Selmanovic; I think “Finding Our God In The Other” was a great message- and while, like everything, I don’t agree with him about everything, I definitely think there is something to this idea.
I also think you are right that the creeds can be and idol, but then again I strongly feel that many people make scripture an idol; I am still not ready to abandon either. But, I do appreciate conversations like these that at lease remind us that such is possible and hopefully helps us view such things with an appropriate lens that will free us from such idolatry.
If you ever want to correspond more by email please feel free; and of course I will keep you anonymity safe. james(at symbol)corridorchurch.com
Steven,
I am sure you sincerely meant to respond with all do respect; frankly one of the weaknesses of online “conversations” of blog comments is that we can not read thing like voice inflection and body language that would give us a better idea of your intentions. It is really easy to misread anger or disrespect into typed words on a screen from people we hardly know. Thank you for your comments Steven, I think your position is important to the conversation and I appreciate your passion for Christ.
Peace,
James
James,
I didn’t “catch” you, more I was placing an educated guess as you having listened to Samir. The language he used, which I know I’ve heard before, but cannot place, is catchy to say the lelast.
I appreciate you meeting me in the middle and understanding where I am coming from. I respect your choice to not abandon either. Though I do hope you and others see a need for change and move towards that change, perhaps knowing that there are some who will intentionally work to make these creeds and scriptures not be idols, or tools of distancing is the best I can ask for a the moment.
I’ve hemmed and hawed at the wording of this response because I want to show flexibility, while still maintaining how strongly I feel that they weren’t created under the most holy of circumstances and therefore remain questionable. For anyone else just catching on to the conversation, there is a lot of history in the above posts before being able to come quickly to a conclusion on that statement.
Now that I am inspired so, I believe I will attempt to write a paper to post on a new blog dedicated to this thought process and conversation. I will need to pull in the references I lightly referred to in my conversation here. Allow me the time to do such and then we’ll be in contact again as I would love your as well as other readers’ opinions on the paper.
Peace,
Heretic No More, an old friend
Here are some thoughts:
I am very intrigued by what is trying to be accomplished in exploring emergent language with reference to our historical statement. The emergent/emerging movement seems to focus on engaging and taking seriously the cultural shift from modernity to post-modernity, which may have been taking place for near a century now. However, it seems also clear that while there has been a paradigm shift occurring it isn't over. Emerging/emergent language and movement may be critical to our future, but as Dr. Blevins has already suggested, missional language should be included.
When we think about missional language we must locate ourselves within God's mission in the world. Take for example, Exodus 19:6a, "you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (NRSV). Embedded in this are the ideas of mission, community, and holiness. Mission: God took the initiative to make for Himself a people. Attached to this mission is the commission by Jesus to go into all the world and make disciples (Matthew 28). Community: this people will be a kingdom and a nation; there will be a clear community in God's people. Holiness: this kingdom will be priestly ministering to God and this nation will be holy, set apart for God.
Taking seriously the command to love God and love each other must be a part of the mission, community, and holiness of Christians in general and Nazarenes in particular.
How can we look to the future without speaking of mission, community and holiness? This language engulfs and surpasses the language of the emergent/emerging church movement. At least, I think so.
I invite dialog on this.
I would invite you to understand the definition of emergent. After doing so you will see that early on in the Church of the Nazarene it was very much Emergent.
I am more than excited about the new addition to the manual about the emerging movement of the church. God is answering my prayers and I am humbled! But, could anyone suggest to the board about a rewriting of section 435.8. This is horribly written! While pediphiles are one thing...lumping them in the same catagory as homosexuals is not right. As well as...homosexuals can find Jesus too...and change....and be great leaders of the church! Just my two cents...but I am very serious.
Sorry Amy the post about the energent church in the manual was an April fools joke.
Even though I see your point, 435.8. is about the sexual misconduct of clergy, not homosexuals in general.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
I think the point being is that the manual is stating that whether the minister is a pedophile, homosexual, or cheating on his/her spouse that they can NEVER be restored. Linking the pedophile piece which is most likely a much deeper mental issue along with homosexuality or infidelity is a bit over the top.
Actually, we are dealing with three completely different scenarios, two of which are sins and one which is not. This one doesn't even cause harm to another, nor does it stifle one's walk with God.
