-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/04/emergent-hyphenated-nazarenes.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Perhaps my than anything for me, the CON is my onramp into the global christian family that spans all of time. My apostolic connection--is made real, substantive, and concrete as I walk together with these people.
We are indeed responsible and accountable to the church, and at the same time the church will depend our investment and leadership in the years to come--We WILL NOT take that lightly. The Spirit will guide us as we endeavor to follow Jesus together.
words on a blog can often be misunderstood. i hope i have made my hearty vote of confidence in you and your participation in the COTN clear. but should you ever find yourself outside of the COTN, you would still have an apostolic connection in my book... as you walk with whoever is in your life from whatever tradition.
If I were to grow up as a RC, or Anglican, or Pentecostal, or in a Non-denominational community etc., I would say the same--but the localized visible, living, breathing presence of the church is what makes it all possible.
This is a much more organic but dynamic way of thinking about apostolic succession which is a notion protestants have loathed to claim, but should be recovered in a way such as this.
Peace,
Peace,
James
Like Brian said, the Church of the Nazarene is my on-ramp into the global church (nice image). "Emergent" will be an out of date (maybe already is) tag soon enough, but the lively and important conversation that it has sparked will continue. I hope this blog continues as well, with less apologetic/argument, and more engagement with emergent writers. For example, I'd like to see some posts about how "Emergent Nazarene's" process what guys like Peter Rollins are writing. Not to tear him apart or determine whether he is a heretic or not, but to engage his writings from our on-ramp.
Quick question - is resistance to the Emerging church a USA phenomena? I don't come across as much fear-mongering in Canada as I see in the US (from blogs like Concerned Nazarene, Reformed Nazarene, etc). I wonder if the fear factor regarding Emergent is related to the fear factor that conservative US Nazarene's have regarding Obama and socialism, etc... That might be a question for another post... (By the way, socialism isn't so bad. I pay less in total taxes in Canada than I did in just health insurance premiums in the States.)
To you second question--perhaps only insofar as Fundamentalist sentiment has tended to be connected with Conservative/Republican politics. At least for the past 37 years.
Folks in the US talk a big game about how bad healthcare is in Canada, but I'm with you. If this is socialism--it needs to be spread around a bit. It's not without it's flaws, but it's as good of a system as any.
Peace,
Steven
Context is critically important to any argument or discussion on what it is to be Christian. The Emergent discussion has so much fire in the US because we have so many sub sects and groups of the church, many of whom are convinced that they are the only ones who are right. It is not exaggerating to say that there are many churches, especially of the Baptist or Bible persuasion, who truly believe that they are the only ones "going to heaven".
Much of the Emergent conversation attempts to pinpoint the things which bring so much division and discord, and discern whether they are actually important to the cause of Christ, and whether we can move past them in our pursuit of growth into the likeness of our Lord.
I've heard many Emergent leaders talk very favorably about content in the Orthodox and RC church, with regret that when the Reformation occurred, they threw out the baby with the bathwater in their hurry to leave all things that identified them with the other faction. At the same time, there is an awareness of practices that have carried on in those churches which, in historical context, still appear to have issues in light of the original word of God, and which are based far more on traditional practice than the actual word. So, more discussion.
There seems to be this ongoing idea that somebody out there has the "right" practice, and the rest of us are just messing around and wasting time. But the only people that I've seen approach "right" so far, are far more concerned with whether they're loving people like Christ wanted, testifying His Lordship with their lives and actions, than whether they're theologically correct according to a particular church.
Steven, my own observation of the emergent conversation is that many within it are actually trying to do just what you suggest: defining what the church has always believed for this generation. As we look back to see "what the church has always believed," however, we see that this has shifted over time as the church has responded to its changing contexts. It doesn't appear to be as static as one might like it to be.
So how do we respond to our current context-in-flux? (Tickle's "Great Emergence" book that was referenced earlier contains some helpful images for talking about this.) How do we determine "what the church has always believed" so that we can live it here and now? Most emergent churches I've encountered embrace the creeds. They embrace the Scriptures and study them diligently to uncover layers of meaning that had been obscured by previous interpretive lenses. Etc, etc, etc.
So, based on my own limited experience with the emergent conversation, it appears to me that you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, or at least is not as prevalent in the emergent conversation as you might think.
