I'm for it!

You know what I like about the first fifty years or so years of the Church of the Nazarene?

For the most part, we weren't afraid to be controversial. Nazarenes were willing to "rock the boat."

Sure we (they... before my time) got scared about some silly things. We dropped 'Pentecostal' from the beginning of our name early on (Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene) and a few other things, but for the most part we were unflinching the first few years of our existence.

I mean, we were against tobacco when it wasn't popular to be against tobacco! We knew it was the "devil's weed" before celebrities realized it wasn't cool anymore! That's why we still hold on to our stance against it today. But it's not very controversial anymore (except in some places).

What is troubling though is the fact that in the last few years of our existence we've began to "soften" some of the stands we've taken on issues. Divorce, while still unaccepted in print, has had it's wording changed to give a more neutral feel. So while divorce continues to be a growing problem in the church, not to mention the world, we have cowered away from it. Jesus was very clear about it though and maybe the problem continues to grow because we are mute when it comes to divorce. (By the way, divorcee's should be met with grace, I'm certainly not proposing that we "shoot our wounded." Anything but a response in love, seasoned with grace, is unacceptable.)

Gambling holds true. But that's not real surprising since most denominations are still against it... but what if they weren't? (In Kentucky many politicians are tauting the 'good' that legalized gambling could bring to our commonwealth by funding education.)

Alcohol. Ouch. We have began to falter on this one. No, not in print, but in practice. We believed in prohibition before prohibition in the United States (1920-1933)! It was an out-flow of our concern for those we ministered to. So while a few might argue the Bible doesn't teach absolute abstinence; we Nazarenes have never argued that, so much as the consistent belief that nothing gives us the right to participate in an activity that is so destructive to our community's spiritual, economic, and physical condition.

Most of the changes to our "Covenant of Christian Conduct" (which can be found here) have sought to make it less specific and more open to an individual's interpretation. Still there are many who would wish remove any kind of moral boundaries to a covenant.

Someone who was against some of the stances we've taken as a denomination once said: "But is it easier to get to heaven than into the Church of the Nazarene." Doubtful! But even if it were, the Church of the Nazarene has never claimed that you had to be a Nazarene to get into heaven (or even that being a Nazarene would get you into heaven). To get to heaven you only have to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. But as serious Christians who believe in Holiness, we are about more than just "getting a ticket to heaven."

We're about living as citizens of heaven here on Earth! I guess what I'm thinking is that we need to get this boat rockin' again! Maybe Churches of the Nazarene in communities all over the world should be radically different rather than trying to mimic Willowcreek, Mars Hill, or First Baptist! If that means we have higher standards than some other churches that's okay! (Some of them will make it to heaven too!)

We don't want to "make it to heaven;" we want to shake the civilizations we live in! We don't want to survive Satan's attacks; we want to storm the sinful strongholds of this world! We don't want social reform; we want spiritual transformation!

I'm for it!


Call us names, make fun of us, jeer us for ministering to any kind of sinner, but please... don't try to steady the boat!

Some things to remember when blogging!

1) If it is on the Internet, assume the whole world can read it!

2) There are consequences for your opinion-made-public. (For example: Dixie Chicks.)

3) Christianity effects the way that you post. (That means, if you are a Christian, you shouldn't berate others, be rude/ derogatory, personally attack, use profane language, deceive, or write things that you wouldn't say in a normal conversation. That does not mean however, that you cannot disagree with people or attack their ideas.)

4) Use moderation. (In other words, live a complete life that involves more than just sitting on the Internet for days on end.)

5) Use proper grammatical, punctuation, and capitalization mechanics. (Well, maybe this is just my pet peeve, but I hate when people don't capitalize proper nouns or the first word of a sentence and I can't stand it when they make up spellings for their words... like "wuz up" or "ill c u 2 nite")

Maybe somebody could help me with some more blogging reminders...

Legalism...

"You're legalistic!"

"They're into legalism."

The 'buzz-word' for the 90's has managed to hold on for another decade and into a new century. Impressive stamina.

I've always feared being legalistic. But I decided to look it up the other day. Webster's definition seems pretty straightforward and was surprisingly un-Satanic! (You may have to wade through some sarcasm from here.)

After reading the definition I think I've come to the conclusion that it is yet another 'label' you can put on a person to immediately isolate their opinion from others who also have a negative aversion toward "legalists."

I think the pop-theology culture definition of legalism is 'seeking salvation through some kind of legal code (or set of rules).'

However, that borderlines heresy! I don't think I've ever met any sincere Christian who has ever believed in some kind of works righteousness. (Although one could argue that I simply do not know many people.)

Yes, I have met some individuals who were pretty passionate about their convictions (I think we all need more of those, but alas that is an 'old-fashioned' concept), but that is a good thing I believe! Yes, I have met some who were so passionate about their convictions that they tried to push those on others. (Maybe that minority is the accepted definition of legalism.)

