Why can't we talk? Why shouldn't we be able to discuss these matters? Why don't they allow comments on their blogs?
"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
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."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?
Jn 14:26-27.(NRSV)
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.
Though this is probably the fodder for a future post of yours, Jeff, I'd love to comment on the phrase "not to ancient Christian practices but to ancient and present Catholic practices" from the concerned nazarenes blog. In 12 words, the group calling themselves concerned nazarenes has decided that, at best, the Catholic church's practices are an aberration to standard "Christian practices", or at worst, not even "Christian" at all.
ReplyDeleteThis is disconcerting, as one of the primary reasons I left the Southern Baptist Convention to join the Church of the Nazarene was the CotN's Wesleyan emphasis on the value of tradition. The primary understanding of the SBC was, as I remember it, that pure church tradition had been completely corrupted by the devices of the Catholic Church, a stance I cannot support.
My (not very) radical assumption from this phrase: the concerned nazarenes, contrary to their stated purpose of keeping the distinctives of the CotN, are, in fact, aligning themselves more with generic, Southern-Baptist influenced, evangelicalism.
Interesting times.
Ditto what Dave said. I always shudder a bit inside when I hear someone contrast "Catholic" with "Christian."
ReplyDeleteBTW, I'm looking forward to watching this blog as it develops. It'll be interesting to see what sort of dialogue develops here. :)
This might be a good tagline.
ReplyDelete"Unlike the various "concerned sites", here, not only can you talk but if you are attacked, which is almost always the case on those sites, you can defend yourself."
They don't mind talking on the "heretical" sites and are allowed that opportunity. Perhaps that the difference with fundamentalism. They don't allow dialogue.
There certainly are differences on the dialogue issue. Trying to be charitable, I see that there are reasons that a person might eschew dialogue because they know their position is going to cause controversy.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think part of the reason that the Concerned Nazarenes feel threatened is because they use inflammatory language and then become surprised when folks don't react well to being told they are a heretic going to hell.
I think one of the major problems with the Concerned Nazarenes group is a misunderstanding of the Nazarene tradition as being one of Christian fundamentalism. Tim Wirth states in their facebook group that these "infiltrators" of our denomination are introducing theistic evolution and disagreeing with the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts in light of the fact that the manual states that it rejects any godless accounts of the creation of the earth, but accepts as valid any scientifically verifiable discoveries in Geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator" (Manual, 903.8). This leaves the possibility of theistic evolution open.
Likewise, the CoTN does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but rather states that it is inerrant "in all things necessary to our salvation" (Manual, Holy Scriptures, page 31).
Where did these people come from? Have they read the manual?
They are reading the Manual. They are finding the parts that don't go "far enough" and proposing the changing of the Manual to say that we believe in inerrancy.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my desire isn't to convince the CNs that they are wrong or that they need to change their way. Instead, I want to do what I can to offer an alternative to the vitriol that seems to spew forth at a regular clip.
I'll be honest that it stretches me to try to respond in a Christlike way to what they are saying and how they are proceeding. At the same time, I know that coming off the handle undercuts what I know needs to be said and done in this context.
--JS
"Come, let us reason together..."
ReplyDeleteI think that the belief here is that when somebody asks a question, they're actually trying to introduce a contrary opinion, not come to understand them.
ReplyDeleteOr, in other words, you'd be witnessing to them about your perspective, and they don't want to be witnessed to about something that they already know is true.