Or my perception of it could be way off. :) That's certainly a possibility!
Sorry for the long paragraph, I got caught-up in thought and just kept typing. I know what you mean about it being harder to read that way, it can be a little hard on the eyes.
I'm afraid that with out a strong ecclisiology & theology we are just bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. It was the seven ecumenical counsels that were the ones who defined for us what the great tradition is, this conversation which we call emergent is a good thing. But in the same token, what do we base what we believe on? Scripture alone as has tried most of protestantism.
I just do not see how we will not end-up with more of the same, more groups convinced that they are the ones to restore NT Christianity. I just do not see any way forward but back. Not to Roman but to the Church of the first 1000 years of Church history. And the only place I see that faith held intact is Orthodoxy. We may not all embrace Byzantine worship, but at least we could embrace the truth of the Gospel as it has believe for 1000 years. A conciliar faith that was formed in the first few centuries of the churches existence. Keep the conversation going but don't let it degenerate into being post-christian.
I think loving people is great and social justice and all that goes with it is honoring and lifting-up Christ. But unless that love brings people to Christ and helps them know who He is and the truth of how He became to restore all things and that through faith in Him we can be delivered from death, hell and the grave, are we really loving those people as Christ loved them?
I guess I'm just concerned that emergent will end up just another brand name. Kinda like charismatic or what ever, but then I'm not trying to think like a protestant.
Peace all,
Steven
The intent of the Emerging or Post Modern mindset is very much to say "what have we thrown away that actually brought us much closer to God?" Phyllis Tickle currently has a "reclaiming the ancient ways" series out which has been excellent so far...the one book on the Daily office was just incredible, and I need to pick up the one on Sabbath. Tony McKnight's take on fasting was also incredible.
I think that those of us who are truly committed to the Emergent mindset see that the church has spent 2000 years finding reasons not to get along, not to agree, finding reasons to fight, to argue, to burn people at the stake, to make accusations of heresy, and really, to not be Christlike.
I also think that we believe that the more we ACT like Christ, out of a heart that wants to be more like Christ, that a testimony to the unsaved will flow naturally from that, and that rather than converting them to arguments and guilt, we'll be converting the world to healing and discipleship.
Peace,
Steven
I think that we all have...eh. Suppositions from our backgrounds about what things are, or what they will become. And, after all, it's only through the leading of the Holy Spirit that we can do more than this...
i resonate with your post. its been awhile since i've shown my face here, but i've been following along like so many others.
next time im in the DC area, i will get ahold of you in advance and take you up on that cup of coffee you offered a couple years back:)
Good to hear from you again man. And I’d still love to get that cup of coffee with you whenever you are up for it. Well, maybe not THAT cup of coffee, the cup I offered a few years I bet is really cold by now- we’ll get a new cup.
Peace,
James
Everybody should check out Jason's church and learn a little more about what he's up to.
College Park Church Plant (they're still working on a name) Jason Mack--pastor
www.collegeparkchurchplant.com
BTW, DC is a hot bed for Nazarene-emerging. These guys won't self promote so allow me.
Corridor Church--James Diggs, pastor
http://www.corridorchurch.com/
Mosaic DC--Rob Kazee--pastor
http://www.mosaicchurchdc.org/
I'm a long way from DC, so I doubt I'll have the chance to visit these churches. In your opinion, what it is about these three churches that put them into the Nazarene-emerging grouping? Their web-sites are hip - but I know that emergent is more than just hip, right? What do you see / experience in these churches that you would not find in a non-emerging Nazarene church?
Peace
Be careful what you say. The wind blows where is wishes. I know one guy who could never imagine visiting a church in Vancouver, Canada, from Washington DC. He now lives there. :-)
You can't judge a book by the cover, so to speak. I'm part of a church community that I would describe as traditionally Nazarene (albeit in the Canadian context), without a hip website, whose pastor could quite easily be described as belonging to things emerging.
Weird world we live in.
Later dude
What I find interesting about "emerging Nazarenes" is that in some respect they/we (if I am one) are redescovering the early Nazarene passion of "Christianizing Christianity" - that is re-awakening a slumbering church to the wonderful dynamism of the Gospel and participating in the inbreaking Kingdom of God. In contrast to what "orig" wrote below, I'd say that the folks who are posting on this blog are in harmony with the Church of the Nazarene and long to see it recapture its roots of 100 years ago when it was preaching the gospel to the poor and eschewing power and prestige in favor of radical contextualization - moving from the middle to the margins of society.
