Reflections on the Baptist's words

As I sat in church on Sunday, the text spoke to those who were the "haves" of society and outlined their responsibility to the "those who do not have." Part of the issue, as I see it, is that our economic systems have strong tendencies to benefit those who already have. Simply because of where I live, my educational level and other factors, I have opportunities that others would love to have. I confess, that like many others, I tend to under-appreciate those opportunities.

Like most people in the United States, I have some savings for retirement. Most of these savings are in various kinds of mutual funds. Some of those funds have elements of social justice as a part of there investment philosophy; however, even these funds invest in the US stock market. Stock markets tend to benefit the largest companies and seem to have limited benefit to those outside of the ones who already have enough to invest there.

Herein lies my difficulty and my question. While I have no problems investing in these funds per se, it seems that the recent past has resulted in lackluster returns where my portfolio decreases in value while I continue to read about excessive compensation for top executives. While returns shouldn't be my major motivating factor, I wonder how my investment strategies make sense in light of the Gospel. Prima facie, my retirement money is part of the continuing system of helping those who have to have more.

Now before you accuse me of being a communist or socialist or something else, let me state an alternative I which were out available to me and others. I wish that part of my retirement savings could go into a fund that would be used to finance micro-loans to persons attempting to start new businesses either in the blighted urban areas or in developing nations. I know there are sites where I can directly help in these kinds of endeavors, but I'm thinking that I'd like to put the funds into some kind of "fund" or large "pot" whose purpose is to give loans to help those who do not have in developing nations and portions of the US that traditional banks have forgotten. I also admit that with all the work related to my kids, my job, and life in general, I don't have the time to try to spend evaluating all of these options.

As part of the funds rules, one would recognize that the returns might be lower than some kind of funds that invested in stock markets. The lower returns would be offset by the knowledge that the dollars invested in this "fund" would have an uplifting effect on the "least of these." With some of the sites boasting a 98% repayment rate, it honestly seems much less risky tahn some of the traditional options. Obviously, most people wouldn't put all of their savings into this kind of fund, but what if it were an option? What kinds of good could happen if there were millions or billions of dollars that could be lent at affordable rates to those seeking to better their life?

Perhaps there are options out there, already... If there aren't, how could we start something like this option?

A great article on Inerrancy ...

Perhaps the biggest theological difference between the "Concerned" and those who aren't a part of that camp is the way they view Scripture. My difficulty with the way that the "Concerned" portray this distinction as if there are only two options.

The first option, (and the correct one on their thinking) is that Scripture is true not only in the whole but in every part. Scripture, on this view, is wholly a "God" document and contains nothing of humanity. This view, which is commonly described as "Biblical Inerrancy" seems to see all other views (such as the assertion that the Scriptures are "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith") as a low or inferior view of Scripture. Based on the rhetoric they use, one might even assume that they think persons who hold this view aren't really Christians. At best, they are heretics who should be expelled from the church.

The second option, as they seem to outline the landscape, takes in all other views of Scripture. These views, inasmuch as they affirm humanity's role in the Scripture deny any involvement by God or question God's involvement to the degree that Scripture is irrelevant for faith or daily life.

Logically, they seem to think they have impaled folks who disagree with them on the horns of a dilemma. Either one affirms Scriptural inerrancy or one cannot trust anything in the Bible. However, this dilemma is a false one and there is a clear way between the horns of this dilemma. C.S. Cowles, who has taught at Point Loma Nazarene University, shows how one can affirm the truth of the Scripture without holding to inerrancy.

I thought this article was well reasoned and did two things well. First, it does an excellent job of explaining some of the difficulties with adopting the viewpoint of Scriptural inerrancy. The position entails many difficulties that proponents seem ot ignore. Second, I think it also does a good job of showing how one can love the Bible and affirm the truth it contains without holding to inerrancy. While this article is a bit long, it is worth your time if you are interested in these questions...

C.S. Cowles - "Scriptural Inerrancy? 'Behold, I show you a more excellent way'"

A Word of Encouragement

While this blog has been silent for some time, I am not unaware that those who called themselves “concerned” have continued to hit out against their enemies. I call them their enemies, not necessarily because they are seeking to cause problems for the “concerned,” but instead because they are daring to imagine new ways for the church seeks to proclaim the good news to the lost and hurting.

I was explaining missional theology to a friend who is a generation older than I am. After explaining as best I understood that folks are seeking to find ways to reach out to their communities and search for ways to find community in a fractured world, he said something to the affect of “Isn’t that what the Church has always been about? I remember that we did those kinds of things in the Church.”

All I can say is that somewhere, the way the church had functioned (for my friends generation) was lost. I’ve no idea what happened, but I still struggle to understand how some of those practices didn’t retain their prominence in the church. I’m worried that I don’t do enough and that I don’t give or live like my friend. I think sometimes I’m too absorbed in the consumer culture of the United States to live out the Gospel with the simplicity early Nazarenes did.

To those voices who clamor for the recovery of who we are: don’t stop. Don’t give up. There are many of us who occupy the pews who struggle with the demands of the Gospel. We struggle at times to understand the concrete ways we should respond to God’s love. Your imagination and creativity are reminders that the Spirit has not left the Church.

To those who are cautious about all this new language of “missional” and “emergent.” Keep in mind that we are your theological children who are trying to unlearn the ways of the world as we learn anew what it means to walk in the Spirit. We need your prayers and help. Who, when a child is learning some new skill yells at them when they don’t perform perfectly on their first attempt? Moreover, is it possible for us all to conduct ourselves with enough humility that we might remember our own weaknesses?

To those who are “concerned:” I hope you remember that there are real people attached to the names you denigrate. They are real people whose families love them and care about them. They are people who, though you may disagree with them, are your brothers and sisters in Christ. They are people of the Church. They are sons and daughters who prophesy, young men who see visions, old men who dream dreams. Perhaps you would be well advised to hear the words of Gamaliel: “So I am telling you: Hands off these men! Let them alone. If this program or this work is merely human, it will fall apart, but if it of God there is nothing you can do about it—and you better not be found fighting against God!” Acts 5.38-39 (The Message)

Prayer:
Almighty God, you know that we your people seem to grope around for our way. Sometimes we struggle while some days we run effortlessly. Will you send your Spirit to encourage each of us as we attempt to walk humbly before you? Will you put to an end the rumors that destroy your people? Will you give us careful ears which are quick to listen and feet which are quick to do the good work you give us to do? Bless those who are under attack and pressed down on all sides. May they find your presence in the darkness and draw strength from your love. Prompt us to provoke each other to acts of love and charity.
Amen.

Be a Team Captain instead of the Coach

One of my favorite things to do is spend time on a soccer field. Many of my best memories from college were spending time on the soccer field with a group of guys (and occasionally gals) who spent tons of time together. I don’t have the opportunity to play like I used to in college. Now, I coach a group of six and seven year olds.

Last week during practice, I (along with another coach) were trying to instruct the kids on various techniques and skills. We asked the kids questions and invariably my son knew the answers. On a side note, he is a very smart kid and seems to gravitate toward anything I’m remotely interested. After answering questions, he would try to tell the kids what to do. He was trying to be a coach. After practice, we sat down on the side of the field. As we removed our cleats and changed into regular shoes I asked my son, “Do you know what a captain does on a soccer team?”

I think he knew where I was going (and he remembered a previous talk) because he rattled off a few things a team captain does:

• Plays as hard as they can


• Does their best


• Encourages their teammates

I wonder, “how often in life do we do the same things my son was doing on the soccer field?” How often do we try to become the coach? Why do we act like we are the only people who can do something?

Now I realize there are dangers in comparing God to a “coach” and I don’t want to take that metaphor too far, yet at the same time, would we do better if we acted less like a coach and more like a team captain?

