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!