I look at it like this if your going to live in america you need to respect it's laws. and so should be the same about the nazarene church if you have pastors or people in the church you need to have them support the doctrine of the church of the nazarene. I mean seriously I am study the history of the nazarene church and it is a solid denomination and I can't understand why some one wants to change what has been the basis of the church for a hundred years.
the only way I can explain it is that some people don't support the church they rather change it to fit there needs. On ordnation process of the nazarene church to become a pastor you have to agree with our beliefs and what we are and that we are a holiness church and a church that believes in sanctification and you have to agree with it to be ordained.
So then I look at pastors that think we are to boring and we need a change to be emergent and take out sanctification, and I quickly look back and see that if they really loved the nazarene church and supported it then maybe they should stand up for it and believe in it's doctrine.
I saw this website that was making fun of a GS....even though it was a prank there was no respect or anything just pure disrespect.
They say they love the church then prove it?
If they have so many issues with the church then move on to another denomination that believes the sameway.
I encourage people not to post anonymously. So I'm not going to attempt addressing your comment. But it sounds like you made your statement. Plus you've thrown so many bombs out there I would be difficult to know where to begin without some context around your accusations, presumptions, and assumptions.
Sorry we've touched off such a chord in you.
Peace,
Just a few questions, if I may:
From this part of Tickle's quoted statement:
"...they seek to meld the DNA and passion and post-modern theology of a new form of Christianity with the existing body and operative history of an established tradition."
How does Tickle, and/or emerging christianity, and/or emergents define the following utilized terms:
* "post-modern theology"
* "new form of Christianity"
And...Given that established traditions already have a defined theology and a defined/practiced form of Christianity, how is this new theology and this new form of Christianity going to be implemented in established traditions (and specifically in the COTN)? How will these two things be dealt with by individual Nazarene Churches, different District Superintendents, and the General Superintendents?
Tickle has lamented that the Reformation introduced Scripture as the authority and dethroned the papal authority (which she says created divisions and lack of unity in the Church - I disagree with the premise). She indicates that the Church is casting off scriptural authority for another (which will be indicated by the Church's acceptance of homosexuality)...If not the Bible, what will emergent Christianity's authority be? Is the COTN in agreement with this "emerging authority" as it relates to faith and practice?
As Rob Bell has stated, and other emergents seemingly agree:
"...discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/novemb...
Will the COTN ever accept this view of Scripture? (certainly, Wesley did not) Is this the predominant view among emerging Christianity?
How will this new form of Christianity and theology deal with the subject of Christ's atoning work on the cross? Why did Christ go to the cross and what did He do there? Why was it necessary for Christ to go to the cross?
How will this new form of Christianity and theology deal with the subject of salvation? What does it mean to be saved and how does one obtain salvation?
In this post-modern theology and this new form of Christianity, what is the primary role of the Church?
In this new post-modern theology and in this new form of Christianity, how are the end times and biblical prophecy (rapture of the Church, tribulation, Christ's second coming and 1000 year reign, etc.) dealt with?
Does this new theology find agreement with McLaren's recent statement at the Sojourners blog?
"The need to confront the terrible, deadly, distorted, yet popular theologies associated with Christian Zionism and deterministic dispensationalism. These systems of belief — so common among my fellow evangelical Christians — too often lead people to act as if Jewish people have God-given rights but Palestinians do not. They use a discredited hermeneutic (way of interpreting the Bible) to imply that God shows favoritism — that God is concerned for justice for one group of people and not for others. They create bigotry and prejudice against Muslims in general … and in particular against Palestinians, many of whom are Muslim but many of whom are Christian too. These doctrinal formulations often use a bogus end-of-the-world scenario to create a kind of death-wish for World War III, which — unless it is confronted more robustly by the rest of us — could too easily create a self-fulfilling prophecy."
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/04/16/four-points-tow...
Regards,
'As Rob Bell has stated, and other emergents seemingly agree:
"...discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat."'
