-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/07/reflections-on-2009-general-assembly.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I saw Ryan Scarlet, and we had a chance to talk. How long were you there for?
As far as the "Concerned Nazarenes," I just listened to their DVD. It is a nauseating litany of falsehoods about the emergent church. Interestingly, the only Nazarene on the video is Ms. Beverly Turner, who claims to be an evangelist in the CotN. The rest of the speakers are independents from a fundamentalist background, all united to paint the emergent church as New Age or Catholic (both terms spit out as synonyms for pagan).
Keep up the good work on your blog.
so when i read this, and clicked the link to rick meigs 'friend of missional', i just couldn't believe it. is this true? the seminary is going in this direction of missional?
And yes, it's true - at least as far as I can tell - that NTS is going in the missional direction. Their motto now is "a missional seminary serving a missional church." I asked Ron Benefiel (president of NTS) what one book I should read with leaders from my local church, and he suggested The Missional Church. I think his personal history shows that he is deeply missional in the way we would define the term - along the lines of the whole church being sent into the whole world to participate in God's action of healing the whole world. It's not too good to be true. It's just good.
--JS
ps, rick meigs, the creater of 'friend of missional' was in a horrific motorcycle accident. he is recovering but it will be along road. please keep him in your prayers if you think to.
It's interesting that seeing a former D.S. in a polo shirt warmed your heart. What is wrong with a coat and tie. That is part of the problem with you emergents, you feel we must change the way things are done, to tickle your ears and we must change the true word of God. Remember, God brought a pure word and His word will never change, no matter how you try to change it.
Yes the Word of God never changes, no one on this site would disagree with that. The problem is you are the one who has changed the meaning. I a sorry to be so blunt, but I am tired of controversy and simply want us all to focus on reaching lost people, then discipeling them in the way of Christ Jesus.
However, they kept using the word "intentional", and even "intentional community", but when I asked them, they weren't talking about New Monasticism or anything like that, which is usually what intentional gets attached to in common usage.
The actual meaning was stated as "we read the beatitudes and mean them". So, baby steps.
I was fascinated by all of the statements about discipleship, but couldn't see any of the GS's actually defining it in terms that actually referenced the rest of cultural statements about it (such as Dallas Willard, etc.), but I managed to stumble into a workshop led by one of the GS's to be, Stan Toler (sp?) about discipleship, where he stated that the three steps of Discipleship are A. Bible Study, B. Tithing, and C. Service within the church.
Since the majority of the emphasis of the Assembly seemed to be on reclaiming the past and the need for missions, I suppose that viewpoint makes a lot of sense, and I shouldn't be looking for what I would define as "intentional" or "missional" or "discipleship" there, much as I'd like to.
The "Concerned" have, for too long, taken to slanderous attacks based on misinformed, anti-Wesleyan propaganda. They are damaging our denomination by placing unnecessary fear into the hearts and minds of our congregants. I have seen firsthand the pain they have caused many good people in our church, and it saddens me that a movement so violent and destructive – so antithetical to the life of Christ – has taken shape in our denomination.
They have used the word “Emergent” to cloak their attacks on Wesleyan doctrine. They claim to be defending the doctrine, but their statements do not reflect Wesleyan theology or even the Nazarene Manual. If we are going to approach the issue, it would be wise for us to shed the term “Emergent.”
I believe that a response from the General Board of Superintendents is the only way to begin healing the attack wounds left by the concerned crusades. We need to approach our General Board, not necessary as “Emergent” Nazarenes, because the word is now so greatly feared and misunderstood, but as Wesleyan-Holiness Nazarenes, and request that they publish a letter to the general church stating their stance on the issue.
I am asking for your help in banding together to make this happen. I do not wish to attack back at them; I wish to find the middle way – the way that exposes the mal-intentions of the group while offering a fresh direction to the general church. Let’s change the direction of the debate so that it is no longer fear-driven, but love-motivated.
King Dominick
kingdominick@live.com
The CN would have no basis here if there weren't, in fact, a fair number of Nazarenes are not only comfortable with Fundamentalist ideas, but are completely uneducated about the doctrines of Wesley or the meaning behind the articles of Faith of the COTN.
They know about salvation, justification, sanctification, and when the sunday school and morning service should be, and that there should be a choir. Everything else is kind of fuzzy, and they know that they live in an immoral world where increasingly the younger folks seem to be driving at some kind of religion that has little of jesus in it, but lots of rock music and good intentions.
It is, in short, a culture clash.