Using this logic it would be more appropriate to state it like this:
"Because some types of misconduct, such as sexual misconduct involving children, gossip, or repeated use of leagalism, are rarely the result of a one-time moral lapse, individuals who are guilty of such sin that have a high probability of repeated miscoduct should not be restored to good standing."
Now, I might keep the recurring infidelity in the statement too as that brings about much hurt to all parties involved. But I think you get my point and can better appreciate Amy's point.
HNM,
Are you saying homosexual sex is not a sin? Amy wants to help homosexuals get out of the life style not affirm it. I think you are missing the whole point. All she is saying is that she does not want them to be lumped in with pediphiles, which I can understand. You need to read all of section 435 to understand it, whether you agree with it or not. Even though I do not think it is fair that those who have committed sexual misconduct of a homosexual nature can never be restored to good standing in ministry. As far as pediphiles go, I say no way!
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
I'm agreeing with Amy that homosexuals should not be lumped in with Pedophiles. I think we are all in agreement that as of this time there is little known that can truly "change" the mental isses that revolve around this specific act and it needs to be treated with care and other than wording changes I think we take a pretty fair look at it.
As for homosexuality, allow me to avert a long conversation by saying that it certainly does not fit into this category of not being able to be restored to ministry. My comparrison of gossip being an infraction that could be worthy of non-restoration was meant as an extreme contrast. Whether one interprets homosexuality as a sin or not certainly does not make it worthy of a punishment greater than that of someone who is a gossip.
But no, I do not believe that a commited homosexual relationship is a sin. I believe we inappropriately interpret scriptures that are referring to something different.
Peace!
I think after looking at section 435.8 it seems to imply that anyone that has had an impropriety of a homosexual nature can not be reinstated as a Pastor because of "high probability of repeated misconduct."
I think this is grossly mis categorized because it assumes that people who feel they are homosexually oriented are incapable of learning and overcoming past indiscretions and behaviors. There is nothing about a homosexual orientation alone that is different from a heterosexual one when it comes to making one any more likely to repeatedly fail in moral conduct.
Now if their is some other sexual addiction, such as pornography attached with it I can see how such might be linked to repeatable indiscretions. But this would be true regardless of sexual orientation and I am not sure that it fair to say that such addictions can not be overcome. Of course if an sexual misconduct, even if it was just pornography, involved children a stronger position would need to be taken for the safety of our children. I think that is the biggest point of the section in question.
I guess I find it interesting that a single homosexual indiscretion is assumed to signify a high probability of repeated offenses but marital infidelity is not assumed such until it proves to be "repeated".
I think the assumption is incorrect concerning homosexuality and should be removed from this particular section and not be referred to as something that has a higher probability for repeated sexual misconduct. Homosexuality alone should not be viewed in the same light as pedophiles or even in the same light as someone with "repeated marital infidelities", for which it makes plenty of sense not to renew the status as a credentialed minister.
Hnm,
I think we are in agreement that those who are involved in sexual misconduct or sin of the homosexual type should not be treat harsher than those who are involved in sexual sin of the heterosexual type, after all they would both either be considered fornication or adultery. The only difference is that the act of homosexual sex is always sin as there is no way to make it right, unlike the act of sex in a marriage between a man and a woman. This is the plain teaching of scripture.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
Steven and HNM,
I still believe that homosexuality is unhealthy and thus strictly speaking can still be categorized as "sin". However I think we often over play this and make more of both the unhealthiness and thus sinfulnesses aspects of homosexuality while ignoring what often is more unhealthy and more sinful behavior that can manifest itself in heterosexuality.
We two often define healthy sexuality as just being one that takes place between a husband and wife like that is the end of it. Unfortunately, sometimes some extremely unhealthy and sinful behaviors exhibit themselves in that context; the church often ignores these or pretends that they are somehow still healthier than homosexuality.
I don't think that is necessarily true, and I actually think that their are some homosexual relationships that are far more healthy in comparison than some heterosexual ones. I don't think this means that we ignore homosexuality, but we better take the log out of our own eye and work towards promoting healthy sexuality altogether rather than blaming homosexuality for the sliding state of sexual morality in our country.