There is good news though, if you cannot with a clear conscious describe someone as 'legalistic' then you could always resort to the next best thing: 'fundamentalist.'

Of course Webster's definition of fundamentalist doesn't seem very ominous or threatening to Christianity either.

Maybe the 'buzz-word' curse word should be changed to something that is really scary like: worldly? No, wait, that's old fashioned too!

Oh well.

Pop-Christianity... a stereotype.

I'll admit it, I'm about to stereotype some 'troubling' trends in the universal church today...

The emergent (By the way, what are they emerging from? Has the real church fallen, died, got lost, or submerged?), post-modern, liberal, pop-Christian type might make some of the following comments which I will elaborate on in later posts. (I know I'm going to get some comments for lumping emergent, liberal, worldly adjectives together.)

"I'm a green, open-minded, tolerant, pacifist, cussing Christian and it's okay."

"If you get mad at my lack of moral discernment in the entertainment I take part in, relationships I have (aka community), language that I use, or conversations I have, then you probably have a problem with personal piety and are a modern moralists!"

"God's not a republican! He probably wouldn't even vote because he doesn't care about anything but the poor. Soon we Christians who understand the real problems of the world will end poverty so that God will not have anything to worry about but the environment! So even if God did vote, it would be for some fringe guy tauting a new economic policy that involved recycled money, a ban on vehicles, and vegan diets for all."

"I follow a mystic who lived 2000 years ago and said some cool things about helping people. Some say he was born of a virgin and some say he rose from the dead, but I don't get caught up in that discussion, because the point is: he could tell a good story!"

"I like new-age stuff and hate it when old fashioned Christians say 'born-again.' I know Jesus said it, but why can't they use more open language like 'beginning the journey.' Universalism isn't bad if you really understand it."

"Hurting people's feelings is the greatest sin! Especially if you do it by talking about what the Bible says!"

"On the essentials I am firm, it's the non-essentials that we can disagree on. Of course even the essentials aren't really essential because essentially the essentials cannot absolutely be known. So lets just wonder around in the dark holding hands and talk about what we think even though it isn't essential."

"People don't need to get saved from sin... that's personal piety. They needed to get saved from social injustices! We should all become communists because they are true Christians due to their social justice even though they are athiests! Hey, maybe Christians are the real problem in the world."

Have I ranted long enough? Remember all the quotations are stereotypes. You can decide if I'm being sarcastic...

Growing as a Christian

I want to be a growing Christian.

I have been troubled of late at the lack of a holistic approach toward discipleship. We have minimized it to a rather troubling singular focus... intellect.

I am going to make the assumption that growing as a Christian is growing in our love for God. Of course after we are sanctified wholly we love Him with all of our heart, but I am not talking about a greater "quantity" of love; rather a growing into a more full or "quality" of love. If you disagree at that point then you'll have to ignore everything else I write.

Jesus said in Mark 12:30 "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

I think the following are four areas that we are to grow as a Christian.

1) Heart: Emotionally
2) Soul: Spiritually
3) Mind: Intellectually
4) Strength: Physically

1) Heart is the seat of our emotion. When is the last time you had an emotional response to God? I'm not proposing 'emotionalism' but a return to a place where emotion plays a role in our worship and relationship with God. We have downplayed it because of those who worship with heart outside of the other three, but I think this is vitally important to us today. If you don't get a little emotional about the fact that Christ died for your sins, then maybe something is wrong!

2) Soul is often used to refer to the substance of who we are. How do we grow spiritually? Romans 12:1 "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." (Emphasis added.) Maybe growth in this area has to do with a deeper understanding of surrender as a living sacrifice. Problem with living sacrifices is that they tend to want off the 'uncomfortable' altar!

3) Mind is the one we always emphasis. Is it the ghost of gnosticism? How much do you have to know to be a Christian? Certainly I don't believe ignorance is bliss. I heard the story of a preacher ranting on education who said: "I'm praying that the Lord will make me stupider and stupider every day." I kind of believe that God already answered his prayer.

4) Strength has to do with the physical aspect of our relationship. That faith without works is dead. That we are called not only to have the right answer (Christ), but to live out the right answer (Christian). We have gotten away from the call of Christ to bear fruit spiritual fruit! Strength is not action for the sake of salvation, but action because of salvation!

I'm not trying to divide these things into different categories, but simply make the observation that we often do that very thing by not growing in all four areas! Which one do you think we neglect the most today?

In the Great Commission we are called to make disciples not confession, profession, or big attendance gains (although those will occur as the Great Commission is fulfilled). Jesus commissioned the church to make disciples!

Discipleship is not optional!

Entire Sanctification

I'll try to make this as short as possible, because this could easily become a soap box!