What does life look like when we trust that God’s Holy Spirit is active in the lives of others? What does “playing as hard as we can” look like in life? How do we encourage others? Finally, how is that kind of living the kind of living that lines us up with the mission of God in the world to reconcile all persons to Gods own self?

Index to the Review of the Concerened Nazarene's DVD

Given the fact that the review I posted of the Concerned Nazarenes' DVD was posted in five separate parts, I wanted to provide a post that would give users easy sequential access to the information. Below you will find links to each of the five posts. The entire review was written by Ryan Scott and provides helpful information and what seem to me to be valid critiques and concerns without resorting to personal attacks or diatribes.

1. Introduction and Chapter 1 of the DVD
2. Chapter 2 and 3 of the DVD
3. Chapter 4 of the DVD
4. Chapter 5 of the DVD
5. General Critiques and Final Conclusions
   

Review of the Concerned Nazarenes DVD (Part 5)

This is the final post in a five part series. This post is a continuation of the review of the Concerned Nazarene's DVD. The first post can be found here.

By Ryan Scott

General Critiques

1. There was almost no mention of the Church of the Nazarene.
   If this is truly a DVD intending to speak to the Church of the Nazarene there should be more specific references. Using non-Nazarene speakers who spend a great deal of time disparaging and rebutting standard Wesleyan Holiness theology is not helpful to the cause.
2. There was a distinct de-emphasis on Christ in favor of an over-emphasis on scripture.
   The phrase, “the power of God is in the gospel,” was used with the explanation that the words and understanding the words are the most important thing. This elevates scripture to a position of power and authority over and above Christ himself. This gives too much credence to the words of scripture and particularly to our own interpretation of scripture. While scripture is the most important means of revelation and interpretation, Wesleyans hold that scripture is not the exclusive means, along with reason, experience, and the tradition of the Church. The speakers on this DVD kept saying that experience must be tested by scripture, which is quite true, but they seem unable to believe that someone would come to a different conclusion than they have made.
3. There is an assumption that Christians cannot be discerning.
   Time and again the speakers talked of conspiracies and manipulations with the assumption that Christians would be powerless to understand when they were being told something outside of their own beliefs or tradition. Surely there are people who can be tricked and led astray, but this DVD acts as if this is the normal position of Christians.
4. There was a combative, ungraceful posture to the overall design of the DVD.
   This critique applies specifically to the inclusion of Jon Middendorf’s name on the back cover of the DVD. Middendorf has been repeatedly attacked by name in a number of places by the Concerned Nazarenes. Christian disagreement is a practice of engagement and dialogue, not isolation and attack. The very brief coverage of Middendorf’s out of context statements does not warrant the prominence of his name.
5. Much of the arguments were based on illogical conclusions.
   The speakers demonstrated that some very liberal people, well outside the realm of orthodoxy, used specific buzzwords and then made the assumption that anyone who would use these same words must be as liberal and heretical as the first person. This is just not a sound logical leap. This guilt by association technique has gotten us in trouble countless times over the years. In his final conclusion, Sandy Simpson pointed out that while the emerging leaders have some good things to say, they also have some troublesome things to say. For him this meant throwing out the good with the bad, because Satan often sneaks the good in with the bad to deceive us. If this logic were extended, we would all have to be in perfect agreement all the time to respect each other’s opinion on anything.

Final Conclusions

As you can see, the fifth chapter is the one which got under my skin a little more than the rest. I appreciate the efforts of the Concerned Nazarenes to get these statements and opinions out to the public. I hope that they will take up opportunities to speak with other Nazarenes about why we disagree in some of these areas. While I have not read every book to which they refer, nearly every book they referenced that I have read was misrepresented in the DVD. This takes away from the credibility of the speakers. They often accused the emerging leaders of setting up straw men to knock down; this is probably true, but no different than the straw man arguments used in this DVD.

Perhaps the most troubling element of the DVD for me was the introduction. While it is relatively harmless upon first viewing, it is disheartening in light of the content of the DVD. I admit that Rev. Beverly Turner has every right to be upset with some of the contents; she should feel comfortable and secure in expressing her doubts about specific practices and beliefs, but to have an ordained elder endorsing a DVD that devotes so much of its content to contradicting traditional Nazarene doctrines and belief is very sad. I think we all would have been better off with a Concerned Nazarenes DVD that took a truly Nazarene perspective.

I do believe that there are legitimate differences that continue to need dialogue and discussion. Many contemporary issues, both practical and theological, require sound discernment and study with contributions from a range of sources and perspectives. I will not defend Brian McLaren or anyone else’s opinion on individual matters, but I do wish to stand up in favor of fair and honest engagement, rather than suspicious attacks. Without genuine unity and care for each other nothing will be resolved.

Review of the Concerned Nazarenes DVD (Part 4)

This is the fourth post in a five part series. This post is a continuation of the review of the Concerned Nazarene's DVD. The first post can be found here.

By Ryan Scott

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 was an interview with Sandy Simpson, a missionary and author, again about McLaren and the emerging church, but also specifically about diaprax, which he described as an intentional manipulative means of getting someone to believe one’s own opinion and think that they came up with it themselves. This, he claimed, was what emergent leaders were secretly doing when they held dialogues or conferences. They had audio clips that purportedly showed McLaren doing this, although they did not play them. Simpson also commented that during his workshops, McLaren would have people break into groups to discuss for themselves, but he always had spies at work to make sure the groups moved in the direction the speaker wanted them to move.

This interview contained a lot of eye rolling and obvious disparagement. Simpson was obviously quite upset about these wrongs and blamed the emerging church for the failure of traditional mission work. He claimed McLaren coined the term “missional” in the 1990’s to describe the attempt by emerging leaders to change the focus of Christian life from winning souls to fixing the planet. Simpson also said that while emerging leaders did have legitimate critiques of the Church, they also had a lot of troubling things to say including solutions that would bring about the antichrist and a one world government at the end of time (there was a veiled reference to President Obama here as well).

This chapter contained few, if any positive attributes and, in my opinion, damaged the value of the DVD as a whole. Simpson certainly seemed genuine, even if he acted less professional and respectful than the other speakers. He seemed more knowledgeable and prepared than other speakers, at least on the wide variety of topics covered, however, he was ungracious and condescending and the charges of intentional manipulation seem a bit far fetched.

Many of the complaints he made about emerging leaders were so general that they could have equally applied to his own interview on this DVD. When speaking about persuasive techniques it is easy to make them sound manipulative (as in a sense, all human attempts at persuasion are, in essence, manipulative). There were also some troubling statements presented as fact. For example, the term “Missional” has been around for nearly 100 years and refers most often to the idea of prevenient grace expounded above. Also, I attended one of McLaren’s conferences and the statement about “spies” certainly did not apply there (unless he had secretly co-opted two local pastor friends of mine or their spouses). Many of the general critiques of the whole DVD listed below apply particularly to chapter 5 as well.

Review of the Concerned Nazarenes DVD (Part 3)

This is the third post in a five part series. This post is a continuation of the review of the Concerned Nazarene's DVD. The first post can be found here.

By Ryan Scott

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 was an interview with Mike Oppenheimer, another author and former New Age practitioner. His comments were very pragmatic in nature. This was perhaps the least well produced segment. Oppenheimer wasn’t that comfortable on camera and perhaps that nervousness led him to appear a little less together. He spoke of his conversion from New Age practices and the dangers these pose for the Church. He also spoke about how many of the things he sees and hears from emergent leaders come from the New Age literature he used to read.

This segment touched on Jon Middendorf, which was the only connection in the entire DVD to the Church of the Nazarene (aside from the short introduction). Oppenheimer mentioned he had seen or heard a few clips from Jon’s workshop at M7 and they had some audio from a podcast where Jon was speaking with Greg Horton, although Horton did all the talking. Oppenheimer commented on two statements he connected with Middendorf, one a quote from the M7 conference where Jon said, “An emerging congregation embraces the culture and expects to find God there,” and the other a comment made by Horton on the podcast that too many Christians think there was a time when people actually lived according to the Mosaic Law.