Bell's intent is not to dispense with scripture. If you had read Velvet Elvis, for instance, in which chapter 2 is all about what we do with the bible, he talks about how scripture has always needed believers acting in community with each other and the Holy Spirit to properly interpret it.
There are people who believe that the scripture speaks for itself, but it doesn't. God speaks through the scriptures, as well as through other people, and our overall experience with Him. The danger becomes when we see scripture as the primary source for all understanding of God, and state that we can judge things by scripture itself, devoid of other sources... which isn't true, and is never stated in the bible itself.
Most emergents would point out that God is using the bible to tell us, over and over, the story of what He has been doing throughout the ages to build His relationship with us. When we lose focus on what He is telling us in favor of focusing only on our particular favorite parts of the bible, we have made the bible into an idol, rather than a tool of communication.
"Bell's intent is not to dispense with scripture."
Thank you for the reply, Todd, but my question wasn't necessarily related to "an intent to dispense" (but dismissing the "divine fiat" origins of scripture, I would submit, most likely does that). Bell's view is that the Bible is a human product, rather than a product of divine fiat." This view is not in harmony with Nazarene doctrine (nor historic Christian orthodoxy).
As a hyphenated emergent Nazarene, how do you plan on marrying Bell's view (wich, I assume, you agree with?) of scripture and the Nazarene Church's view of scripture (and Wesley's for that matter). Do you plan on teaching contrary to Nazarene doctrine?
We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 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.
(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)
- Christian Zionism
- Deterministic Dispensationalism.
Deterministic Dispensationalism would fall squarely under Calvinism, I think. A sort of "We're the chosen people, and since the world is being destroyed, we can just totally ignore that stewardship command from Genesis, since God is taking the club members to another place afterward".
Does McLaren's view of future events line up with the COTN's related Articles of Faith (and, more importantly, scripture)? Or do the below COTN Articles of Faith more line up with the "terrible, deadly, distorted, yet popular theologies associated with Christian Zionism and deterministic dispensationalism" that McLaren refers to?
XV. Second Coming of Christ
19. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again;
that we who are alive at His coming shall not precede them
that are asleep in Christ Jesus; but that, if we are abiding in
Him, we shall be caught up with the risen saints to meet the
Lord in the air, so that we shall ever be with the Lord.
(Matthew 25:31-46; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Philippians 3:20-21;
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 9:26-28; 2 Peter 3:3-15;
Revelation 1:7-8; 22:7-20)
XVI. Resurrection, Judgment, and Destiny
20. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, that the
bodies both of the just and of the unjust shall be raised to
life and united with their spirits—“they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
21. We believe in future judgment in which every person
shall appear before God to be judged according to his or her
deeds in this life.
22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured
to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus
Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer
eternally in hell.
(Genesis 18:25; 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 50:6; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2-3;
Matthew 25:31-46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 16:19-31; 20:27-38; John 3:16-18;
5:25-29; 11:21-27; Acts 17:30-31; Romans 2:1-16; 14:7-12; 1 Corinthians
15:12-58; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Revelation 20:11-
15; 22:1-15)
I think McLaren probably has "Left Behind"-type scenarios in mind when he speaks of "terrible, deadly, distorted, yet popular theologies," not necessarily the basic idea that there will in fact be a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment.
Is McLaren referring to the rapture (forgetting the different arguments of when it happens for a moment) of the Church, though?
And...is he referring to God's obvious plan for Israel during the "end times" and in His Millenial rule and reign? Does McLaren have a problem with Israel being God's chosen nation and chosen people? What in McLaren's view considers God's established covenants with Israel? God's promises will determine the future for Israel and for the entire world population. Is that considered deterministic in a negative way?
Wasn't the reason for God using the Church, for a period of time, to make Israel jealous and to be wooed back to God through Christ? Isn't that the reason and result, among other things, of the Tribulation...Israel coming back to God through faith in Jesus Christ?
Second, you seem to be assuming several things as "obvious" in your understanding of how things will play out that aren't necessarily obvious and aren't required by our Nazarene articles of faith. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. There's room for varying interpretations of these things within the Church of the Nazarene. It's possible that there's room for McLaren's views, whatever those may be.
Third, while I don't have strong opinions on it, simply because I haven't studied it enough, I hesitate to equate the modern nation-state of "Israel" with all the promises made in Scripture about "Israel."