As for the "plain teaching of scripture" I think we have to come to better answers than just because "the bible tells us so". I don't think that all of the few scriptures concerning homosexuality have been totally "inappropriately interpreted" as HNM does; I think it is pretty clear that the authors of these passages believed homosexuality to be a perversion. However, there are also scriptures that promote stoning someone for minor theft or infidelity as somehow a reasonable form of justice. I don't think scripture is the source of morality, but it does point us in that direction. So I would agree with you Steven about the sinfulness of this issue, but not because the bible tells us so.
In my mind I have not yet been convinced that homosexuality is a healthy thing. The move away from considering it unhealthy by the medical community I think was largely a political one and not one based on any real kind of study. Like I said I am not yet convinced that homosexuality is at least the most healthy of lifestyles. I think this certainly is a reasonable position.
I think the church failed to take part in these kind of discussions though that explored the health aspects of this issue because we fall short at stopping our analysis at the "bible tells us so". This kind of bad logic also stopped us short of defining healthy sexuality in general as just intercourse between a husband and wife; again, like thats all healthy sexuality is.
I think the church needs to think harder and deeper about these issues and not make the bible a morality idol that we think can speak to the breadth and depth of all morality and ethics. Scripture does not define the end of morality, it just the beginning of the journey- pointing us to Christ as he reconciles us to loving relationships with God and our neighbor.
This is a difficult discussion, but I think one we need to continue to have. Thank you both for your views.
Peace,
James
James/Steven,
Thanks for continuing the conversation and making very good points. I’m quite comforted that the three of us, who seem quite diverse on many subjects, agree on the main point of Amy’s statement. Even in our agreement on this, we can see that we are miles apart, left, center and right (whatever the scale may be), on the topic of homosexuality itself. But I think that’s a healthy place for us to be as we meet and touch different lives. I feel it safe to say that the three of us likely would treat people that have this as one of their many categories of life in a fair and respectful manner.
Ten years ago I was convicted beyond conviction that homosexuality was a sin. At the same time I was also convicted beyond conviction that a woman preaching was a sin. I understand that these two topics are from different genres, but to me the underlying substance of their Biblical misapplication is similar.
Six years ago I met a woman of God who claimed to be called to preach and teach. It wasn’t but after 10 minutes in her presence that I was convicted that my Biblical understanding from Paul must be flawed in some way. I learned more about why I believed what I believed and I experienced more women preachers who there was no doubt of their calling.
Five years (or so) ago the Episcopal Church was undergoing a change to openly recognize homosexual ministers and I had the opportunity to enter into an exchange with “one of them” (I apologize for the label) via email. I was firm in my understanding of “sin is sin”, but I wanted to understand from him how he was interpreting Scripture. After our conversations, the many references in the Bible towards the subject turned into much fewer. Most of the references made more sense to be that they dealt with not only a male on male situation, but forcible and multiple male on male encounters.
With the sin Scriptures put into perspective of a “different problem” than a committed relationship between two members of the same sex, it began looking more like my encounter with woman in leadership within the church. I began looking at people who I knew were homosexual in a different light and studying them, engaging them in conversation, and learning their story. I looked at the issues of pedophilia in the Catholic Church as well as that which we hear less about in the Protestant Church. I listened to the words preached from the homosexual pastor I had exchanged with and the other Scriptures that deal with men giving up their natural feelings and being with men, and so on, seemed much less like they were really about these people that God had put in my life and more about a specific type of people who may be like a heterosexual person who dabbles too much with their sexuality.
A quick google on the web brings out all of the arguments of interpretation on both the homosexual and the woman preacher topics. In the end, we choose where “we” stand and God will choose where He stands and where “we” lay. When the message from a pastor who is homosexual comes through clear and strong, I can see the Holy Spirit leading him or her.
Closing this note for now, I do understand where you both are coming from with classifying homosexuality as a sin and I am not judging you or asking you to change. I will only resonate earlier words where I said that I am sure we all treat all people with equal respect that God would have us do. I don’t know how we move forward to change this paragraph of the manual and am doubtful that we are quite ready as a denomination to take this step. But I would certainly be behind it.
Peace
HNM,
Thanks again for your thoughts. I think for me, whether it is Steven who says the Bible says it is sin, or you who says the Bible does not say it is sin, just saying "the Bible says" is not enough.
