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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
24 comments:
You wrote, “…we are in a theological crisis. My question is: Since when?”
Historically speaking there has always been tension in our denomination over entire sanctification; the biggest example of this is between American holiness beliefs and Wesleyan holiness beliefs.
You wrote, “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!”
Interesting statement; are our Articles of Faith the same as Scripture to you; are they somehow unchangeable? For that matter how do you determine a “Biblical world view”? Doesn’t scripture cover so much history that we can see how God’s message takes shape and affects a variety of cultural applications? What do we do with Paul’s example for us on Mars Hill? What do we do with the fact that even God used existing cultural understanding of things to connect with people such as God using a covenant ritual with Abraham that already existed in his the Middle Eastern nomadic culture he had been a part of? Are not those and many more examples “biblical”? My point is I do not think that a “biblical world view” is something that exists on its own in a vacuum, but rather Scripture guides us as a community and culture to allow God to be both incarnational in our culture as well as transformational of our communities in that culture to be more like him. If “postmodern” influences are the worldly philosophies you are talking about how are the “modern” influences on the church today any less worldly? What do you do when your articles of faith seem to conflict with how you are discerning what a biblical world view is? Are these not issues and questions that the church should continue to wrestle with as a community?
You wrote, “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!”
Is this advice part of what you consider a biblical worldview for belonging to community and the body? If we don’t agree with you, your answer is to “get out”? I just read Isaiah 1 where God invites his people to “argue it out” with him so God can make them as a community pure as snow. The context of the passage was God rebuking their mindless sacrifices, religious celebrations, and meetings, which they have always done. God was saying enough!!!! He told them to “cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow.” This is the exact kind of thing much of the emergent church is trying to do, especially emergent Nazarenes who see how seeking justice and righteousness for the world we live in is part of what holiness means. But God invites us as a community, even a Nazarene community, to wrestle through these things so I think your suggestion for those who may disagree with how things have always been done to “fall in line” or “get out” may be counter productive to the wrestling it may take us as a community to really embrace what we want to be about as a denomination; we want to be a people of holiness.
Important note: one way I think we may be in a theological crisis concerning sanctification in our denomination is that holiness is often reduced to just personal piety among many Nazarenes. Biblical holiness always carried with it a community aspect to it; it wasn’t just about individuals being unstained by worldliness, it was about loving our neighbors and putting that love in action for the sake of others. I agree with your correlation of sanctification with Pentecost because it was here that God became present in a community in order to continue the incarnational presence Jesus has in the world and to be an agent for transformation through it. The beauty of this passage isn’t fully realized in just that story but it is realized in the rest of the book of Acts and the story of the church in the world even to today. If you had a better sense of God’s sanctifying work through community and the friction that sometimes is part of any purifying process then you would not be inviting people among our community to leave because they are wrestling with how to actually live out holiness in the world even it may challenge some of our preconceived notions about how holiness works on paper.
Peace,
James
James,
I agree with a lot of the things you wrote (such as the impossibility of a biblical narrative existing outside of a context and the Emergent Church’s emphasis on orthopraxy), but I wanted to challenge a few of your statements. I’m interested to see how you respond, and if I misunderstood you on anything, just let me know.
1) I doubt very seriously if there has “always” been a tension in our denomination concerning entire sanctification. Assuming the bifurcation between American holiness and Wesleyan holiness which you espouse (which isn’t necessarily the case), the Church of the Nazarene has always sided with the American Holiness Movement in regards to the doctrine of Entire Sanctification. I think the older manuals give evidence to this. It is only recently that this has become an issue. I’m not even arguing that Article X is right . . . I’m just stating that Nazarenes historically haven’t “struggled” with the tension between Wesleyan and American holiness. They were probably even unaware of it.
2) If postmodernism means anything, it means a plurality of narratives. Thus, there are different denominations/narratives which are all different, but true nonetheless (after all, Baptists and Nazarenes are both Christians). Positively, Jared seems to be encouraging those who better fit the narrative of another denomination to participate in that narrative instead of trying to impose their narrative on another. In that sense, he’s discouraging one narrative to dominant and control another. This doesn’t neglect the truthfulness of the other narratives, but places those outside the Nazarene narrative into a more appropriate Christian narrative. He’s not kicking them out of Christendom, just showing them other narratives they might be more comfortable participating in.