Will God keep His covenants with Israel?
Is Israel God's chosen nation/people?
I can give you my opinion, but what will it mean to you if my opinion is different from yours or McLaren's?
So, my opinion: There will evidently be a "meeting Christ in the air" moment, but I don't believe that Scripture says we'll escape from any particular coming trials. Instead, we're repeatedly told to persevere and not give up.
The apostle Paul wrestled with the 2nd question, and he seems to believe, on the one hand, that those who trust and follow Jesus Christ are the true Israel, not simply those biologically descended from Israel, and on the other hand, that God will one day bring Israel to repentance, bringing them back to himself. So I guess I'd answer "Yes" to question #2.
And I know that Israel certainly WAS God's chosen nation. He chose them for a purpose, and the New Testament seems to say that this purpose was largely fulfilled (and continues to be fulfilled) in Christ. Now, the two (Jew & Gentile) have become one in Christ, so I'm not sure what ongoing role Israel as a separate nation might have. But, frankly, it's been a while since I've dug into this issue. So that's just my opinion at this moment.
The problem? McLaren is attacking Premillinial Dispensationalism. Disagreeing with innerency is bad enough, but this is much bigger.
Once again, as in many other things, the CotN has never taken a position on millenarianism. Wesley was amillenialist. You could argue that he had no choice because Premillianlial Dispensationalism didnt exist. Rapturism wasnt codified until 1907 when the immoral hustler Scofield went to Switzerland to finish the Scofield Bible. Scofield had no money, his project was financed by zionist Blackstone. The Scofield Bible has always been owned by Oxford University Press, which means they were the financiers behind Blackstone. Oxford University Press has rewritten and updated the Scofield Bible, over time, to promote and support "facts on the ground" as they developed in the policies of ethnic cleansing practiced by the state of Israel.
Prominent Nazarenes have spoken against Rapturism since it's first appearance, and continue to do so today. Dan Boone has recently published material that almost looks like partial preterism. 1900 years of Christianity is of no value, and indeed, Christianity is of no value, until CI Scofield shows up and suddenly and inexplicably delivers the "truth" whose only fruit is millions of $'s for Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, a murderous middle east regime with no accountability and a global economic/political elite with no accountability because-who cares, as Rexella breathlessly tells Jack, the world will be ending day after tomorrow, and those who believe this nonsense will float up to what? Jesus' spaceship, apparently. Because they had better not float too high, or they will go into geosynchronous orbit (don't go figurative on me now, that's not an option for you inerrents).
Those left will be tortured in unimaginable ways and of course, those Jews, who are so important to this scheme promoted by the Dallas Theological Seminary, John Hagee and Christian Zionists, will all be murdered in a holocaust that these pre-mills know the Jews so richly deserve. A holocaust that will make Hitler look like a piker. Antisemitism delayed, but antisemitism nonetheless. No wonder a recent survey shows that evangelical Christians support torture, at the rate of 60%, it's built into their theology, it's what they hope and pray for. This is religion? No, as Boone says, it's a cartoon.
POMOS are not going to accept this theology. Neither do a large number of Christians, including Nazarenes. Pre-Mill is a political ideology and thus idolatry which means it will only hold as long as it is successful. Nothing of man is successful forever. This particular success is based on the dollar as the world currency with China and Arabia holding the debt. Another Y2K, Y1K, Millerism? I suggest you bet on the in breaking of the kingdom of God, described by McLaren.
The scope of your questions are not going to be able to be handled comprehensively in the comment section of a blog. But I do want to point out a few things.
First, have you read Tickle’s book or are you just going by quotes you found on the internet? I would recommend reading it if you haven’t, either way though I think your lens you are reading from is distorting what she is saying.
For instance you said she “LAMENTED that the Reformation introduced Scripture as the authority and dethroned the papal authority”. This simply isn’t true, she wasn’t lamenting anything, only observing what happened in history. Tickle is speaking from a lens of religion as it relates to anthropology.
I have already addressed part of the same quote you mention before as it relates to homosexuality on another thread. As I pointed out before, I do not believe this lone statement in her entire book was an endorsement of homosexuality, but rather making the point that as authority moves away from scripture alone, so goes using the bible as our sole authority in this matter as well.