I think ultimately our goal is to be ministers of reconciliation to God and neighbors through Christ. With this as our mandate I find myself advocating for love, justice and removal of every barrier to reconciliation in all directions. Because of this I often find myself an advocate for homosexuals and their rights.
Still, I just am not convinced that homosexuality isn't a barrier to complete healthy sexuality on some level. Then again, like I said before I don't necessarily think that this is the ultimate barrier and that their are plenty of heterosexuals that have unhealthy sexual identity, whether it is wrapped up in sexual power plays or objectifying others, that is a far greater sin.
The homosexual Episcopal clergy you mention may indeed have a far more healthier sexuality than many heterosexual pastors and wives I have met.
Even still, I am not convinced that homosexuality is God's best for sexual health and still feel it reflects some degree of sexual brokenness. Again, I also want to keep this in perspective, and not single homosexuality out; as I see so many hetersexual sexually broken people. I am not just talking about things like sex outside marriage but real sexual brokenness even in the context of faithful marriages that church almost never addresses.
Again, I think this is a very important conversation, but one with complexeties that go far further than "the Bible says". Thanks for the conversation.
Peace,
James
James/Hmn,
I have listened to both sides of the disussion about gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals as I have had close ties with TEC. My conviction that homosexual acts are sin are yes based on scripture first, but aslo tradition and reason. With scripture being the most important of all, unfortunately many have tried to change the clear teaching of scripture simply because they have a hard time excepting it. I HOPE we all know that under the law people were stoned for various reason that under grace we would never even consider stoning them for today. And yes there are unhealthy heterosexual relationship as well and that does need to be address. But at the same time we can not let that distract us from the issue. Is there or can there be health homosexual relationships? Just because a gay relationship is healther than many heterosexual relationship does not make it healthy. Not that I'm saying you are saying that, but there is always the danger of people comimg to that conclusion.
I must say that I do try to be loving and kind to gay people and that I deplore the actions of some christians who say God hates gays. If there were a protest in my town and there were gay activist and people who think God hates gays I would rather stand with the gay activist than to stand with people who hate! For many of us who are taking a stand for what we believe to be the revealed will of God, it is hurtful to be seen as hateful. When we are just trying to speak the truth in love to are fellow man. Even though I do know actions often speak louder than words.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
James,
Your comments on "what the Bible says or does not say" is why I was bringing real people that I minister to and am ministered by into the conversation. On the topic of the section of the manual, I think it is important enough that it should be changed in our generation. But apart from that, redeeming our relationship with all of God's children is much more important than a label of sin or not sin. See, the lives that I am touched by speak volumes of testimony for what God is DOING in their lives and what God would have us do together. Not focusing on a petty issue of general sexuality.
I agree with your assessment that the real ministry in ALL relationships that we should be in is helping to overcome the brokenness that comes from various issues. Rob Bell, in his Nooma video Flame, speaks of the three Hebrew words of love used in many parts of the Bible. One that is a love of friendship, one that is a love at a deeper spiritual level, and then the intimate and sexual love. He explains how any relationship with one or two of the three without the others is missing something and the relationship will likely suffer. This is common for hetero and homosexual relationships, and if I read you correctly, we agree that this is a higher work than focusing on the sexuality of a couple.
I err to the open side of sexuality itself as not being a sin, both because of Biblical interpretation and because of witness of the Spirit through the lives of people. I think that this stance is a wonderful position to be able to minister to all people and I feel much more freedom to love and less likely to find myself in judgment. But I don’t say that we all HAVE to be in that same place as long as we show the same love and compassion of all people as equally as humanly possible.
Peace!
Steven,
It appears we were posting close together and I didn't see your comments before my post. Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your comments and reasoning, though we differ.
I too would be standing right with you on the side protecting the homosexual person from undue slander from the protestors. That whole deal pains me so much. I have a brother-in-law who rides with the bike group that goes to protect funerals from the Topeka, KS church folks who are quite misguided in their methods.
Perhaps this is another part of shaping me and my world view in relation to creeds, covenants, and scriptures based upon historical events as well. They may be a minority group in their actions, but in the circles I've ended in many times, their thoughts are not quite a minority.
Peace!