3) This brings me to another point of misunderstanding. I’m not sure Jared was equating the Articles of Faith with Scripture. The Bible may provide the boundaries of a biblical worldview, but Jared seems to be concerned with a particular biblical worldview, namely the Nazarene one. The Articles of Faith, then, are our community’s interpretation of the biblical worldview and provide the framework and boundaries of the Nazarene narrative. Those who fall outside the Articles of Faith can be Christian, but by definition, they aren’t Nazarene. Postmodernism has opened the door to particularity. There isn’t only one Christian metanarrative so much as there are multiple Christian narratives. It seems you may fall prey to modern liberalism with its least-common-denominator theological approach.
4) It also appears as if you may assume the modern distinction between the individual and the community. Whereas modern conservatives tended to idolize the individual, modern liberalism have always tended to idolize the community. I don’t think the two can be separated so neatly. The individual cannot be extricated from his/her context or vice versa.
Caleb,
Thanks for the questions. I don’t know if you misunderstood me or not, but I do think we might have a slightly different take on things. I appreciate the honest dialog and am curious about your response to my response. I have answered each of your numbered questions with the same corresponding numbers.
1.) I am not sure I agree with your assessment that there is no historical tension between Wesleyan and American holiness and that people were unaware of it. I do think that our manual reflects more of an American holiness slant and always had, but this does not mean that we have not had many who leaned more into Wesleyan holiness all along in our tradition. I think that Wesleyan holiness reaches into the deeper historical roots much of our tradition stemmed from while American Holiness reflects a more specific historical trend the happens to correspond with the early years of our denomination; thus it is reflected more in our manual.
2.) I appreciate your sentiment of wanting to create space where others may be more comfortable participating in likeminded narrative traditions, but I think Jared’s understanding of the Nazarene narrative is too small and too exclusive even from a historical perspective. The reality is that myself, and many like me, resonate with the Nazarenes tribe more than anything else; we believe in holiness and gravitate to our denominations history that emphasized serving the poor and marginalized. We resonate with the being called a “Nazarene” because we, like early Nazarenes want to be the church on “the other side of the tracks”, and a church for the “despised”. We identify with much of what Nazarenes have always been about because we are Nazarenes. Even within denominations and traditions there are degrees of plurality of narratives, though smaller they still exist. I did interpret Jared’s invitation for those that disagreed with him to leave the denomination to reflect his desire to control and make the narratives of our tradition narrow and singular in favor of his own leanings; but again even our tradition did not historically have such a singular narrative. This may not have been Jared’s intent, and he may not be aware that Nazarene narratives are slightly wider than the ones he has experienced.
3.) I am not sure I agree that those that “fall outside the Articles of Faith can be Christian, but by definition, they aren’t Nazarene”. I made my commitment to a community not to Articles of Faith; though they express the many ways in which we may be like minded. If disagreeing with anything in an Article of Faith or the manual means one is not Nazarene how then are these Articles or other things in the manual ever changed and amended? My point is that our manual isn’t fixed, it changes and grows with our community this is in contrast to Scripture in which we would not edit or amend. Our manual describes how we think we should live out our faith in our modern context; that context is always changing and so our manual will change with it.
This does not mean that we “throw out” what came before us but rather I think we should look at our manual as the “wisdom of our fathers” (as a good friend of mine likes to call it). For instance I think the prohibition on alcohol was based on a contextual application (not biblical exegesis concerning the morality of alcohol itself) of the best way to serve the poor who often fell victim to alcohol. I think this was a great contextual application of holiness because it was concerned for the other (though it soon became warped by many into an issue of just personal piety). My point is I can honor the sprit of the contextual application our Nazarene fathers made by trying to best apply how we might live holiness as a Nazarene community in our context today. Our father’s historical approach can guide our decisions today even if we do not come to the same conclusions because context has changed. So then the “Nazarene worldview”, as you call it, is as evolving as our community is and therefore I don’t think you can say that items in our manual are some how fixed in time; unless you think Nazarenes should be fixed in time too (some Nazarenes do think we should be fixed in time).
4.) I agree that there is a reality and a tension between the individual and community that can not be separated. I tend to speak louder about community because I feel we need to overcome an over emphasis on the individual; I am trying to compensate. I certainly can imagine circumstance in which community is over emphasized and you would then hear me talking more about the individual.
Thanks again for taking the time to dialog Caleb.
Peace,
James
Thanks for replying, James; I appreciate it. Here’s my quick answers/questions:
1) I think we’re at a fundamental difference of opinion here. It boils down to a different interpretation of history.