It also is very important to point out that she is talking about the specific view of solo scriptora (scripture ALONE) in regards to authority. Scripture has always played a vital role of authority in partnership with the church, both long before the Reformation and I believe it will continue to do so. But Tickle’s book is about asking the question you ask and does not answer it. Where will out authority be if not “scripture alone”? I think those are dynamics that are still being worked out.
Your comment about Bell is interesting, because I have no problem with seeing the bible as human product while still also believing it is divinely inspired and God breathed. These things are not in contention here, and this is not what Bell was contrasting. What he did object to is scripture being viewed as “divine fiat.” I don’t believe this is inconsistent with our Wesleyan theology at all.
Your next series of questions about the cross, salvation, and the church are too open ended here to get into because they would start new threads. These topics have been touched on here before and are certainly part of the conversation. All of these things are vital elements to the gospel and I believe the core of the conversation remains very historically orthodox on these things.
Finally you mention your concern with how emergent leaning people view “end times and biblical prophecy”. I agree 100% with McLaren here that the views he is opposed of are dangerous and I believe they are counter the gospel and meaning of the text in Revelations and OT prophesy as well.
At the same time I want to be clear, as I am reminded every Advent season, that I look expectantly ahead to Christ’s return. I just believe that much of what our western, particularly American, Christian culture understands as “end times prophesy” is the kind of politicized garbage we could read in books like the “Left Behind” series.
Paul, I can see from your comments that you desperately have lots you want to talk about as you bring up both new and related topics. Unfortunately our comment section is not set up to carry on the number of threads you want to discuss.
If you are sincerely interested in exploring all these questions as thoroughly as they deserve to be explored, I suggest you go over to NazNet. Of course, reading more and having live conversations would be even better, but NazNet is the next best thing if you want to have these conversations on the web, especially from a Nazarene perspective.
I and other contributors participate with NazNet, so we are not trying to avoid you by suggesting this. But also, numerically speaking, there are a lot more voices there that can participate and enrich the conversation on all sides. Not to mention, you can start a new thread there yourself , which is one of the advantages of a forum. Your questions all make great conversation starters that could lead to some great discussion; again they are great questions.
Please accept my invitation to join NazNet and explore these things further in that space which is better equipped to handle the depth of conversation you wish to pursue.
Peace,
James
I agree there is much to deal with in my questions, but, given that the great emergence involves a "new theology and a new form of Christianity", I think that those questions have to be dealt with, wrestled with, grappled with...in their entirety, in detail, and with specificity. The particiapnts of the emergent conversation, that are leading the way into the great emergence, have definite beliefs as they relate to these questions. These definite beliefs are formulating and defining this "new theology and this new form of Christianity".
Furthermore, given the COTN's Articles of Faith, there can only be so much "hyphenation", especially given the COTN's Agreed Statement of Belief:
IV. Agreed Statement of Belief
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.We believe:
26.1. In one God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given
by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith
and Christian living.
26.3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore,
inclined to evil, and that continually.
26.4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally
lost.
26.5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the
whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes
on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and
saved from the dominion of sin.
26.6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent
to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
26.7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth,
and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised,
and the final judgment will take place.
And...here is a "sticky" point for me (and many others):
Emergents define the emergent movement as a "conversation", but conversations do not lead to "a new theology and a new form of Christianity". Isn't the "conversation" definition way too limited in scope? In reality, isn't the emergent movement something much more defineable and much more encompassing and active than just a "conversation"?
A conversation (oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups) does not, in itself, create "a new theology and a new form of Christianity"...It is action, taken as a result of a conversation, that creates these two things.
"...but rather making the point that as authority moves away from scripture alone, so goes using the bible as our sole authority in this matter [ homosexuality] as well."
If the Bible is not the sole authority on homosexuality being a sin, then what other alleged authority/authorities do you make reference to?
Regards,
I think that one of the important aspects of a conversation is that you hear each other talk. You look at what's happening, and you ask questions, and you practice mercy and humility toward each other.
