-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-is-function-of-this-blog.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
That being said, one of my facebook friends accidentally stumbled upon the April Fools joke here and called me up with some legitimate questions. He asked openly and honestly what emergent means. That was fun in and of itself *rolling eyes*, but this blog served as a catalyst for real life conversation. And it was encouraging on several levels.
When there is a target on your back, people are going to take shots at you. It upsets me when they do this, because like I said, I know a couple of you guys personally. But this blog helped one of my close friends draw closer to God and others on the outside. I have read through some of the past comments, and you guys have a really soft heart "helping" people who don't want to be helped. I don't think anyone has directly responded to any of the comments I have made, but many cat and mouse games are being played with people who are fairly upfront with their disagreements with you guys. I understand you want to encourage differing opinions, but conversations also include mostly similar opinions. Therefore, you guys probably DO need to choose when you should respond and when you shouldn't. I believe that sometimes these similar opinions are those who are riding the fence and trying to articulate what they want to believe as they are learning to believe it. So maybe engaging what they have to say would be more beneficial?
Anywho, I love this blog. My Google Reader loves to direct me to the latest post here and I try to come back as often as time allows to read comments. I love and pray for you guys.
Peace,
Mike M.
For instance, I had never met Kevin Rector in person until a couple months ago. We happened to be at a conference together, but we immediately embraced as brothers and fellow travelers. Our shared experience on this blog, and other online conversations is indeed substantive.
I want this kind of connection to be true with any that I would meet who contribute to the simple community that gathers in this space. So my comments and my posts need to be communicated in such a way that I can indeed embrace you without guilt or grimace. (I don't always succeed with this intent.)
Of course it's interesting that it is always the provocative posts that get the most attention. It's no different on any other blog, cable TV, or media in general. And, it is those who push hardest against us that get equally reactive attention. But the race does not always go to the swift--but to the persistent.
By in large, I'm very proud of the way we've honored and dialogued with our detractors and questioners. In the resent weeks, we've seen reactions crescendo. Still we've been for the most part gracious. People will judge for themselves. The Holy Spirit will sort many of these things our over the long run. So I hope we don't get too anxious. I think we can admit that we've been a bit on edge, because many of us feel like we've been unfairly attached online, and it letter written to our authorities.
All that said, I'm open to some general rules for dialogue, but I don't think it will change anything overall. It's also good to take a break every now and then. We don't need to answer every comment. Some critics simply feed on the conflict. Some posts belong on our own blogs, not on this group blog. We can always invite folks from here over read and comment.
I respect David's recent reflection on needing a break. David writes some of the most brilliant and spot-on stuff we see here. His responses are serious and substantive. I've learned a lot from him. But I've also seen him get sucked into the conflicts (right Dave). The passion we see from him is part of what makes his stuff so potent and inspiring. I'd hate to lose Dave from this community for any conversation, but a break might be good for him, as it is for me from time to time.
Also, do you think, "Angry" is the right word? People get frustrated--we are sometimes stubborn listening well and walking in each others shoes, but it's really tough to perceive anger through this format of communication.
While I respect that this is an attempt to reduce the hostility and approach conflict in an appropriately assertive and intentional way--it may only work to create more hostility and frustration.
cheers,
Brian
I definitely feel a cool edge from a handful of people at church. I've lost a few Facebook friends over my support of the emergent movement - as well as my belief (in general) of a more liberal application of the law. But, for every old friend who has distanced him or herself from me, I have connected with at least half a dozen people who don't attend church and with whom I have been able to share the love of Jesus.
I have been meaning to address the April 1 post. I think it's a little dangerous to put that out there b/c if phrases from that are googled, it could result in people claiming excerpts as the truth, never realizing it was a joke. Just a thought...
In conclusion, both sides have a lot to learn here. The bottom line is, every great "emerging" thought and/or movement met opposition. If you plan on identifying with this movement and embracing its most liberal and controversial teachings, brace yourself for some opposition. And be sure to use Scripture in your posts to back up what you're saying, anyone can challenge your thinking, but no one is going to challenge God's Word. It seems that the use of God's Word is often lacking in emerging "conversations" these days.