2) It seems as if you do agree that the Manual does provide loose boundaries around the Nazarene narrative, but your main contention is that Jared defines/interprets those boundaries too narrowly, specifically in reference to entire sanctification. Moreover, I think the divergence of opinion rests in the “so-called” process orientation of Wesleyan thought compared with the instantaneousness of American Holiness thought. Once again, I reiterate that the Church of the Nazarene has always stood with the American Holiness Movement in such matters. Article X reads, “We believe that entire sanctification is . . . wrought instantaneously by faith” (Manual, 34-35). Jared seems to be saying that those who think entire sanctification is a process lie outside this boundary which clearly states that it is instantaneous. Do you think that interpretation is too narrow? The United Methodist narrative, however, allows for this understanding of entire sanctification, and Jared was merely pointing that out.
3) I cannot bifurcate the Articles of Faith from the Nazarene community as you seem to do. This concedes to the inherent dualism which plagues modernity and separates theology from the church community. If there’s one thing I dislike about the Emergent Church, it’s that they still recognize the distinction between faith and works, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. One simply doesn’t exist without the other. Without the Articles of Faith as a guide, it seems you have a community with no way to define it, or worse, it sounds as if you as an individual get to decide who’s in or out without the consensus of the community. A narrative without boundaries simply isn’t a narrative.
4) I’m pretty sure I misinterpreted you in regards to this point. I apologize. Thanks for correcting me.
And thanks for dialoguing as well.
Claeb,
I’ll keep my answers in the same numbered categories.
2.) It is not an issue of “boundaries” that I believe were too narrow; it is the understanding of the various narratives that I think make up our Nazarene community as a people I felt were too narrow to describe who we are as a people as a whole. We have many interwoven threads of narratives as Nazarenes and Jared seems to describe it as just one narrow thread. Despite what the manual says we have always had people in our community who disagree with things like some of the aspects that reflect an exclusive American holiness view. This is partly what Jarred was upset about, that there are ordained leaders and teachers within our denomination that teach things that do not always line up with the manual as neatly as many would like. These people are part of our community in reality and contribute to reflecting who we are as a people as a whole much better than our manual does. My interpretation of entire sanctification is irrelevant to the point that our understanding of this doctrine as a people is neither fixed nor expressed by our manual in such a way that reflects our entire community, and so it can continually be dialoged about and wrestled with.
3) I think you do misunderstand me if you think I am separating orthodoxy and orthopraxy or teaching and practice. I am also not saying that an individual does not answer to and operate within the context of a community. I think the dialogue that is taking place and being suggested by those that Jared thinks should leave the denomination is taking place within our community. Some believe that in regards to sanctification “we are in a theological crisis” and they are bringing these concerns to the community. Jared and some others may disagree but dialogue about the issue in community is a better answer than suggesting that we should just jump to encouraging a faction; at least not until it is a last resort.
Also, some clarification about my comment towards the manual; I think my example showed how we do honor the teaching and guidance of our historical Nazarene orthodoxy while at the same time we always need to reevaluate it and how to live it out (orthopraxy) in a changing context. I think the narrative I described and identified with as a Nazarene did provide some boundaries in how I would suggest we proceed as a people. I just think our manual does not reflect the totality of our Nazarene narrative and sometimes we need to do a better job of exegesis in regards to reading the depth of our own tradition, history and context.
Thanks for the questions and asking for clarification.
Peace,
James
James,
2) Basically, I hear you saying that there is no Nazarene narrative so much as there are many Nazarene narratives which compose the larger narrative. Pushing this type of deconstruction to its logical conclusion, however, I would maintain that everyone of these Nazarene narratives can be deconstructed further and found to be non-definable since they are themselves composed of divergent Nazarene narratives which are likewise composed of other divergent Nazarene narratives, and so on. The end result is that every individual gets to be their own narrative, and we’re left with a non-existent community. Derrida would probably have no problem with this type of reasoning, nor would some Emergent Church folks (which is partly why they have such a low ecclesiology), but I’m not sure either one of us wants to go down this route. You say it’s not about boundaries, but any physical and temporal thing (such as the Church of the Nazarene) must have boundaries. For example, you probably place boundaries around what constitutes your family. Can anyone be a part of your immediate family, or do you place certain boundaries and requirements which they must first fulfill (i.e. being your offspring or spouse, etc.)? The same is true with the Nazarene family. They have certain boundaries and requirements which one must meet first before one falls under the label “Nazarene.” Maybe I should pose it to you this way, let’s take the Article of Faith concerned with Jesus. If I deny that Jesus is divine or the Son of God, can I still be a Nazarene? Narratives without boundaries are simply non-existent. The nihilistic postmodernists are fine with this, but most postmodernists (especially constructive ones) are not. The question that I would place before you is this: Who or what is a Nazarene, and who gets to decide “who” or “what” they are if the manual is unable to do this? Placing boundaries around “Christianity” is one thing, placing them around a human-made, spacial-temporal organization is something else.