My pastor showed me an article about how some church groups are actually meeting in bars, and how this is causing a lot of disruption among groups that are into complete abstinance on alcohol. The prop behind banning all use of alcohol seems to run as follows:
A. The bible seems to show many people using alcohol, but B. bans drunkeness, and C. talks about not being the cause of people stumbling. D. as a result, it's much easier to just abstain from it entirely, thus not causing people to have any cause to stumble while trying to discern what moderation is.
The Baptist college I went to used the same sort of logic for dancing... in all of the places where Dancing seems to occur in the bible (David after that battle, Herod's niece before John was beheaded, etc.) it was immediately followed by something negative, so if we don't dance at all, we won't invite the negative consequences of providence.
My response to this logic, happily, is thus:
Since there's so much trouble with sexuality and lust in our society, obviously the mature reaction by all christians is total abstinance, both from sex or any other measure of affection, so that we don't cause anybody to lust or stumble.
And:
Since the bible has so much to say on how dangerous the tongue is, and how God hates divisiveness and gossip, we obviously shouldn't talk at all either.
If anybody can show me how abstinence from alcohol makes sense in context, but these two don't, I'll be glad to hear it.
Obviously terms like "a new theology” and a “new form of Christianity", are troubling to you. However, theology has always been the human way we wrestle with the words concerning God. Theology has never been static through out Christian history. I think it may be important here differentiate between theology and doctrine. Parallel to growing and changing theology throughout Christian history you also always had continually changing forms of Christianity. You are entirely misreading and misinterpreting the meaning and context of these terms which is why you are reacting to them in such a combative way.
You wrote in response to my suggestion of finding a more suitable place to engage in the depth of conversation you wished to explore, “I agree there is much to deal with in my questions, but, given that the great emergence involves a "new theology and a new form of Christianity", I think that those questions have to be dealt with, wrestled with, grappled with...in their entirety, in detail, and with specificity.”
I don’t like the implication that these things are not be wrestled with in their entirety by many many people just because I have not wanted to wrestle with them in this particular format and on your terms.
Here is where I begin to feel you are being more combative than actually wanting to explore the topic matter more thoroughly. This format simply isn’t adequate for such intricate dialogue necessary to dig in the way you want. What bothers me is that you have ignored my suggestion for a more suitable place which makes it seem as if you are not really interested in digging in and understanding the conversation. You seem more interested in bringing charges without taking the time to become adequately informed and demanding that we answer them and explain ourselves.
I am sorry Paul, this is simply too exhausting to continue here like this in the comment section. If you are serious about exploring your questions, I have offered you a much better alternative for us both. We will see what you are really interested in by how you choose to respond.
James
I'm on NazNet, too, and James is right that the forum format is much better suited to these conversations than the comment section of this blog.
Just my two cents. :)
I really respect your persistence. You're perhaps as vested in the conversation as any of us. Your last couple comments really illustrate an important point--and I appreciate Rich's willingness to point out that the CON does not have the same theological trajectory as perhaps some other traditions. This stems from the fact that our roots run through the English reformation rather than being oriented by the thought of Luther and Calvin. I'm not attempting to devalue the validity and contribution of these other two-as well as the counter reformation within the RC community. However, we are clearly working from different stock.
So, we can continue to play theological gotcha games. You attempt to ask us question you believe back us in the corner. We respond by saying your questions presuppose a way of seeing the world and scripture that we only understand from a distance. You respond by associating us with McLaren or Rollins, or Tickle, etc., whom most of us read, but few of would describe as speaking exclusively for us.
All of it is a bit Quixotic, don't you think? As valiant your effort is, we're not making much progress together. Sure someone may step in an errant hole, stumble into a pitfall, and you can declare, ah ha, and feel justified in you quest--All for what? You've come as an inquisitor, and this is a conversation among friends.
We are attempting to stay within our tradition and grapple with how to be faithful to the gospel's call in the time we have on this earth. Wesley successfully attempted the same.
You have succeeded at dominating the conversation here for a while now. What is your intent? Are you attempting to help us become better Nazarenes? Insure we stay rooted broadly in evangelicalism? Just out for a good theological rumble? Concerned about heresy? Looking for friendship and encouragement? Is this just a hobby for you?
I guess if we are going to continue the "round and round we go," I'm curious about what makes you tic. Why?
Most of us are hear because we happen to be Nazarenes interested in remaining faithful to our tradition and the gospel in our time on earth. I would like to see this conversation attend to that intent.