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.