3) This dialogue, I believe, is fundamentally related to our different definitions and understandings of the Nazarene community/narrative from dialogue #2.
Thanks for dialoguing with me, James. It’s been fun.
Caleb,
Ok, I understand better now what you mean by boundaries. I am not saying that there should be no definitions and boundaries, just that there is a slightly wider scope than Jared suggested. In my opinion Nazarenes are first and foremost a Christian community, but one that also identifies with our heritage and tradition that seeks to embrace and live out holiness in the world we live in. (I would also say that holiness is not something Nazarenes have a monopoly on or have copyrighted as any more of a distinction of Christian Discipleship than any other Christian; but we do have a unique tradition that specifically wrestles with and emphasizes the concept of holiness.)
I think those wrestling with holiness and our doctrine of entire sanctification still fit within the definition of being a Nazarene as they still fundamentally resonate with being a Christian that seeks holiness in the lives of our community. I think it also fits within our parameters and definitions because our polity allows for it on many levels. All of these individuals live within the designed accountability as ordained elders within our church community and our polity allows for our manual to be edited and amended. If our manual gives us the only strict definition of a Nazarene than how can it be amended if the people in our community happen to disagree with it (thus no longer fitting this strict definition of Nazarene) in order to change it? The processes for this in not such that any individual can change it to be what they want but it can grow and change as it reflects the community as a whole. Our polity therefore recognizes that the statements in our manual are not fixed; otherwise they would have allowed the possibility for it to ever be changed. So I think those that Jared is upset about still fit within our community boundaries, guidelines, and accountability as Nazarenes.
Yes it has been fun.
Peace,
James
James,
Once again, thanks for the dialogue.
I agree that Nazarenes are first and foremost a Christian community, but they are more than just a Christian community. They are a unique, particular Christian community . . . not a generic one. I think you hinted at this point as well. The question, then, pertains to the flexible parameters around the Church of the Nazarene. I argue that the community manual of the Church of the Nazarene provides the flexible parameters which defines the Church of the Nazarene. I might ask what provides the parameters for you if not the community manual.
The manual does change, though. But I think we can both agree that it changes from within the community, not outside it. Only the Nazarene community has the authority to change its own doctrine and polity, or, another way to say this: Only the Nazarene community has the authority to change the boundaries around its community to include or exclude others. And again, only the Nazarene narrative has the authority to change the Nazarene narrative. Thus, if the Nazarene Church was forced with a dilemma to include those who denied the divinity and sonship of Jesus, this remains a decision for those already within the Nazarene narrative who affirm the divinity and sonship of Jesus to make. This does not remain a decision for those outside the Nazarene narrative (who deny the divinity and sonship of Jesus) to make. One must belong to a narrative in order to participate in its enlarging or narrowing. The same is true for the Article of Faith on entire sanctification. The Church of the Nazarene has the authority to change its stance and open its borders to those who are more process-oriented, including them in the Nazarene narrative, but this should remain a decision for those inside the narrative who already affirm all the articles of faith (including the instantaneousness of entire sanctification) to make. I feel like you’re saying the Nazarene community can change the manual (which is true), but so far, you’ve refused to designate or define who the Nazarene community is who has the authority to do this. There are no parameters (or none that you have articulated). Thus, to even speak of a Nazarene narrative or community is meaningless.
It’s okay to wrestle with doctrines, particularly with the doctrine of entire sanctification, but once one comes to a conclusion and teaches outside the parameters of the Articles of Faith, should that person be considered a Nazarene? I would argue “no” since I use the community Nazarene Manual to define the Nazarene community, I feel like you would say “yes”, but I still haven’t figured out how you would define or set parameters around the Nazarene community/narrative. I think this might be the crux of our whole discussion. What do you think?
Caleb,
You use the manual to absolutely define the Nazarene community; if one can check off all the necessary criteria to you that is what makes them a Nazarene. But I am in a Nazarene community both locally and globally, I have relationships, accountability, and have responsibilities as both a leader and a follower in the community. My status as a Nazarene Pastor is because it is recognized and embraced by the Nazarene community. The manual gives us guidance and directs the polity and orthodoxy that we agree upon as the community but the dynamics of my belonging to the Nazarene community are far more complex than just pledging my allegiance to our church manual. This is what I meant when I said that I made a commitment to a community more so than to the articles of faith. To clarify I do think I honor the articles of faith in as much as I recognize them as our shared values as a community; the community I have committed myself to. This does not mean that I have to swallow 100% of everything the manual says, but respect it and operate within the parameters we have all agreed to operate as a community. So when there is disagreement, as long as the disagreement can be navigated by the community (and our polity has created avenues to navigate stuff like this on many levels) then community is actively participating together. This is part of community is about.
