Emergent Nazarenes - Latest Comments in Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

richschmidt — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:34:12 -0000

Are you asking my opinion on these matters? Or the Church of the Nazarene's official position? Because, as I said earlier, I don't know that the Church of the Nazarene takes any official stance on any of these 3 questions. (In our articles of faith, we repeat the verse that mentions that those of us who are alive will "meet Christ in the air" along with those who have fallen asleep, but that doesn't necessarily mean a permanent leaving of the planet prior to a time of great tribulation.)

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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:47:53 -0000

Is there or isn't there a rapture of the Church?

Will God keep His covenants with Israel?

Is Israel God's chosen nation/people?

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Brian Postlewait — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:24:56 -0000

Paul,
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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

richschmidt — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:06:56 -0000

First, you'd have to ask McLaren to find out what specifically he was referring to.

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."

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Thu, 07 May 2009 10:52:04 -0000

Thanks, Rich.

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?

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

richschmidt — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:42:34 -0000

As evidence that comment threads like these aren't the best forum for these discussions, see my two most recent posts above. I replied directly to two of Paul's comments without seeing that others had already replied below.

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. :)

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

richschmidt — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:32:03 -0000

Thankfully, the Church of the Nazarene has never promoted any particular theory of how the end times will play out. We don't demand that people believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints or a pre-millenial reign of Christ or any other particular theory of how it will all play out. In this area, at least, we've been content to pretty much stick to what Scripture says and demand no more than that.

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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

richschmidt — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:27:28 -0000

Paul, I don't think Bell's perspective on Scripture is all that different from the Nazarene position on it (and historic Christian orthodoxy). He's not downplaying inspiration. He's just reminding us that it's a human product, which no one can deny... unless they hold to some kind of dictation theory of inspiration, which the Church of the Nazarene has always rejected (as far as I know).

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

James_Diggs — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:06:23 -0000

Paul,

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

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Phule77 — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:23:24 -0000

I think that many Emergents come from backgrounds wherein they were not encouraged or even allowed to ask questions or talk about things. I know I wasn't. In fact, questions stated directly to my pastor about how his sermon seemed to conflict with the word of God, or how the ramifications of his sermons seemed to conflict, were flatly ignored.

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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Phule77 — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:16:09 -0000

Christian Zionism would seem to be a movement through which Jews are held to be more special than other people, and by which those who oppose Jews could be held to not be regarded by the word of Christ, in which we love and serve our enemies.

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".

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:04:28 -0000

Thanks for your reply, 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,

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:57:08 -0000

Moreover...

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)

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:16:50 -0000

How do you believe that McLaren defines these terms:

- Christian Zionism
- Deterministic Dispensationalism.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:15:01 -0000

Todd,

"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)

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

James_Diggs — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:56:33 -0000

Paul,

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

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

James_Diggs — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:04:01 -0000

looks like the Anabaptist group let their domain name expire and then someone else picked it up. I removed the link. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

jesus reyes — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:00:57 -0000

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Nazarene, and it is complete foolishness like the following that is the reason.

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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Phule77 — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:32:27 -0000

As for the quote from McLaren...I'm not sure what you're pointing out as being a problem here.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Dan — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:23:54 -0000

Are you aware that the submergent link leads to a site for a live sex cam? Wasn't very cool.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Phule77 — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:46:57 -0000

You quoted Rob Bell:

'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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Paul — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:16:14 -0000

Hey James,

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.christianitytoda...

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/2009/0...

Regards,

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Phule77 — Sun, 03 May 2009 23:10:16 -0000

Heh. Any time I bring up social justice to my dad, his reaction is that social justice will always turn into works based salvation without Jesus.

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...

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Grant — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:23:38 -0000

Thanks Brian. You helped me with your answer. I don't self-identify as 'emerging' and I pastor a traditional Nazarene church. Yet I resonate with many of the values that the emerging church is 'rediscovering' and find in my traditional congregation a long history of practices such as hospitality and a generous orthodoxy that are a part of the 'emerging church'. So my inquiry was more personal than trying to define who was in and out of all things emerging.

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.

Re: Emergent-Hyphenated-Nazarenes

Pastor Steven — Sat, 02 May 2009 10:27:59 -0000

Thanks for the insight Todd, I'm just stating some of my concerns, thoughts and convictions, much of what I've said is do largely to my own spiritual journey of faith.

Peace,

Steven