I was talking to my Pastor about some of this yesterday (and he didn't say, don't mention this, so hopefully he won't have to beat me later) but something he's noticed is that many of the "normal" Nazarene Pastors that he's met have the equivalent of an associates in theology/doctrine, whereas most of the EC folks that he's react or dealt with have something more like a Masters, approaching Doctorate. So there's a true educational divide going on in the conversation.
What this means is that when we try to discuss things with "normal" Nazarenes, we're dealing with years of collected "This is what we've always been told/practiced", rather than "This is what I studied 6 years and wrote several major research papers on, in a collective atmosphere where there were checks and balances over my conclusions". The result of this is that where we can talk here about how the Nazarene church is descended from Wesley, and what a Holiness movement means, etc., many of the current members of the Nazarene church may have no appreciation for those things at all.
Which means that we have to ask what we're really talking about, or attempting, by being Emergent Nazarenes. How are we really different? To many traditional Nazarene members, we can appear to be taking popular, liberal church memes and attempting to apply them to our local congregation out of some desire to A. be cool, B. water down the word of Christ, etc. Context becomes very important here...the more educated any of us is, the less likely that we will be on an even keel with the people we most need to be in conversation with, because we will be bringing background and context and practice that they do not have, and do not assume.
Obviously, for me to say "we" in this is a generalization, as I only have a minor in theology to accompany my theatre degree...I just read an awful lot, though if I could ever afford to, I'd probably go get my masters in theology. Ah, dreams.
I find that both here and the ooze, I am constantly challenged by the wisdom and the humility that I see in my brothers of the EC persuasion, and I seek to be sharpened and enhanced by that influence in being more like my Lord. Making friends would also be nice. :P
I think that at length, the best thing that you could do would just be to make the forums moderated by some number of the long lived posters here, so that nothing would actually show up until one or more people had signed off on it (which might in it's own ways create a separate locked forum somewhere just for you folks to be discussing whether a post or thread should be allowed. This is not a bad thing).
As a very, very uneducated Nazarene in his late 20's, I feel that I've been a part of this conversation (initially without knowing it) for a long time. My biggest frustration is that this is a conversation that seems inaccessible to "average" nazarenes. I can't figure out why. It may be generational, I don't know.
I do think that this conversation can only bear fruit in the lives of educated or uneducated people if we commit to a respectful dialog - which I honestly don't see on the side of some of the critics. As someone without an extensive grounding in theology/doctrine, I think Todd's idea is a great one. I would be able to learn a lot more from the conversation, and I think that there are other lurking "normal" folks who would agree. Maybe we could bridge the divide in some small way.
It might almost be necessary to have space for David or whoever to bring up something from church history (something about Wesley, or whatever) and how that would seem to inform the modern church, how it's actually practiced now, how it was dealt with in the Nazarene church...and then we could discuss that in a moderated manner. Or RC/Orthodox ideas, or whatever.
I think that a lot of the time, EC folks would like to bring up a really complete discussion of something, but they get interrupted halfway through, or somebody picks out a highlight that they really want to respond to, and most of it gets dropped.
So we may also need to teach ourselves how to properly respond (debate style?) to posts on the internet as well. *Grin* The ability to say "I can see what you're saying here...what I seem to hear you saying is this, please correct me if I'm wrong...the way that this statement makes me feel is..." seems to be missing from many modern Christians, and it could only help us all listen better...
Josh, you are right about how old the blog is. I started it in 2006. At the time I made it (like many of us at the time) I felt alone in the journey I found myself in. I just kind of put the blog out there to see what would happen. Immediately Greg Arthur was the first to comment and expressed the same kind of sentiment, that he was happy there was someone else out there. I asked Greg to contribute, and others came along like Kevin Rector in the same way. I later found myself working with Brian Postlewait at Community of Hope, who has been participating in this conversation for a long time, and we became very close friends and I think his contribution has been extremely valuable too. I feel that everyone listed as a contributor and many of those who regularly comment are valuable assets to the conversation as well.
I guess for the purpose of the blog was originally to share our journey with one another. The word “emergent”, may wear out its welcome (perhaps it has already), but at the same time it has been useful for drawing in those interested in the conversation and topic matter. I appreciate Mike’s comment that shared how the blog became a catalyst to talk things out with a friend. Hearing this, I don’t think we are done yet with this “emergent conversation” as a catalyst for something positive.