Ultimately though I think your right that our discussion comes down to the statements made in your last paragraph; here is my response:
If Nazarenes are only those who agree with 100% of everything that is described in our manual how then is our manual ever changed? If people agree 100% when they join but in time grow in such away that they only agree 90% are they no longer by definition a Nazarene? Again you say the answer is “no” they are not. So answer this question; if Nazarenes are the only people that can change the manual (I agree with this part) but you are no longer a Nazarene when you disagree with something in the manual, (therefore no longer a Nazarene means they are no longer qualified to change it) why and how is the manual ever changed? Why even allow for the possibility of change in our polity?
I think the logical dilemma of this question, might actually be the crux of our whole discussion.
Peace,
James
James,
First, I agree that those participating in the Nazarene Church are not required to swallow 100% of the Nazarene manual as long as they operate within it, but our discussion was concerned particularly with the Articles of Faith. One is required to affirm 100% the Articles of Faith in order, not only to be a Nazarene pastor, but also a member of the Church of the Nazarene. Our community operates with this requirement for participating in its narrative. This is simply our polity. The “special rules” do not require cognitive agreement as long as one promises to abide by them. There is a vast difference between the Articles of Faith (dogma) and the “special rules.”
Second, I maintain my parameters around the Church of the Nazarene as contained within the manual, and I also maintain that the manual can and has been changed historically. Once again, this occurs within the community. Here’s how it happens. The church as a whole might wish to broaden its narrative boundaries to include people who have theologically been excluded. For example, I’m more of an a-millennialist, but I would always vote to accept post- and pre-milliennialists into the Nazarene narrative if they weren’t accepted already. Likewise, I know several fundamentalists in a local Baptist church who voted to open their community narrative to non-fundamentalists and let them participate in the hierarchy of the church. This didn’t make them any less fundamental, it just meant they didn’t think that stipulation was important for determining their community narrative. In other words, those within the community broadened their narrative to include those outside it, and once this happened, the non-fundamentalists could become members and participate and vote in regards to widening and narrowing the narrative. The same is true in regards to entire sanctification. Only those within the Nazarene community who believe in the instantaneousness of entire sanctification should be allowed to widen the narrative to include those who do not. This is a very real possibility. I know several Nazarenes who hold a strict instantaneous view of entire sanctification who wish to broaden the narrative to include those who hold a more process-oriented view because they don’t think this should be a decisive theological issue concerning one’s Nazarendom. My point is that only those already existing within the Nazarene narrative have the authority to widen or narrow the boundaries. Jared’s concern seems to be that there are some who do not believe in the instantaneousness of entire sanctification who are attempting to enlarge the Nazarene narrative to fit their own theological beliefs. This is not how narratives should function.
I would probably ask you why the Nazarene Church even has the Articles of Faith if they don’t tell us anything about the Church of the Nazarene. The Articles of Faith do more than depict our values, they depict our dogma. Are there any theological boundaries around the Church of the Nazarene? You seemed to indicate earlier that there were, but I feel like you have consistently avoided my question as to what you think they are. Since you seem not to agree with the Articles of Faith as providing the boundary, who gets to decide what the boundary is? What do you think the boundaries are? After all, can I be an atheist and a Nazarene?
You wrote, “I would probably ask you why the Nazarene Church even has the Articles of Faith if they don’t tell us anything about the Church of the Nazarene.”
I never said that the Articles of Faith don’t tell us anything about the Church of the Nazarene.
You wrote, “The Articles of Faith do more than depict our values, they depict our dogma.”
A definition of dogma: “is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.” I don’t think I am interested in religious dogma as the highest authority that can not be questioned or doubted; I am much happier in Christ.
You wrote, “Are there any theological boundaries around the Church of the Nazarene? You seemed to indicate earlier that there were, but I feel like you have consistently avoided my question as to what you think they are. Since you seem not to agree with the Articles of Faith as providing the boundary, who gets to decide what the boundary is? What do you think the boundaries are? After all, can I be an atheist and a Nazarene?”