Oppenheimer was passionate and given his background as, essentially, a pawn manipulated by the New Age movement, he is rightly concerned in keeping others from the same fate. It is difficult to fault someone for such strong feelings when they have such an emotional connection. At the same time, one with such an intense connection often has difficulty gaining proper perspective to truly evaluate those experiences.

At one point Oppenheimer spoke of moving from yoga to vegetarianism to a religious sect that was essentially Satanist. He spoke as if this was a natural movement. It might be without some other accountability procedure, but it is difficult to say that it is automatic transition. He gave lip service to the idea that people could practice yoga without incorporating Hinduism into the practice, but he was unwilling to say it was possible. Again, it seemed like his personal involvement clouded his ability to judge the involvement of others in some of the same practices.

As for his dealings with Jon Middendorf, it was pretty apparent that he had little actual knowledge of who the man was and had only been given some clips on which to comment. He read almost exclusively from a note pad during this part of the interview. He also misinterpreted the statements that were used.

In the quote, “An emerging congregation embraces the culture and expects to find God there,” Oppenheimer rebutted that we should never look for God in the world around us, but find God in scripture. I agree, in principle, with the rebuttal, however perhaps the lack of context made it more difficult for Oppenheimer to understand Middendorf’s point.

I was in attendance at this conference and participated in this particular workshop. Jon was referring to prevenient grace, in that God is always at work everywhere, so when Christians get out into the world, they expect to see God already at work in some way, even if the gospel still needs to be proclaimed or light shown on those places in which God is already at work. This concept of prevenient grace is traditional Wesleyan theology. It would have been heartily affirmed by any of the founders of the Church of the Nazarene.

The second comment, that no one ever actually lived according to the law of Moses was made not by Jon, but by Greg Horton. Jon Middendorf has taken a lot of heat for befriending Horton, an intellectual who has strayed in and out of orthodoxy in his beliefs. Regardless, even in this point, Horton was simply trying to communicate that even the Jews could not live up to the Law of Moses. Oppenheimer made the same point in his rebuttal; this was again a place of mistaken context.

Review of the Concerned Nazarenes DVD (Part 2)

This is the second post in a five part series. This post is a continuation of the review of the Concerned Nazarene's DVD. The first post can be found here.

by Ryan Scott

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 is an interview with Ray Yungen (books by this author on Amazon.com)who is an author skeptical of contemplative prayer and meditation, specifically the movement birthed by Thomas Merton and the writings of Richard Foster. There was extensive discussion of mantras, chanting, and the influence of eastern mystical religions upon Christian meditation and contemplative prayer.

Yungen, like Gilley, presents a relatively professional and kind demeanor in his presentation. He points out many of the extreme positions and conclusions one can legitimately reach from unabashed adherence to some of these practices. I’ve never been a big fan of such emotionally driven contemplative prayer, especially in the extreme form characterized here, so I resonated quite thoroughly with the cautions provided. There are dangers in taking any practice to an extreme conclusion.

Also like Gilley, very little attention was paid to moderate positions or the very real influence of our Christian past on current contemplative practices. Here he seemed to be throwing out tradition as a source of interpretation and understanding. I think he rightly points out that one can lose a spiritual center when experience and emotion play too large a role in one’s life, yet at the same time, comparing the rosary to Hindu chanting seems a step too far.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 is an interview with Johanna Michaelsen (Books by this author on Amazon.com), who was formerly involved in New Age practices and was converted to Christianity from that lifestyle. She’s written extensively on the dangers of New Age teaching. This interview dealt specifically with the occult and how spiritual warfare is engaged through these practices. I am not all that big on demons and such, even as I recognize the reality and depth of other people’s experiences on the matter. I am not in a position to comment on this section either way.

Review of the Concerned Nazarenes DVD (Part 1)

A friend of mine recently posted a review of the Concerned Nazarene's DVD. This week, I'll be posting each day one section of the review. This review initially appeared at Naznet. The author has edited the review a bit from the initial posting to clean up typos and such. I've been working too much to watch the DVD so I'll share his insights with you. This is the first post in a five part series.

By Ryan Scott
I spent a few hours recently viewing “The Emerging Church,” a DVD provided by the group, Concerned Nazarenes, across the street from the recent General Assembly. This DVD is a series of interviews with pastors and authors concerning really three distinct topics, Brian McLaren and his Emergent movement, contemplative prayer, and New Age practices. Out of respect for the great effort and expense exercised in the production of this product and because of a commitment to Christian unity and dialogue, this review is an attempt to be even-handed and positive embracing the value of the DVD and also challenging some aspects from a Nazarene perspective. I do not wish to disrespect the fervor and passion of the Concerned Nazarenes; these are fellow Christians with legitimate concerns about the course of the denomination. The worst thing that can be done is to react dismissively or defensively. In that vein, I will highlight each section with a brief summary, followed by comments specific critiques.

After a brief opening, viewers are greeted by Rev. Beverly Turner, an experienced evangelist and ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene, who explains the problems inherent in the emerging church movement and the problems they will bring to our treasured denomination. In these few minutes, Turner presents a calm and concerned demeanor; she very passionately believes that the emerging church may be the end of the Church of the Nazarene.

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 is an interview with Pastor Gary Gilley (no biographical information is provided for any of the speakers). This chapter deals mainly with Brian McLaren and other emergent leaders, focusing primarily on theology. The most common theme is Gilley’s explanation of specifically how the emergent leaders desire to throw away all doctrine and focus Christian life on fixing the world in our own power. The main charge is that the emerging church seeks to repeat the mistakes and continued failures of the late 19th century liberal theology movement.

Gilley does well in hitting the heart of nearly every extreme statement made by a liberal outspoken proponent of many of McLaren’s ideas. This chapter is spot on in naming and refuting some of the troubling beliefs and teachings at the fringes of the emerging movement. He is never condescending or dismissive, even as the interviewer tends to be on occasion. Pastor Gilley handles his presentation in a very professional manner. He presents his viewpoints clearly and concisely. The quotes from various authors have been interpreted in more extreme and different ways than I have interpreted the same passages (for the books I have read), but that is hardly a matter of fact. McLaren often leaves his statements extremely open ended, which allows for any number of understandings. Gilley is good to remind us that no one person or system of belief should be accepted without digestion; this is a sentiment shared by McLaren and often stated publicly, even in reference to himself.

My biggest critique of the chapter itself is simply that it failed to recognize or address the fact that the concerns presented deal only with the extreme fringes of people speaking in favor of the ideas of the emergent proponents. There are certainly a number of issues (heaven, atonement, salvation, ecclesiology, etc) in which some voices have moved beyond orthodox positions. However, in those same doctrinal areas, the emerging church presents legitimate, orthodox alternative views, which should rightly be discussed; this does not happen.

By far the majority of the objections in chapter 1 (probably 60% or more) were simply a defense of reformed theology. Many of these were entirely counter to traditional Nazarene beliefs that could be seen in the Manual Articles of Faith all the way back to the beginning of the denomination. One example of this was when Gilley described an emergent understanding of salvation as being “opt-out,” that is God’s saving action of the cross provided salvation for all and only when one chooses to deny that grace are they removed from its covering. This is the classic Wesleyan understanding of salvation, which is only an affront to Gilley because of his belief in limited atonement (that Christ died only for those who would ultimately believe).

My thoughts on chapter 1 are simply, that it presented astute critiques of the theological excesses of the emerging movement, even if it may have mischaracterized some of Brian McLaren’s quotes, but the vast majority of the time was spent directly refuting classic Wesleyan principles, which have formed the Church of the Nazarene from the beginning.