As long as somebody can believe that, "For church to be effective, it needs to have X kind of music, Y number of worship songs, a sermon that lasts K minutes and has an invitation to salvation at the end of it" etc., then people doing something else can be wrong and even unbiblical.
As long as the bible, and often Paul, are our standards for Christian living, rather than Christ, then a whole swarm of other issues can be far more important than whether we are Love to other people.
One also notes: the CN argument only really exists in the U.S., and this is actually where the minority of Nazarenes live. Which also brings into question, how relevant is this argument anyway? Yes, we care about it, but we're a minority of the church, much as we seem to act like we are the church, the pattern from which the cloth was cut.
Phineas Breese has left the planet.
1. If we have to be able to speak for God with authority in order to answer anybody, than no Christian has a witness.
2. The objective is not to be able to establish ultimate authority, but to be able to talk to people about things like relationship, and style, and authenticity.
3. Where the Articles of Faith of the COTN line up with the Apostles or even the Nicean Creed, or at least the intentions of Wesley, EN folks are quite solid on them. It's just the peripheral stuff that's been added in (or which is attempting to be added in) which has no bearing on the gospel, and every bearing on personal choice, which is questionable. Like drinking. The bible says to drink in moderation, but the COTN is going to take it a step further, and protect everybody from drinking by banning it entirely, so that they don't have to make any responsible choices about it.
A resolution was brought up to discuss this at the last GA, and it was dismissed because "nobody would want to talk about it". Which is odd, since if it was brought up, somebody had to have wanted to talk about it.
Or take the COTN stand on going to movie theaters, which is mostly observed by the older generation. If you can see the movies in your home, then you're still seeing the same thing, and the cinema is no longer the place of debauchery that it was in the 1920's. But the practice still stands.
These are cultural elements, not biblical ones, and they keep people from thinking far more than they actually protect anything. They in fact keep people from growing out of their milk phase. "you don't need to grow, everything is safe for you, just be saved." Which is a form of death.
I am not sure where your questions are coming from. There is no official position on the COTN articles of faith here because there is no need for one. We are Nazarenes, some are laity others are Elders and we view the articles of faith just like other Nazarenes.
Your authority question is odd too, what do you mean by, "Who is the ultimate authority here?" This is a blog and there is no real hierarchy here of consequence. I did start the blog, but I have also given it away to other contributors too. I don't edit what any contributor says or the comments of those who enter into conversation here.
All we are "trying to accomplish" is to connect with others in our tradition who in someway identify with the emergent conversation; particularly as it relates to our specific tradition.
Feels like you're looking for a fight. Just my perception.
I'm not completely comfortable with the caricature you portray in the previous posts, but let me try to briefly address you question. I'm curious how others would answer this. If there is a movement that I am primarily associating with it is the Church of the Nazarene. While the movement language gets thrown around I think is hard to really talk about the Church of the Nazarene or the emerging church as a movement. Most of us resist the movement language because it seem presumptuous--you'll often hear people talk about a "conversation."
We are Nazarenes--both members and elders. It's not a question of "ultimate authority." The fact is simply we are all accountable to the community of Nazarenes, the churches in which we worship, the district in which we serve, and the Articles of Faith and rules interpreted by that same community as they live out the way of Jesus together.
-Please, hold us accountable on doctrine
-We like the Nazarene name.
-We don't understand why we are controversial.
-We are Nazarene--that's kind of the point
-No semantics here, only real ideas and issues, in real communities, among real disciples of Jesus trying to faithfully live out the call that is on our lives.
-Your perception I think--save the stray commentator, most who post hear love deeply the CON and value the beauty of the "General Church."
Peace,
Brian
Perhaps the most counter culture way to dress in the west goes beyond what you can see from the outside. Like making sure you are wearing clothes that were not made on the backs of the oppressed and impoverished.
Maybe its time to start thinking about being counter culture more than clothing style; after all that's NOT EVEN going skin deep in our thinking.
I also think your dismissal of the problem and reality of sweatshops by saying they would be a "lot poorer if they didn't have a job making them" is very revealing about your lack of perspective and attitude. Instead, you seem to want to take the conversation back to the level of discussing whether not the way we dress (ties or casual like the world?) somehow makes the Christian set apart from the "unbelievers".
Again, if you want to talk about being set apart from the world how about we talk about living according to the Way that produces the fruit of the Spirit and enables us to put our neighbor first. I am just not interested in a shallow debate about which clothing style is somehow more counter culture.