Caleb, I have not avoided this question and I have answered them. I said that Nazarenes were first and foremost Christian disciples of Jesus Christ. I also talked about the many interwoven narratives of our tradition and the various traditions we emerged from. I talked about our commitment to become a holly people. I also talked about the organic and relational boundaries that exist within people living their faith out together in the context of both the praxis of polity and Nazarene community. There certainly are a lot of details that could be talked about in these regards but I don’t have time to dig into them in the context of this discussion; and don’t want to replace the complexity of them with a short answer that may come across as just an alternative dogma.
You wrote, “Only those within the Nazarene community who believe in the instantaneousness of entire sanctification should be allowed to widen the narrative to include those who do not. This is a very real possibility. I know several Nazarenes who hold a strict instantaneous view of entire sanctification who wish to broaden the narrative to include those who hold a more process-oriented view because they don’t think this should be a decisive theological issue concerning one’s Nazarendom.”
This is very generous of these Nazarene you speak of, and I also think the reasoning behind many “instantaneous” backers are interested in broadening the narrative to include the narrative of the “processors” in the manual’s record of narrative of our Nazarendom is because the “processors” are already here, have been for some time, and are a legitimate part of the Nazarene community. You seem to think that this is an error and a mistake but they have been embraced as part of our community.
I know many people think the manual is what leads us; I don’t think this is the case in reality. People lead. Yes they do this within the context of a tradition by honoring what came before them, but I think often the manual is the last thing to change in regards to reflecting who we are and not the first. I am not promoting this as the best intent or design of orthodoxy, just as a realistic observation of how things actually work. The vast majority of people decided it was ok to go the movies long before language was added into the manual to make this acceptable. Yes the Articles of Faith are a bigger deal than the special rules but I think the same principle applies. So of course the many people who believe in “process” and have also been embraced as Nazarenes over the years are going to attempt to enlarge the Nazarene narrative in our manual to be consistent with their theological beliefs; because this reflects their story as Nazarenes.
I think our conversation has helped me understand Jared’s initial question better, though I still disagree with him. He asks why people in our community who may disagree with some of the details concerning the doctrine of entire sanctification have been allowed to participate, lead and even influence the direction of our denomination. He is puzzled by their existence and I think he would rather categorize this segment of Nazarenes as illegitimate children of our denomination. I think the reality is, despite how you would have liked for things to work out on paper (perhaps manual paper) these “illegitimate children” have been firmly entrenched as part of our Nazarene community over the years. They identify themselves as Nazarenes and the Nazarene narrative (the larger organic narratives of real life they themselves have lived out and experienced as part of our Nazarene tradition, many living these out generationally) and they aren’t interested in becoming Methodist.
Jared’s plan comes across as just complaining about the reality of the existence of the many Nazarenes that don’t hold to the same specific articulated view of entire sanctification and hopes that they would leave to become Methodist; this does not seem to be a good plan. I suppose another plan might be to purge them from the community by excommunicating them; I don’t recommend this one, though some might. I suppose another answer would be for those that don’t hold to Nazarene instantaneous dogma the way you see it to just start another splinter Nazarene denomination; but who wants that especially when in reality the disagreement could be likened to splitting hairs. So what is left? I think what is left is to listen to the dialog and wrestle with it as a community; I think it would be good for us. Again, to just want these folks to go away does not seem like a realistic or reasonable solution.
Caleb (and Jared), I have enjoyed this conversation. Thanks.
Peace,
James
i dont know what these people are talking about but jared my good brother i love u old friend
Who says I follow trends too much?
Huh?
Where am I?
Brett,
I appreciate your sentiment about “intradenominational bickering” and question “what it even matters” to me what the manual says? And I also did not intend for my comments to be a” judgment against Jared”. My response was primarily because I interpreted Jared’s post to be antagonistic toward many in our denomination because he was upset that the denomination were “allowing” these people to teach things he felt were contrary to our articles of faith and that were “worldly philosophies”. In that context I did not feel his suggestion for them to join the Methodist was for our mutual benefit but rather as solution for the problem he had with them as Nazarenes.
Just recently a head hunt was underway because a Nazarene professor wrote a book on evolution, and good professors, teachers, and leader with sound theology are often under attack by a small, but very dogmatic and noisy segment, of Nazarene constituency. My response was only meant to challenge Jared’s assertion that they are not Nazarenes, shouldn’t be allowed to teach and lead, and that they should join the Methodist.