Another letter about the CN's

Greetings, Friends.

I am writing because I noticed that some parishioners and friends of mine have recently joined a group on Facebook called “Concerned Nazarenes” (“CNs” for short). I have been following this group – noting their message and their methods – for over a year now as they wage a misguided war on “emergent church theologies and teachings that are coming into the Nazarene church and our universities,” a claim that is overblown and based largely on ignorance, misunderstanding, and fear. I wonder if perhaps over 200 folks have joined the CNs Facebook group without a true understanding of its history, leadership, message and tactics. If so, I would like to help by filling in some facts and additional context, in light of which they might reconsider their affiliation with this group, and so those of you who haven't joined the group might avoid any affiliation altogether.

* The CNs are being driven primarily by a man who has only been a member of a Nazarene church for about 2 years; he has no biblical or theological training; he has demonstrated a pattern of chronic trouble-making and antagonism in his previous churches; yet he is a self-appointed watchdog and heresy-hunter for our entire denomination. Sadly, there are also a few faithful, well-intentioned Nazarenes who have been sucked into this effort only to find their own reputations compromised or even ruined.

* The CNs have published materials (in print and online) attacking godly, well-respected leaders in our church. They have slandered: our General Superintendents (GSs); our seminary president Ron Benefiel, who was considered for GS at our General Assembly this summer; our Nazarene Theological Seminary, where we send pastors to be trained for ministry, and most of our other Nazarene institutions of higher education; our Nazarene university presidents like Dan Boone, who has served our denomination faithfully as a pastor, teacher and now president of Trevecca; and many other noteworthy pastors and religion professors in the denomination. Their accusations are ridiculous, and have been repeatedly discredited, yet the CNs persist in these evil smear tactics.

* The Fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) are completely absent from the literature and rhetoric of the CNs, which leads one to conclude that another spirit, not the Holy Spirit of God, is at work in their efforts. Again, I have been watching this unfold for over a year, but if you don’t want to take my word for it, browse their materials, where they speak of the “spiritual demise” of our denomination, and invite others to “join the fight to throw the bums out before the Lord pours His wrath upon our denomination” – “bums” like Dan Boone and Jon Middendorf, pastor of Oklahoma City First Nazarene (and son of one of our GSs). Their message is angry, bitter, judgmental, divisive, arrogant, ugly, paranoid and based on fear. They have even stated that they don’t care about church unity – so they are acting against Jesus’ prayer that His followers might be ONE (John 17:21).

* The CNs showed up at General Assembly (GA) with no other purpose than to create problems at a gathering that should be all about unity. They hired non-Nazarenes (and even some non-Christians!) to participate in their mud-slinging, carrying signs and passing out pamphlets and DVDs on the sidewalks outside the convention center, without approval from the denomination or even alerting them. Having failed to gain any support from well-respected Nazarene leaders, they turned to para-church figures outside the Church of the Nazarene to speak on behalf of their cause. (Thankfully, from the reports of everyone I’ve spoken to who was there, their efforts at GA were largely ignored.)

* Not only are these para-church speakers not Nazarenes - which doesn't discredit them, but they are not particularly "invested" in our denomination - it seems they don’t care about the Church of the Nazarene at all. They are taking advantage of our church for their own profit. Their ministries, which are independent and not accountable to any church, are suffering right now because of the economy, so they are rushing to wherever they see sparks flying with a can of gasoline to try and turn it into a blaze. I find this incredibly offensive.

Sadly, I could go on and on, but I don’t want to waste any more time on this than I already have, and I don’t want you to either. I am confident that this very small but very vocal group will eventually just fizzle out and go away as they continue to be ignored. But in the meantime, as they continue their assault on our Church and seek to undermine our unity and our mission, I will do everything I can to ensure that their divisive message and their satanic methods do not infect our church any further, and our Xenia Naz family in particular. My intention is not to disparage the individuals involved in this group, who may have the best of intentions, but to shed light on the darkness and nastiness of the CNs and discourage my Nazarenes brothers and sisters from buying into this cancerous effort.

Not simply as a Pastor, but as a brother in Christ, I encourage you to avoid and/or sever any connection to this group. Please do not be a “Concerned Nazarene” – what they have come to represent within our denomination is something you do not want to be part of, I promise you. Instead, be a hopeful, optimistic, joy-filled Nazarene, who believes that Christ is the Head of His Body the Church, and that He will continue to lead us in the fulfillment of the work the Father has called us to do! If you have real concerns, I assure you that the doors (and inboxes and phone lines) of your pastoral staff are always open; we want to foster a culture of openness within Xenia Naz, where real concerns are expressed and discussed and taken seriously. But let’s commit to addressing our concerns and conflicts according to the Bible’s clear instructions: by approaching one another in person, with love and grace and unity, and seeking reconciliation.

In closing, let me extend an invitation. This whole “emergent/emerging” church issue is one of the most controversial but least understood subjects being discussed in our churches right now, along with some accompanying themes like “postmodernism,” “contemplative spirituality” and “mysticism,” and so on. While I have never had any association with any church or ministry that would be described as “emergent,” I have been following the discussion surrounding “emergent” for several years, on both sides of the debate. I am by no means an expert on or a spokesperson for the “emergent movement” (if it can even rightly be called a movement), but I think I can discuss this issue with a reasonable degree of competence and fairness. So if anyone is troubled by what they have heard about this whole emergent thing, I do invite your questions and am happy to discuss any of this further with anyone who might be interested.

In the peace of Christ,

Pastor Brannon Hancock
brannonhancock at xenianaz.org

mobile: 937-510-7807

CONFESSION: I PROCLAIM A DIFFERENT JESUS!

This post was originally posted to facebook. I thought that it did such an excellent job of explaining what is good and right and Nazarene about missional theology. Here was my response:

"Sign me up. My favorite part the book Wholeness in Christ is the way he ends his discussion of the Biblical witness on sanctification by talking about the Sermon on the Mount. I like how this view recognizes the inherent opportunity in the demise of Christendom not for a rejection of Jesus, but a full embrace that encompasses both the Jesus that our concerned brothers and sisters hold up along with the Jesus we see in the writing of folks like John Howard Yoder. I like the clear way that you hold the two together and that is what I see as our hope and calling. "

I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

by James Petticrew
There has been a lot of talking about missional church folk presenting a different Jesus. Well I want to make a confession, as someone deeply committed to the missional church movement I do indeed present a different Jesus and will continue to do so. I present and try and follow a different Jesus from the one that the evangelical church in Christendom Europe (and I suspect America) shaped by modernism proclaimed. That Jesus was a Saviour but in practice little else. I affirm wholly and completely that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and outside Him there is no salvation. The problem is that the Christendom church presented Jesus as a Saviour but in practice ignored Him as an example and as a teacher. They wanted to be saved by Jesus but not shaped by Him. He was a Jesus who offered a heavenly reward devoid of real earthly change or challenge.