HNM,
I agree with you when it seems you were pointing out by mentioning Bell’s Flame that that we are all sexual beings regardless of sexual orientation. I think we are as a whole a sexually repressed nation- but this is not to say that self control should not be part of embracing our sexuality.
I also strongly agree that sexuality is not a sin. I also commend you for including others in the conversation that have typically not been heard and recognizing the where the Spirit may be active in their lives. I would caution you though not to abandon the other side of the conversation, still the larger side that does not agree that homosexuality is somehow perfectly healthy and in any way non-sinful. I am not saying that “majority rules”, but I am saying that in this conversation, and as the church that we are accountable to one another. To me there are too many serous questions concerning homosexuality that would need to be answered before I, and many others, would just surrender the idea that at its best homosexuality still isn’t healthy, and may be harmful on some level; and if so- sinful. I would encourage you to be a bridge between the conversations you have with those who have whole heartedly embraced homosexuality as perfectly acceptable and the many that still do not feel that way. It will take a lot of patience and a lot of time. I do think we ALL need to continue to listen in the name of love. Don’t give up listening to everyone in favor of just finding a different select group and opinion to listen too. I am not saying you are doing this, but it could be easy to let happen. Expand the conversation and help others expand it- don’t just change primary audiences. Again, I am not saying that you have done this.
Steven,
I am not sure I can accept the assumptions behind this statement - “I HOPE we all know that under the law people were stoned for various reason that under grace we would never even consider stoning them for today.” I don’t tend to buy the extreme distinctions made by some theologians to differentiate between Old and New Testament covenant and a huge religious constructed difference of being “under law” and now “under grace.” The purpose of the law has always been to help frame God’s desire for us to love God and neighbor. I think our scripture reflects the evolutional of culture and its social implications, like many other people and places around that same corresponding times in history. I believe God was present with the Jewish nation as they wrestled through these ideas of justice and righteousness, but I don’t think this means they always came to the final solution and maybe in some cases not even the right one. It seems to me that stoning someone to death for stealing food is and has always been unjust- but the context of the culture’s wrestling with morality that we get these kinds of stories from hadn’t made it that far yet. I just can’t accept that there was some morality rule change (from law to grace) on God’s part with the transition between the OT and NT- I think God’s justice is always constant and God is always good. It is humanity’s understanding of God’s righteousness and justice that is growing- I think we see this progression in scripture. Understanding this makes scripture a far more powerful guide as we try to uncover the reasons for their conclusions and base ours on the same; which was a relationship with a just, holy, loving and present God they worshiped.
Morality, righteousness, and justice are far bigger things than scripture can capture which is why scripture should only point us to God and not be treated as something that has the final word on things like morality. I think the difference between the Old and New testament is not that the rules changed, it is that Jesus completed as an incarnational person the intent of the law where the written law itself would always have fallen short on its own.
As for your thoughts concerning homosexuality, I agree with your statement that just because a gay relationship is healthier than many heterosexual relationship does not make it ultimately healthy. I just think we as a heterosexual people have such a big log in our eye concerning sexual health that in general we are not in a good position to try and help homosexuals; in fact I think the growth in homosexuality in our culture may be a result of very unhealthy heterosexuality in our culture. I think it is time to focus on fixing the larger issues of healthy sexuality and then we will have a better idea how we might tackle homosexuality.
I also greatly appreciate that you would rather stand with the gay activist than to stand with people who hate! Me too; I wish that Christians had been the loudest protesters against such hate crimes, what a missed opportunity to stand up and defend those who are victimized.
Thanks again for this conversation.
Peace,
James
It is certainly a concern that the Nazarene Church find ways to reach the "post modern" world. It would be foolish to argue against progress and new approaches, both of these are inevitable. Before embarking on a new approach, it seems to me appropriate to ask: What is the current state of the church and evaluate what would be needed to expand the Kingdom of God and collaterally, the Church of the Nazarene (in that priority) If changes need to be made, it would be prudent to make sure that the changes are fundamental and are not simply window dressing presented at the four year meeting to obscure the fact that the Nazarene Church, and churches in general are becoming less relevant to the “post modern” person.