As for why the manual matters to me? Well, quite honestly, I do not spend much time thinking about it or worrying about it. But I have decided to walk with group of people called Nazarenes, so when Nazarenes have concerns about it or its place in our community I want to participate in the conversation. It is not that I think the manual really matters in the grand scheme of things but I do think my Nazarene brothers and sisters (whether I agree with them or not) do matter in the grand scheme of things. As for your question about how this conversation furthers Christ, I agree that the minutiae of disagreement over the manual does not do much good for the Kingdom. I would hope however that the Kingdom would be reflected in trying to work out these conflicts with one another in the context of our own community. I also hope as a community that has identified holiness of greatest importance we would also take what we learn and become peace makers in the world. It is true that we need to learn to better love one another and then love the world better through Christ.
Peace,
James
Caleb,
1.) I got my definition of dogma from wikipedia; perhaps not the most official source when it comes to accuracy but it is accurate when it comes to the cultural perception toward the term.
2.) You wrote, “The whole point of our discussion is an attempt to place parameters around “Nazarene praxis and polity” and the “Nazarene community.” You’ve basically defined the Nazarene community as those who live in the Nazarene community.”
My whole point is that both defined praxis and polity and those who actually live in the community play a part in the Nazarene narrative.
3.)You wrote “Your other paragraphs are irrelevant because they deal with your interpretation of how the organization actually functions and not necessarily your interpretation on how it should function which is what this post and discussion have been about.”
I think the organization IS functioning as it should, even with its many flaws. I see Nazarenes through the lens of community not through the lens of an institution. Institutional systems are just tools of the community to navigate their life together; I don’t think these tools ultimately have the final say over the community that uses them. These things last as long as people mutually agree to their parameters and it makes sense that these tools are constantly evolving as the community grows. Jared seemed to think it was not functioning correctly, but I think it is working just fine and is actually good for us that we will just have to continue to wrestle together with these things and more as a community.
4.) I am not sure I can really follow the idea that because there is no objective truth that our goal in a denominational narrative would be to set up an artificial objective truth to walk in and making that artificial objective truth an authority. As someone who also identifies with postmodernity and truth being understood more subjectively I am not sure if what you suggest is a good solution. It just seems like a way to give up our pursuit of knowing and experiencing a real God that is much larger than our own perspectives. It seems like we would be trading a real pursuit of God in favor of a more manageable understanding of God and then to set that manageable understanding up as the authority in our lives seems to flirt with idolatry.
It is not that I don’t think there is such a thing as objective truth; just that it is nearly impossible to completely know and experience as individuals. So I am with you here. But I do think that community can help us in our pursuit to perhaps get closer to a more objective truth as we combine and consider truth from our many subjective perspectives. I don’t think this is something that we can ever absolutely and completely accomplish but I welcome all efforts to lean into this as a community.
I know my solution has holes in it as well and lots of logistical problems. I know also that this solution has limits in the context of trying to establish a shared narrative as we have in denominations and traditions. So in some respects I do think there are limits (I don’t have perfect answers for what they are) when trying to live this out while maintaining a particular identity. But I think we need to have this spirit at least within the range of diversity of subjective understanding of truth of our own community which still has more in common as a shared narrative with one another than we would if we broke off and tried to find another denominational narrative. I think this same spirit then carries out in our dialogue with other denominations and traditions as we understand that their unique story also may help us lean a bit closer to experiencing a more objective truth of God.
I just think that in the end our goal should not be to preserve our limited subjective view of our tradition and keep it on the narrowest bandwidth possible. I do think however there is some benefit in maintaining our unique heritage because it offers a unique perspective and subjective view of truth that can benefit the whole body of Christ just as all denominations and traditions do. So then it seems that these two things I value are in tension with one another. I don’t have all the answers to how to maintain balance but I do think we should try and work to keep that tension.
Caleb, I got to say you are a very smart person and I have to concede that you are hard to keep up with. I certainly can not keep this pace you have set indefinitely so I am grateful that you have decided that the conversation may be coming to a close. I am sure we will dialogue again on some blog somewhere and I loom forward to hearing your perspective.
Peace,
James
opps..I mean I LOOK forward to hearing your perspective.
Peace,
James
Thanks James,
The same goes for you. Glad we can disagree without bickering. I hope my responses didn't seem to antagonistic or tension-filled. Brett's comments reminded me that they may have come off that way, but I've really enjoyed our discussion. Grace and Peace, Brother.
Caleb,
Your responses didn't seem to antagonistic or tension-filled at all; I enjoyed hearing and dialoging with your perspective. I has been helpful for better processing out my own feelings about the matter while also remembering to consider other perspectives. Like all of us I am still growing, learning and my own views are not set in stone.
Thanks again and peace,
James
Bickering is the wrong word. I'm moving though a bit of a period of "theological crisis" right now, and I suppose I get miffed when I see good Christians get into redherring conversations.