One of the things that attracted me to the missional movement was its emphasis on Jesus. There was an emphasis on Jesus as Saviour but also as teacher and example, in other words a commitment to being saved AND shaped by Christ. Stuart Murray in a book called POST-CHRISTENDOM puts the issue like this:

“Our greatest resource in post-Christendom is Jesus. … Our priority must be to rediscover how to tell the story of Jesus and present His life, teaching, death and resurrection – recognising past attempts have seriously missed the mark. We cannot continue to present Jesus only as the Saviour from guilt few feel in post-Christendom. Nor can we invite people to follow a Jesus who merely guarantees life after death to those who are otherwise comfortable or a Jesus whose Lordship affects only a limited range of personal moral decisions. We can no longer present a safe establishment Jesus who represents order and stability rather than justice, who appeals to the powerful and privileged for all the wrong reasons. Nor can we reduce Jesus to dogmatic statements in simplistic evangelistic courses or perpetuate the overemphasis on his divinity at the expense of his humanity that Christendom required.
Instead, we must present Jesus as (amongst much else) friend of sinners, good news for the poor, defender of the powerless, reconciler of communities, pioneer of a new age, freedom fighter, breaker of chains, liberator and peacemaker, the one who unmasks systems of oppression, identifies with the vulnerable and brings hope.
But if we would present Jesus in such ways to others we must encounter Jesus afresh ourselves” p316

For years I wondered how “evangelical” Christians could be involved in the Klan in the States, protestant para-militaries in Ulster and in the security forces of apartheid South Africa. I wondered how saved people’s underlying values reflected Western consumer culture so clearly. Then it struck me they had been present by Jesus whom they had been told had to save them but they had never heard about a Jesus whose shaping was equally necessary. This idea that we can be saved and remain unchanged should get an allergic reaction from those of us who are part of the Wesleyan Holiness movement who have always believed that salvation necessitated real progress in sanctification. The problem was that we defined holiness in legalistic terms, in terms of what we didn’t do instead of positively in terms of listening to and follow Jesus.

Surely the God given definition and demonstration of Holiness is Jesus? In Jesus teaching on the Sermon on the Mount we hear holiness defined and in His actions in the Gospels, embracing the least, the lonely and left out we see holiness demonstrated. This Jesus establishes the Kingdom of God by his passion and resurrection but calls on us to serve it in the here and now as well as wait for its consummation. His teaching and his actions show us what it means to live and serve that Kingdom. Yet all too often we have been content to be saved by Jesus but have resisted being shaped by Him. I call a that a different Jesus, a Jesus different from the one who I encounter in the Gospel who embraces his cross to save me but calls on me to embrace the cross to serve Him.

So I am committed to another Jesus, the Jesus who saves me but also has the right to shape me. This is the Jesus I want to proclaim and follow in word and deed. This is the Jesus I want to unleash in my life, in my church and in this world. This is the Jesus that the missional church movement has helped me rediscover if someone considers that heretical I wonder what Jesus they follow? (I would highly recommend Alan Hirsch’s RE-Jesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church, on this subject)

Eugenio Duarte Elected!

Congratulations to Eugenio Duarte, the first General Superintendent from outside the US! We are praying for you as you take on these new duties and lead our Church.

More information Eugenio Duarte at: http://africonnection.blogspot.com/2009/06/african-lives-2-eugenio-duarte.html

What's the point

Do the messages on the various boards and sites strike anyone else as completely absurd? I understand that I'm probably about to get added to someone's prayer list for saying this, but God have mercy. This kind of thing is as bad as my six year old and four year old arguing over who gets to play the Wii.

I'm with those who see no point in trying to keep a conversation going at this point. It is useless. It is like one group is speaking French and the other is speaking German. I struggle with the path to take in this kind of situation because as a person committed to non-violence I see this language of "battle" on either side as completely outside of how things should work. I don't want to try to fix blame but let's just say it:

We are like two sides who eat at the same table (the Lord's table) then pick up our AK-47's and start shooting in the Church. The honest truth is that the people who will be hurt the most are the people who are just there looking for God. I'm not going to stop trying to educate people about what is going on, but if someone wants to kill me because I'm a heritic or drive me out of the Church, fine.

My kids will grow to see their Papa as a man who when folks start fighting and shooting people in the Church would rather die than pick up a gun and shoot back. To the Concerned Nazarenes, you and your group go ahead. If what you are doing is of God then none of us would ever be able to stop you. If not, then you and your group will end up like a NASCAR race where the whole field is involved in an inevitable pile-up.

If you want to fight, stop acting like you are on some crusade about it. The smell from that kind of activity is nauseating. Plus history shows what happens when folks go crusading.

The advice of one of my professors comes to mind. "Beware when you think you are riding in on a white stallion to save the Church. You may look down and discover you are riding an albino jackass."

An Open Letter to the CN's from a friend

Greetings,

Let me start by saying I am a Concerned Nazarene Pastor. I have been watching the conversation between the Concerned Nazarenes and “Why the Concerned Nazarene’s May Be Missing the Point” for the past several months. In that time I have also ventured over to The No Goofy Zone, Reformed Nazarene a few other sites trying to figure out what we “the Concerned Nazarenes” are hoping to accomplish. I know “Concerned Nazarenes” are against a lot of people and a lot of things and that originally there was a petition, to have the Generals make a statement about the emerging church.
I would love to see them address this, and while they are at it I would love to see a statement from them about a theology of worship for the Church of the Nazarene. As I think about it, there are a lot of things I am really concerned about. I am concerned about the church growth movement’s influence on the church. I am concerned that individualism, consumerism, and nationalism may have shaped our worship practices more than Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I am concerned about the divide between the adherents to the American Holiness movements understanding of Sanctification and those who follow John Wesleyan’s understanding. I am concerned that as a denomination we will educate, and ordain women as elders, but all too often won’t hire them. I am concerned about the Nazarene Pastors who have no retirement and others with no health insurance. Needless to say I am a concerned about a lot, but now I hesitate to use the moniker.
Recently, with all the talk about “the DVD” campaign I can only assume (and I know what happens when I assume), but I can only assume that the agenda of the Concerned Nazarenes is to split churches and have pastors, educators, and administrators removed. Is this correct? I don’t get the feeling that this group really wants to dialog with those who aren’t already in agreement with them.

I hear a lot about how they are praying for those who are “Blinded, Confused, Lacking Discernment, etc.” Well as one of “those people” I have been praying too. My prayer: “God Help Us.” Now let me say I appreciate those people who practice the Matthew 18 principle of Church Discipline. I appreciate those people who love me enough, who care enough about me to call me on my garbage. I appreciate those who literally believe the words of Galatians 6:1 “ Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.”

I am concerned that none of this has happened in my case. Now let me explain, I am a Nazarene Pastor, I was ordained an elder by Dr. Diehl. I pastor a small church of 150 or so in Alaska. I am a graduate of Northwest Nazarene University where I fell in love with Jesus and came to Christ under the preaching of Rev. Gene Schandorff and his series on James. I later graduated from NNU, married, and worked in the church as an associate until I went to Nazarene Theological Seminary and took classes with Dr. Boone, Dr. Bratcher, Dr. Lohdal, Dr. Weigelt, Dr. Freeborn, Dr. Noble, Dr. Bassett, and many, many others who helped me fall in love with Christ’s Church.
After graduating I worked in the church for several more years as an associate and began my D. Min. at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary working closely with Dr. Webber, (a friend who has already joined the communion of the saints). Specifically, I chose to work with Dr. Webber to address the apathy in Worship in the Church of the Nazarene (here I am thinking about more than simple music preferences). Now, as a Sr. Pastor, and after working with several pastors from my current district I am writing my dissertation which addresses some ways to deal with this apathy. Needless to say, I care deeply about the church and how and whom she worships, With that concern, I signed Dr. Webbers, “A Call to an Ancient Future Evangelicalism.”

Since signing that document, I was lumped in with all things emergent, church growth, Catholic, Spiritual Formations, etc. (AKA Bad, very bad). Never once has anyone asked me what I believe, and yes I believe Jesus is the only way. Never once has someone contacted me with their concerns with an attempt to restore me. Instead, I and my church were listed on several internet sites (here is one example). Now in complete fairness I don’t know who wrote the original article or who posted it but it has been reproduced in many places and it has been a stumbling block to a few in my church who googled our church’s website and came across the article. I even received an unsigned e-mail encouraging me to resign before being judged a heretic.