It should be noted that the groups in the world who demand the highest levels of commitment are the ones that are experiencing growth and influence. Looking at the “post modern” community, it would seem that the idea of radical commitment is passé. The Nazarene Church should evaluate the levels of commitment to a Christian Life for which it stands from the top down. Observe the “post modern” movement of the Nazarene Leaders.
1. Pastors do not want to live in a parsonage. They argue that they should be able to enjoy the appreciation of real estate that is enjoyed by the laity. “post modern”? Isn’t there some statement that encourages us to “lay up treasures someplace else other than in our real estate”?
2. We no longer EVER vote as a congregation on pastors. The periodic votes are an annoyance and at times can be abused by disgruntled members who personally clash with the pastor. Leadership laments that there are only a few people willing to commit to being the workers in the various programs of the church and then tells everyone that it is too annoying to allow them to express their opinions concerning leadership periodically. After all, our leaders are too busy with God’s work to be encumbered with these concerns. Wow: To think that a pastor should have to deal with people who do not just love him/her. To think that being ordained would imply that there might be people in your life that would not agree with everything you were told at Seminary. How archaic. We need to become “post modern!”.
3. Pastors do not call on people. They do not seem to want to work to develop the types of relationships that would enable them to lead people to Christ. They identify “target groups”. If you happen not to be part of the “target group”, then you should recognize that you should care for your own spiritual needs. The “post modern” pastor is too busy reaching out to the “target group” to check in with you and be available to you if and when the inevitable crises of life present themselves. In order to help people when they are in need, you have to get to know them, and become their friend, BEFORE the need presents itself.
I do not mean to go on and on here. There are clearly areas where lay people in the church must step up and commit themselves to Christ at inconvenience to themselves. Pastors are not alone in the erosion of commitment. It just seems to me that it should come as no surprise to the leadership of the Nazarene Church that the philosophic approach to church attendance and the levels of commitment on the part of the laity have changed As the “post modern” person would say: DUH: “what did you think would happen?” I learned a song in Sunday School that says it all. “What you are speaks so loud that the World can’t hear what you say. Changing the manual will not help until we change our focus.
whew! I just read this entire thread of comments and probably could've spent my time a bit more wisely. The April Fool's thing drew me in and then I couldn't look away from the train wreck. lol
But these are some good conversations and I'm hopeful that like-minded leaders/pastors/Christ-followers who find themselves in the context of Nazarenedom will find ways to bring a missional and 'emerging' conversations to the forefront.
Perhaps we could meet in a great pub together for a chat! ;-)
Chris,
Thanks for throwing in the pub line, it fits in well. Actually, I'm up for it, but that's no surprise to most here. I bet you could find James there as well. As far as some of the others, I'm not sure.
Peace!
A pint of Guinness draught in a good Irish pub would be nice, but then CotN people are not allowed to indulge, even in moderation.
Peace,
Thirsty
Certainly you are mistaken about the position of the CotN. Though I know the manual has a small blurb about intoxicants, it must be a leftover from times gone by. Like some of the interesting laws we find still on the books in many of our states.
It seems that the majority of the church has forgotten the entirety of 34.5 and tends to focus only on no drinking and no smoking, while turning a lazy eye to doing whatever is within our means to minimize the availability to ourselves and others. In addition the words speak only to one side of science saying that there are detrimental consequences of use and ignores the health benefits for our modern (and postmodern) diets. In ages past it was an aid in digestion and today it is an aid in blood flow.
I don't take lightly the warning of the possibilities for and abuse of a pint, but we certainly are remiss in full application.
So as a member and a minister, I say lift a pint with a cautious hand and an open heart. Do not cause others to stumble, but do not deny yourself and others a drink with friends.
Peace!
OK, so I'd like to know: for you Nazies out there, how do you handle the prohibition of alcohol in the Manual? As HNM pointed out, the Manual is actually much stronger than simply abstention. It actually says we should actively work for total prohibition and that we should boycott all institutions that sell alcohol. These would include every Mexican and Italian restaurant in the world, except of course beautiful Taco Bell. Seriously, though, any restaurant with food over $6-7 dollars a plate is going to offer beer or wine, and almost every grocery store and convenience store offers the same. The unavoidable truth is that breaking the boycott part of this paragraph has become practically unavoidable.
So then, what do you - you pastors and Nazie laypersons out there- what do you do about the abstinence part?