I recanted as best I could (deleted the comment).
If the problem is Jared being exclusive (rather and inclusive) in his beliefs, then what difference is it what denomination he's in (or you're in)? The core of denominations (and I can argue, the very nature of Christianity) is a choice, a separation, and a parting of the Children of God and the world.
Denominations are simply the divisions of the children of God (for better or for worse).
But I think it may be a good time for a vow of silence for me.
Well, it looks like I have some catching up to do!
I'll make it brief because I'd rather not have to deal with every little issue that has arisen; much of which was off my original post.
A few issues I would like to point out...
1) I am all for "ecumenical dialogue" among Christians, but I also value the diversity denominations bring to the table. As such, I would not become a Pentecostal and attempt to change their equivalent to "articles of faith" on the issue of 'tongues.' I simply propose the same for those who would call themselves Nazarenes.
2) I believe Methodists will make it to heaven (at least those who have not accepted homosexuality as a permisable lifestyle or other sin). So when I said "Join the United Methodists." I wasn't damning anyone, simply proposing that there may be a more appropriate "community" that they could join. (I'm trying to use language that you all seem to be more familiar with.) Maybe rather than changing the Nazarene narrative, you could join one in which you would be much more at home. It just makes sense to me.
3) Maybe my goal is not as "limited" and/or "narrow" as you might believe it to be. Rather it is taking Christianity as a whole and weaving with that the people called Nazarenes who have always been a holiness people believing in entire sanctification. (By the way, I think distinguishing between an "American Holiness" movement and the "Wesleyan Holiness" movement is erroneous on a whole bunch of levels. John Wesley, if anything, is more extreme than some of the "American Holiness movement" but that's for another post sometime...)
4) Certainly the Articles of Faith of the church of the Nazarene are not equivalent to Scripture, although it seems to me that Scripture wouldn't weigh much in light of us all wondering around in the dark searching for God, but never being sure of His existence or character.
5) Holiness has never been "reduced" to personal piety. (I always thought piety was a good thing!)
You said in your first comment: "...one way I think we may be in a theological crisis concerning sanctification in our denomination is that holiness is often reduced to just personal piety among many Nazarenes. Biblical holiness always carried with it a community aspect to it; it wasn’t just about individuals being unstained by worldliness, it was about loving our neighbors and putting that love in action for the sake of others."
Sounds like you just said: It's not personal piety, but it is personal piety. Isn't loving others an issue of personal piety?
6) I have a feeling you might say that I am bringing division to the church of the Nazarene, but I stand in line with who we are now. To change our articles of faith is to fundamentally change who we are, and I am simply saying we need to be a cautious about being swayed by current trends & fads.
And why would it be so bad to maintain our current identity as a people that believe that God's work of sanctification can effect us through & through?
7) Certainly, it sounds like we will not agree on this so I'll make this my first and last comment under this post.
Thanks for commenting, although I kind of got left out of all the "exciting" discussion. I'm certainly glad we can agree to disagree!
Jared
Jared, thanks for following up with all these massive comments- sorry if they got out of hand.
As for “personal piety”- I think piety is always a good thing; however I think many in our denomination have slightly twisted the concept as it relates to holiness by focusing so much on “individualistic” piety. The concept of being “pure” can become self centered when it views the purpose of holiness as just about the individual and their standing with God; this is what I am referring to when I say personal (individualistic) piety and it is neither pure nor holy. I think this is compounded because of the over emphasis on sin as a “thing” to be purged in our lives; forgetting that sin fundamentally is a relational offence not only between us and God but also us and our neighbors. Living a true life of holiness is therefore “other” focused by nature and is not as much about what we refrain from (though this can not be forgoten) to keep ourselves “unstained” as it is about loving and serving others. Loving others does not seem to be an issue of personal piety when one is obsessed with the personal aspects of piety over the piety of loving others.
I just think that too many Nazarenes (perhaps not our theologians but our every day church goers) have a misguided view of holiness that sadly and ironically takes a very selfish form; a form of godliness of the kind mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:5 that denies the power to really lean into true holiness by putting others before ourselves as we follow Christ.
Oh, and just so you know I am all for holding onto our current identity as a people that believe that God's work of sanctification can affect us through & through!! I whole hardily believe this and I think the many of those who think we are in a “theological crisis” concerning entire sanctification are motivated by their belief in this kind of sanctification too. I believe in God’s transforming power in our lives and I am proud to be part of a community as Nazarenes that believe this too.
Peace,
James
Post a Comment