So again I ask what is the Goal of the Concerned Nazarenes? I don’t believe its restoration of people like me. I don’t think you really even care about me, at least not enough to actually talk to me. So what do you hope to accomplish? Do you wish to divide our denomination, to attack the reputations of women and men who have given their lives for Christ and His Church, to confuse people? Is your goal to mass produce a DVD, and have 5 minutes of fame at General Assembly? I really wish I were coming to GA just so I could meet you and to hear your heart. Someone once said, “the Church doesn’t belong to its pastor, The Church doesn’t belong to its people, but it belongs to God who purchased it with the blood of Jesus Christ therefore we should look to Him for all that we are to do.” I will be looking to him, I pray you would do the same and if you would ever like to speak to me and not just about me my e-mail is bthomasak at gmail dot com.

If I didn’t believe that Jesus was in charge, I would really be concerned.

God Help Us,

Rev. Brian R. Thomas

A History Lesson for the Concerned Nazarenes

According to the Concerned Nazarene's press release (published on Eric Barger's site) immediately before the 2009 General assembly a crisis looms.

Let's take a look at a brief excerpt:

At the center of the discord is the inerrancy of the Bible. Traditionalists claim that a new “emergent” movement within the denomination is questioning the church’s long-held view that the Bible is completely without error from cover to cover.

If left unchallenged, traditionalists say, the emergent movement could undermine the core doctrines and practices of the Nazarene church – a denomination with conservative holiness roots.

“This General Assembly will be pivotal in the history of the Church of the Nazarene,” predicted Joe Staniforth, a Nazarene pastor from Brownsville, Texas. “Some Nazarene theologians have been questioning the validity of our signature doctrine. Well, this is D-Day.”

Is the total inerrancy of the Scriptures really a signature doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene? The simple answer is no. After looking through my collections of the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene dating back to 1898, what follows below is a brief history of what we have said about the Bible. Nowhere is the total inerrancy of the Scriptures mentioned. When the Concerned Nazarenes claim to represent a "traditional" view, they are revising history. Let us be clear. They do not represent traditional Nazarene values. While I will not condemn them for believing in the way (bible inerrant in all matters), they do not represent the mainstream and any claims they make to representing the mainstream are false. If we have been thinking the wrong thing about the Scriptures, we have been doing it for over 100 years.

If you notice any typos below, please contact me so that I can correct them. Also, if you have a Manual from a year I don't mention below, would you email that info as well?

Year	Article of Faith on the Bible
1898	"We believe: 2nd. In the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as found in the Old and New Testaments, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and practice."
1903	"We believe: 2nd. In the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as found in the Old and New Testaments, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and practice." This version also contains a more complete statement of belief (which eventally becomes the article of faith): "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES By the Holy Scriptures we understand those books of the Old and New Testaments, usually accounted canonical, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. These books, known as the Bible, contain all teaching necessary for salvation—the revealed will of God to man.
1905	"We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements sufficient. 2nd. In the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as found in the Old and New Testaments, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living." "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES By the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, given by Divine inspiration, containing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein, nor can be proved thereby, is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." This version also contains an expanded statement about the Old Testament, omitted here for space.
1905-6	Same as 1905.
1907	"We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements sufficient: 2nd. In the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as found in the Old and New Testaments, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living." "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES By the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, given by Divine inspiration, revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein, and cannot be proved thereby, is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." This version also contains an expanded statement about the Old Testament, omitted here for space.
1908	"We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements sufficient: 2nd. In the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as found in the Old and New Testaments, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living." "The Holy Scriptures By the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, given by Divine inspiration, revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein, and cannot be proved thereby, is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." This version also contains an expanded statement about the Old Testament, omitted here for space.
1915	"THE HOLY SCRIPTURES By the Holy Scriptures we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, given by Divine inspiration, revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." In this version, the brief statement comes second: "We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements sufficient: Second. In the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living."
1919	Same as 1915
1923	Same as 1915 except the first statement is numbered as article "IV." Also the section that contains the shorter statement is clearly part of a membership rite.
1936	"IV. The Holy Scriptures We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by which we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, given by Divine inspiration, revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation; so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." "We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements sufficient: Second. In the plenary inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and that they contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living."
1952	"IV. The Holy Scriptures We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments given by Divine inspiration, revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." "We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient: That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living."
1956	"IV. The Holy Scriptures We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments given by Divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." "We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient: That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living."
1960	Same as 1956
1964	Same as 1956 with the addition of the words "We believe:" after sufficient in the second statement.
1972	Same as 1964
1976	Same as 1964 with a minor change in the numbering of the Agreed statement of belief.
1980	The same as 1976 with the addition of the mention of these texts: Luke 24:44-47 John 10:35 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 2 Timothy 3:15-17 1 Peter 1:10-12 2 Peter 1:20-21
1985	Same as 1980
1989	Same as 1980
1997	Same as 1980 with "sixty-six" replaced by "66"
2005	Same as 1997

Can we get together for a Bible study?

The following post is an open letter from a dear friend, who for reasons related to his employment wishes to remain anonymous.

Dear brothers and sisters,

First, I would like to thank you for your concern. You are genuinely worried that people will fall away from Christ if they are allowed to question the absolute truths you hold so dear. I am deeply touched that you would be worried enough about my eternal destiny to start a web page, a DVD "ministry" and a nationwide campaign just to make sure I stay saved.

You are doing your best to defend a specific traditional systematic theology and traditional values. And you are backing up your beliefs by quoting from the Bible. Thanks for clarifying those beliefs and telling us where you get them.

My goal, since the time I was saved as a child, has been to get closer to God, to know His word, and to hear His voice. (Oddly enough, the emergent/emerging leaders whose books I’ve read claim to have the same goals).

In my desire to grow closer to the Lord, I dove into His word. I read chapter after chapter and book after book. The beauty and majesty of the Psalms overwhelmed me. The wisdom of the Proverbs guided me. But most of all, the patient and loving teachings of Jesus drew me in. I wanted to be more like him.

In the Bible, I found confirmation of all the traditional beliefs I have been taught in Sunday School. I found the verses (which you quote so eloquently) convincing enough to affirm my beliefs (the same beliefs you hold to be absolute truth).

But I wasn’t content to stay at that level. I still wanted to get closer to God. I wanted to be so close that I could hear his voice. So I read the Bible again and again and again. Each time I found new insights and ideas.

Occasionally I found things that confused me. Usually my Pastor could explain them to me. But there have been quite a few things I’ve run across that have me stumped.

These things that I found weren’t just difficult. They challenged my beliefs.

Here are a few of them:

• Is God good, just, merciful, loving and kind? 1 John 4:7-8
• Or does God lie sometimes to get His way? 1 Kings 22:23
• Should we love our enemies? Matthew 5:43-48
• Or should we kill our enemies? 1 Samuel 15:2-3
• Does God love everyone and want to save them all? 2 Peter 3:9
• Or does God harden some people’s hearts so he has an excuse to kill them? Exodus 7:3
• Does God tempt people? Genesis 22:1
• Or not? James 1:13
• Do we continue to sin after becoming Christians? 1 John 1:10
• Or not? 1 John 3:9
• Is Israel God’s special people? Deuteronomy 32:7-9
• Or not? Amos 9:7
• Is God unchanging? Malachi 3:6
• Or does He sometimes feel regret for what He’s done and undo it? Genesis 6:6
• Is the entire Bible, from cover to cover, really saying what God wants it to say? 2 Tim 3:16
• Or has it been changed against God’s will? Jeremiah 7:22, Jeremiah 8:7-8
• Is there one God? James 2:19
• Or is there a Divine Council with many gods? Psalm 82:6

These words from the Bible caused me grief.

Dear brothers and sister, I now have two choices if I want to honestly address those passages of scripture:

1. I could say that the traditional beliefs (which you call absolute truths) I have been taught are not expansive enough to contain all that the Bible says about God and His world. If I do that, I would be questioning the absolute truth claims you hold so dear. OR...
   