As a pastor and member of the church of the Nazarene I am concerned about some current trends by "post-modern" and "emergent" influences within the Church of the Nazarene.

Some, even those who are leaders in our church, have declared that we are in a theological crisis. My question is: Since when? My proposed response: Maybe the church is not in a theological crisis so much as there are individuals who are having their own experiential crisis.

Christianity Today Article About This...

So the natural response is to change the position of the church to suit my personal preferences and fads (dealt with that yesterday).

What is the "theological crisis" they are talking about? Taking 'Entire' out of the article of faith on Entire Sanctification.

Here is my proposal to those who would actively seek such at a General Assembly or in our colleges, universities, and seminaries: Join the United Methodist.

United Methodist article of faith on 'sanctification.'

Compare United Methodist's article of faith on "sanctification" to Thomas Jay Oord's "Fifteen Changes..." papers.

What's the difference? Answer: Nothing!

If you like that better than the Church of the Nazarene's distinctly holiness approach then leave the Church of the Nazarene, for our sake and yours, and join the United Methodists!

So why do we allow the ordained and especially those who are teaching in our college, universities, and/or seminaries to teach to our future clergy things contrary to our Articles of Faith. Just like the hierarchy of the United Methodist Church we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by worldly philosophies rather than a Biblical world view! (Colossians 2:6)

Another important note: Initially we were the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene.

Last important note: The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is what occurred at Pentecost, is entire sanctification!

The Great Alcohol Debate

Glasgow, KY recently voted to go "moist" a kind way to say that they have introduced alcohol sells into their community. That means more money! (In small print I would like to add: more crime, more despair, more poverty, more deaths attributed to drunkedness.)

Can a Christian honestly convince himself/herself of their "right" to drink at the costs of all the despair alcohol brings? I know, I know the Bible does not address "social drinking", just "being drunk."

Click Here for Keith Drury's solution to that problem!

I can certainly hear the critic declaring the problems of the Christian "moralist." Label me if you would like, but for the sake of the lost world around me I am glad that in some KY counties the government has done what the "church" (used loosely) was too blind and self-centered to do.

A New Fad...

We Christians tend to be slow on the draw. It has been said that the only difference between the church and the world is about ten years. Unfortunate. And not because I think it should be fifteen or fifty years either.

We tend to be reactionists. The newest fads are what we embrace to try to twist and mold them into something that can fit into the ministry of the church both morally and, often more importantly, pragmatically.

So it is with each "new" idea that comes along in Christian ministry. We fall victim to reactionary behaviour rather than pro-active proclamation.

I'll give an example from the ministry God has called me to...

Pastor, Preacher, Reverened, Clergy, Brother/Sister, etc. Lot's of names and titles that go in and out of style. Some may be more descriptive of what the congregation's expectations for the pastor are (like preacher or pastor). Right now the Christian Fad we have adopted is no title. Just refer to the minister by his/her first name (I'm not trying to make a moral/ethical call on these issues, just observances).

There is always a 'new' and 'popular' new style of preaching. From inductive or deductive to narrative or expository ministers, and especially those honing the gifts God has given them through the educational/ discipleship process, are victim to the "going style."

What is a minister to wear? A robe, a suit, a toga, a pair of cut off shorts? Casual is the fad right now.

And most dangerous of all is the theological tossing to and fro that takes place in denominations (especially those that can most easily change their doctrinal statements and polity).

Maybe the church is too busy with it's ear to the ground. Maybe we are too busy checking the barometer for the winds of the newest fads.

So the churches that "do the best" are those churches that have learned to adapt best to "new ways of thinking" and, in reality, the newest fad on the market at your local Christian book store.

What happened to the foundation that was a solid rock? Or am I a lone voice trying to comfort my stubbornness and resistance to change?

Is that Christian?

So my question is, how do Christians justify their actions?

I'm not speaking of the vast difference between the call to holiness and the call to worldly living; I'm talking about what it means to act like a Christian. Why is that so many "Christians" don't act like Christians?

The easy answer would be that they are not Christians. Certainly that is probably true for a great deal of people who have no idea what it means to be born-again and walk through life as a disciple of Jesus the Christ! But I can hardly categorize every individual that I could be thinking of in that category.

As a pastor, what do you do about behaviours, actions, & attitudes that, simply put, contradict God's written Word?

Hmmm...

Some of these attitudes can be extremely destructive to the unity and "being of one accord" that the church should experience. (I hesitate to use the word 'community' because the incessant over use in the pop-theology culture.)

God calls us to something different than the world, but why is it so rarely realized in the lives of people that make up the church here on Earth? Maybe I'm on to something when I say: We give very little room for growth. And I may be to the fulcrum of the issue when I say: Maybe I am guilty of the same thing.

But, I digress.