I feel a deep sense of confliction here. One one hand, I feel a duty to fulfill my verbal commitment to uphold the CotN and the Manual. On the other hand, I feel like requiring abstinence from alcohol is clearly legalism and often a hindrance to relationships (especially with people outside the church). I actually feel like not drinking sometimes hurts my "witness" more than it helps. Yet, I feel like a hypocrite if I do drink.
What to do?
What do you do?
James or other contributors,
Is there a way to make this topic on abstinence a new topic post for discussion so that others who aren't likely to follow down to post 99 might read?
Thank you
Peace!
I think our stand on total abstinence from alcohol is something that we need to address. Yes we know that the abuse of alcohol is wrong and that drunkness is seen as sin in scripture. But on the other hand moderate drinking is not a sin, even though we have tried to make it out to be. This is a bigger issue than many people might think. I for one would like to have the option to use real wine in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Which was the norm until about the mid 1800's when Mr. Welch first start pasteurizing grape juice. Our manual says "total abstinence" and "total prohibition". I don't know are we going to far? Even though I understand why the church has taken such a strong stance.
Peace in Christ,
Pastor Steven
Mr. Diggs,
I, too, completely fell for your April Fool's joke; although it was almost a year after you actually posted it. It really has just been in the past few months that I have even heard anything about "emergent Nazarenes." And in trying to just figure out what it even is and where it is going, I have a google alert set up to let me know when any new posts about it are made. So not sure how, but this past Sunday this "Emergent Church in the Nazarene Manual" post popped up in my e-mail.
Anyway, I would like to sincerely say that I understand a joke is a joke...all in good fun...and that's all great. BUT, I would also like to sincerely say that I think that type of joke was irresponsible on your part. Obviously you know that lots of people read your blog...people who are completely on board with the "emergent movement" AND people who have real concerns about where it's going. You had to realize that posting something as significant as that would cause a stir, which I'm guessing is what you wanted. And it did...from both sides of the table.
The part I really find irresponsible is that you must know how strongly people feel about their beliefs, and when you make claims like the ones you did, it is almost provoking people to anger and panic. Making them feel like "emergent Nazarenes" are coming in and trying to slip in "emergent" language under the radar to get the denomination's "seal of approval" without anyone really knowing about it or what it means.
And for a group of people who seem to want to have an "open conversation" with Nazarenes who do not identify with "emergents," it seems pretty counterproductive to make claims that you KNOW will insight immediate conflict and confusion.
Forget April Fools...it was just plain foolish.
-Jen
Jennifer,
I appreciate your concern for "open conversation", I am very interested in just that. I will say though, even though the post caused a "stir" last year, the climate was significantly different a year ago. The context of the joke poked fun at both sides, but especially those wishing for more recognition of the emergent conversation in the denomination. I find it an incredibly silly idea to put the word "emergent" in the manual. So the joke played more toward those with emergent leanings, than those who were against it. I think it is important to be able to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously from time to time.
Last years joke was aimed at ourselves more than others.
However, I am sure as you know from your google alert setting that the climate now is a bit different. There are a few so called "discernment ministry" blogs springing up dedicated to witch hunts that expose "emergent heresy" in the church of the Nazarene.
The panic that these sites are trying to leverage is truly scary. They certainly take themselves too seriously thinking it is God they are taking seriously.
This years April fools joke takes into account the other side of the absurdity that we find in these kinds of websites. This years joke explores what it would be like to give these so called "discernment ministry" voices what they want.
I am sorry if my joke last year cause you any "panic" or "confusion",though I can't imagine that this lasted long or that you failed to discover pretty quickly that it was an April fools joke.
I am getting to this rather late. As a long-time part of the Wesleyan holiness movement, this Emergent thing is clearly heresy. It has nothing to do with scriptural holiness except you guys are pirating the language to hide the facts that it is pagan, postmodern, and the religious side of political progressivism. I join the battle, even as an old man, to hold to the Scriptures, not fanciful notions about them. I suppose you will not go away but neither shall I until God calls me to Himself. There is a growing number of us Nazarenes who will stand in your way all the way. By the way, please notice I am not being ano nymous. I live in Nashville and am a member of Nashville First, and an ordained Nazarene elder on the Tennessee district.
Post a Comment