2. I could go back to the Bible and find “explanations” for the difficulties. But then I would be questioning the clear meaning of the inerrant word you hold so dear. For example, perhaps we could say the gods in the Divine Council (Psalm 82:6) are really angels. Unfortunately, that is not what the text says. It calls them Elohim (The generic word for God). To make this verse fit with my beliefs would require that I assert that the clear meaning of the Biblical text is wrong.

By saying that I can’t have a dialogue or discussion where I question the “absolute truth” or the “inerrant word of God,” you have placed me in a position where no matter what I say gets me condemned as a heretic or a tool of Satan.

So, now I am stuck. Which has more authority? The absolute truth claims you make about God? Or the inerrant Bible you hold so dear? So what am I to do with this dilemma? Which horn do I take?

Let me restate some assumptions I think I share with many postmodern or emergent folks (I realize these aren't necessarily equivalent terms).

• We want to be Godly.
• We want to grow closer to God.
• We want to be like Christ.

But when we try to talk about or think through these difficult issues, which were raised by your absolute truth claims and your inerrant Bible, we are labeled Satanic.

My brothers and sisters, I propose that we sit together and read the Bible. We can talk through these things together. If the Bible is our authority, then we should allow it to modify our beliefs. If our beliefs are absolute truth, then they should modify the way we read scripture. Perhaps there is a way between the horns of this dilemma.

Maybe we need to do a little of both. Only together as God's people can we wrestle through these things and find a solution that helps us grow closer to God and closer to each other.

Lord, guide us as we seek to be more like you. Amen

How great a salvation…

Recently I heard the T. Scott Daniels, pastor of Pasadena First Church of the Nazarene, preach at the graduation exercises for Nazarene Theological Seminary. The sermon looked at the fourth chapter of Jonah. I'm borrowing some of my post today from him, but I want to go in a slightly different direction.

Let me give you a quick recap of the story to refresh your memory. Jonah has already fled, been swallowed (I've always hoped it was a shark rather than a whale!), and vomited back up onto the beach. He has gone to Nineveh and after an extremely seeker sensitive message of "Forty Days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" (Jonah 3.4 NRSV) We then arrive at Chapter 4, which I don't remember them teaching me about in Sunday School.

Jonah becomes very angry and tells God how displeased he is that God has blessed Jonah's ministry and that Nineveh has repented. Jonah goes to the east of the city, sets up some shade and seems to be hoping for God to smite Nineveh even though it has repented. The story ends with an object lesson of the bush that grows over Jonah's head and Jonah's great disappointment when the bush dies. The story ends with God's statement in verses 10 and 11:

"Then the LORD said, 'You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?'" (Jonah 4.10-11 NRSV)

I'm not sure who the author of the book of Jonah is, but I'm guessing it wasn't Jonah. If it was, he didn't portray himself very well. I would have written the story so that I looked better. Now, we could begin an argument at this point. What is the most important point of the story? Is it what kind of fish swallowed Jonah? Is it related to the exact geography of that region? The obvious answer is, "No!" Though those questions may be important, the author of the book ends with an important theological point.

God's love reaches outside the people of Israel even to those who they see as their enemies. God's love shows no favoritism (Romans 2.11). When we say that the Bible teaches us, "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" (Article IV, The Manual) this is the kind of thing we have in mind.

The point of the Bible is theological. That isn't to say that we cannot learn about history by reading the Scriptures. We certainly do learn about that, but again, the purpose of the Scriptures isn't to teach us history, it isn't to teach us geography or anything other than the story of a God whose love for us knows no limits. Once we start arguing about the historical veracity of the stories we've already begun to miss the point. The point is God's love.

Our problem, at least as I see it in the Church of the Nazarene, is not that our view of Scripture is too low. It isn't that we haven't espoused a fundamentalist view of Scripture:

"Scripture, being found as eternally inerrent and inspired of God, is veracious and authoritative concerning every aspect of physical and spiritual existence. The Bible has been provided as our only completely truthful standard of theology, ethics, science, history, and every other realm into which its limitless grasp extends ."
http://nazarenepsalm113.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/the-authority-of-scripture-2/

The problem is that our Biblical illiteracy keeps us from seeing and understanding the love of God that unfolds through the Biblical narrative.

Prayer:
God of all truth, we fight so hard about your Scriptures. We argue about small points and miss the big picture. We end up being like Jonah who griped about the bush that died. If someone doesn't agree with us completely, we wish your mercy would leave them untouched. Forgive us. We admit that we can be as petty and stupid as Jonah. At the same time, you are the same God whose property it is to always have mercy. We praise you! Thank you for having mercy on all of us arguing, petty, and vindictive people. Teach us through the example of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to open our arms and through the power of your Holy Spirit embrace the hurting world. Amen

Why are we saved? What is the point?

Let me ask what may seem to be an absurd question at first glance. “Why are you saved?” I’m not asking a question about “How are you saved?” I’m also not asking, “What is salvation?” I’m asking, “What does our salvation mean?”

If we focus exclusively on the “how” or “what” of our salvation without asking about the “why” we will undoubtedly miss the greatness of God’s good news. Let me be explicit. When we focus on “how we are saved” or “what salvation is” we might be tempted to come up with definitions that are exhaustive. We attempt to do our best to explain in detail what has to happen for our salvation and what our part is in that situation. We may even pervert the dynamic work of the Holy Spirit to bring us to new life into a dead transaction where we perform an action (believe or accept) and God issues us our “Get out of Hell Free” card.

“He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And the Second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 22.37-40 (NRSV)

These two commandments beautifully summarize “why” we were created. At the same time, these two commandments, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in our life, are impossible for us to fulfill. As the little lumps of self-centeredness we are before God gets a hold of us, we cannot do what we were created to do.

We are saved to be what God created us to be. We are saved to free us from slavery to ourselves. We are saved from the desire to have the kind of pride that demands our own way. We are saved from the pride that might come from experiencing God’s grace. We are saved from the desire to Lord over other people. We are saved from all of that which is not God’s love operating in our lives.

I think our brother John Wesley Summarizes it best when he says:

“It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this,--‘ the heaven of heavens is love.’ There is nothing higher in religion; there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. And when you are asking others, ‘Have you received this or that blessing?’ If you mean anything but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them on a false scent. Settle it in your heart from the moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth chapter of Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried into Abraham’s bosom.”
John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection available online at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/plain_account/

I suppose that God’s mercy is wide enough for to save me as one who will never, this side of eternity, understand the Trinity or other mysteries of the faith perfectly. In fact, that is the good news of the Gospel. While we were far away from God, God never gave up on us. God’s love never fails. God’s grace never stops calling all people, in all places, at all times to God’s own self.

Prayer:
Almighty God, please, please help us. We focus on our salvation like it is a thing. We rob it of power. We kill your joy. We argue and whine and complain. Shut us up long enough to listen to what you say about love. Annihilate the pride we use to club each other. Help us to aim at love and by the power of your Holy Spirit to hit the mark. Help us to urge each other on to more love instead of giving each other grief. Remind us that love is not rude. In the name of your Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

An invitation to eat

Brenda Brockman Diefenbacher wrote

A major component of the emergent church is what they call "conversation".

The "conversation" wants to, and does, take 2 opposing views and attempts to develop a 3rd outcome. This is why truth statements are met with such disdain.

Another name for this is SYNCRETISM. Syncretism is a social group method used to take 2 opposing views and introduce a new 3rd view, (the 3rd view is already pre-determined) to foster a 'new' way of thinking, and to usher in change to large social groups.

This is why we don't welcome "conversations" or debates. We already know what we believe and stand for and we do not welcome any attempts at compromise. Again, this is called unloving by those who oppose.

The Bible doesn't support syncretism, or a broad path to God, or any works-based worship methods, or man made methods measured by man's feelings and experiences. God has clearly laid out in His Word how we are to understand Him and approach Him in prayer and worship.

From: Facebook Concerned Nazarenes Group

In my previous post, I thought I had detailed what seemed to be the main reasons one would want to avoid debate or discussion of an issue. Over the weekend, I ran into this expression that I wanted to explore a bit more before moving on to another topic. I think this issue is one of the fundamental problems we face. The main problem is not the difference in views of scripture or which metaphor we use to explain the atonement. It isn't that what songs we sing or what we think needs to change in the church. The most basic problem will be that we seem to be unable to talk.

Some (as evidenced by the quote above) seem to assume that talking together is a subversive way to undercut positions and change what they see to be the immutable truth to which they adhere. Perhaps what we need to consider is the desire to discuss the full breath of Scripture without flattening the diversity of voices inside the Bible. Consider the commands given to Israel to offer sacrifices. In Leviticus 1.17 these sacrifices are described as an offering which is "pleasing odor to the LORD." If we look in Hosea 6.6 we see a different picture, "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (NRSV)

Religious syncretism takes one faith and combines it with another. An obvious example of this kind of activity is Solomon as depicted in chapter 11 of 1 Kings. Here we see that because of all of the foreign women he loves turns his heart after other gods. Solomon builds a high place for Chemosh and for Molech. This kind of activity is the essence of "syncretism."

On a more generic basis, "syncretism" might take the form of merging two or forms of belief; however, this kind of merging is different from what might occur from dialogue. Depending on the context, the goal of a conversation is not always to convert one person to another person's way of thinking. The goal may not even be to find a way to move forward. As frustrating as it may be, the goal may simply be to understand where the other person is coming from in the situation. Sometimes, the goal of a conversation is for us to understand the positions or attitudes we hold ourselves.

Let's look at another example. When we think of marriage relationships, we understand that communication is important to the relationship. In the communication related to my marriage, I understand that no matter what I try to do, there is no way I'll ever convince my wife to think like a man (thank God!). At the same time, she will never be able to make me think like a woman. Because I think there are genuine differences in the way persons from different genders think (and feel), the goal is not to make some new way of thinking that combines the two (so neither of us are comfortable), but simply to understand from where the other person is coming. In this way, we are able to faithfully follow the charge given in the homily at our wedding. My Grandfather, who preached that homily stated, "God did not create Eve from Adam's foot that he should rule over her. Neither did he create Eve from Adam's skull that she should rule over him. Rather, God created Eve from Adam's rib that they might walk side by side as partners."

Though it may be stretching the metaphor a bit to apply this to the situation this blog addresses, I have to wonder if there was a way for us to sit down together around a table (I am, after all a southerner, and we tend to do this kind of hard work over a meal.) and have a regular discussion. I'd assume the Brian McClaren couldn't be there because of his busy schedule, but perhaps a few of us could sit down and eat together and talk about what we are passionate about. We could talk about how God is working in our lives. We could talk about what God's Holy Spirit is teaching us and we could explore what it might mean for us to love each other. It seems that despite what are genuine differences, the command for us to love our neighbor as ourselves applies to folks in the church in the same way it applies to husbands and wives in marriage. Otherwise, how will they know we are Christians by our love?

Prayer:

Father, forgive me for the way my own understanding is limited and for the ways my thinking about you is too small. Forgive me for the times I find genuine differences as an excuse to stop loving others. Forgive me for the times I see sisters and brothers in the church as my enemies. Forgive me for the times where I try to force people to adopt my views. Grant that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who you sent to bring to us new life and to conquer sin and death, may, as our brother, teach us how to relate to our siblings in you. Grant us the discipline to be queit and still long enough to listen to you and listen to my sisters and brothers. May your Holy Spirit provide a unity in focus for ministry that transcends differences on issues and may your Holy Spirit guide us into all Truth. Amen.

I cannot talk to you--you drank the kool-aid.

"This website will not be a place of debate for those who have fallen for the Emergent deception.

There will be no Emergent conversation here, since a very large part of the Emergent/Emerging movement is a return not to ancient Christian practices but ancient and present Catholic practices as well as Gnostic practice.

Those who are interested in Emergent dialog can do it on their own blogs or websites."
Concerned Nazarenes

Why can't we talk? Why shouldn't we be able to discuss these matters? Why don't they allow comments on their blogs?

Obviously, There is no way one can know why they are truly afraid of dialogue. I can be afraid of dialogue as well. I generally dislike dialogue in a few situations. First, I dislike dialogue if it becomes one sided. Of course at that point it isn't dialogue, it is a monologue with an unhappy audience. Second, I dislike having to listen to people speak as if they have authority on a particular situation when they don't understand what it is they are talking about. Finally, I dislike it when people begin to threaten those who dare to hold a different opinion.

Given these options for why people hate dialogue, I begin to wonder why dialogue isn't permitted on these sites. Why no dialogue on the Concerned Nazarenes website? Why no dialogue on the Psalm 11:3 blog linked with the site? Is the Truth unable to stand up to the scrutiny of questions? Is the God of our faith so small that we cannot ask questions? Am I so far from God's grace that I cannot even be spoken to except as though I were a small child or a heretic condemned to burn in hell?

In one place the stated reason is "we do not wish to engage in debate or conversation about topics that have already been settled in scripture." (Tim Wirth - Facebook Group - Concerned Nazarenes) I struggle with this turn of phrase "settled in Scripture." How or when is something completely settled? I have no trouble in saying that the canon of the Scripture is settled. That being said, I believe that the Holy Spirit is continuing to teach all of us what is contained in those Scriptures. I believe, given our fallenness and frailties that it takes a lifetime of the Holy Spirit's instruction to understand what is going on in the Scriptures.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid."
Jn 14:26-27.(NRSV)

I think the base reason we shut off dialogue in the church is because we are afraid. We are afraid of so many things. We are afraid of being led astray. We are afraid of the "Roman Catholics" or the Calvinists. We are afraid of that which we cannot understand. When we are afraid, our peace is gone, we shut people out and we shut them up. Returning to the passage from John, who is the you in verse 26? Is it the spiritually elect who understand better than everyone else? Or does that promise extend to all believers who earnestly seek after God? Does God give up on those whose understanding is incomplete?

The obvious answer to that question is no. God does not give up on us. God never gives up. Look at the disciples as they are depicted in the Gospel of Mark. They seem to be a bunch of dummies who never understand what Jesus' ministry means. Before we get to high or mighty, we must remember the times when we haven't understood that ministry.

If perfect love drives out all fear, what does theology look like when we aren't afraid? I think at the very least it trusts that God keeps his promises and that the Holy Spirit is guiding us into Truth (cf. John 14.26). God's truth isn't my Truth and I don't have to defend it. I'm only called to be a witness to the good that God is already doing. When we live into that promise, we have access to God's peace which allows us to ask questions and reason together. In fact, we cannot help but ask questions as the structure of our faith is to seek after understanding (fides quarens intellectum). As our faith seeks understanding, I am thankful for those who walk with me. I am thankful when they challenge me and expose the weaknesses of my own thinking. I am thankful for a God who is bigger than any set of propositions I might use to try to contain our wildly creative God.

Finally, perhaps this is a selfish notion, but I like to talk to those with whom I eat. If we believe that at our Lord's Table we are one body, what do we do when we cannot come to the table together? Should we be reconciled before we go to the altar to receive the Christ's body and blood?

Prayer:
Almighty Father, you sent your Son that we might have peace and so that he might drive out all fear from those who call on your name. Help us to trust in your promise that the Holy Spirit is guiding the us into your Truth. Forgive us for the times we despair of our own situation and give up hope. Give us the courage to talk to each other and the grace to avoid killing each other. Help us to remember that an open hand is stronger than a fist. Amen.