I do think we need to understand that blogs have limits. Blogs function differently from forums, and are not a good place to post open ended questions for discussion. Forums are much better for that than blogs. The strength of a blog rests in the substance of the posts itself, and comments allow for some feedback and dialogue but this is not the main strength. People go to blogs to read the posts, some may not even read the comments.
We also need to understand that the “conversation” is not confined to a blog, and it does not take place on a blog. Oh I think we can get parts of it on a blog, and it certainly is a connecting point, but it should be only one of many. If someone is trying to explore what the conversation is all about from a blog than they aren’t going to get all they are looking for. But I do think a blog about the emergent church should act as a window into the conversation.
I think a blog reports on the conversation while wrestling with it at the same time. The posts should be made by those who are exploring the conversation in other places as they explore how to apply it in their own context, which includes being a Nazarene. Everyone I have asked to contribute has been those who I thought were already engaging in the conversation.
If you look at emergent village site you will find lots of “articles”, but they also have cohorts as they encourage people to meet and explore these things too on their own. In other words even emergent village knows that the conversation does not take place on their blog. They also know they do not control it (though they have grown to be very influential) and they do not presume to “own” the conversation.
I think in a much smaller way we can do the same. I would love for us to concentrate on the content of our posts and not get caught up in every comment left. I think we do better as reporters of the conversation with some commentary than as an open forum. Again, I just don’t think blogs are very good at being an “open forum”. I don’t want to turn off or censor comments though because I think it important to hear feedback, even if some of it is off base or even hostile. Again, if are to be reporters of the conversation with commentary than we ourselves have to make sure we are engaging in the conversation through other avenues.
I would love for us to lead, to post regular commentary on the lectionary and church year, to share what is working in our own lives and communities and what isn’t. Book reviews, conference reviews, and what cool things that may be taking place on the local level of a district or church would be great to hear about too. I think we need to pro-active and not just reactive as we all seek to live out the life of the church, and share that journey with one another as we go along.
My point is, I think we live in, and sometimes for, the comments too much. Which reminds me, just because a post doesn’t get any comments does not mean that post was a failure. I think a lot of people read our blog and appreciate it and never comment. That’s OK. Blogs can be misleading when it comes to evaluating the sentiments of its readership. Just because we get a few very opinionated comments that are negative does not mean that that represents what everyone thinks. Over all I think the emergent conversation is resonating with Nazarenes everywhere which is why the few that are very vocally against all things “emergent” are concerned. So we do not need to dedicate all our time to those who are vocalizing that they are against us. I think we can focus on moving forward with those who are resonating with what we are talking about. This does not mean we stop being generous to those who have concerns, I just don’t think we can live for those kinds of debates that these things seem to demand.
There is more I could say, but I am at work and I really don’t have time to give to this at the moment as much as I want to. I appreciate all the comments so far, I think there have been a lot of great points. Many of them could warrant a conversation all of their own. I’ll keep reading what everyone has to say and respond more later. I may also contact the contributors to talk about how we might improve things going forward.
Thanks for the post Josh, and thanks to everyone for the feedback.
Peace,
James
James,
I wonder about this a lot as I'm always open to fresh breaths of air, but how many ENs do not have access to similar commentaries and such? I do not say this to be blanketing as much as I have a pretty solid collection myself of those who emergents in general are very friendly to. Is this a big need for others?
When it comes to thematic issues, I can understand more of including the more popular people associated such as McLaren, Bell, etc. But when we start looking at the year liturgically, these guys are not as helpful.
I know that lectionarychat.com that is mostly Nazarenes dealing with lectionary/church calendar issues. Most of those who post are friendly with emerging church though I do not know how many would claim the title.
For the students that I work with, I have created a daily devotional guide that goes through various books of the Bible (currently Ruth) on a daily basis dealing with theological/practical issues.
Well, my baby is crying.
Peace,
Mike M.
I am a person who regularly reads and subscribes to this blog;
I am a Nazarene pastor;
I greatly identify with the emergent movement;
I have only posted one other time.
That being said, I certainly identify with so much about this blog, but also with the comments which have already been posted on this thread. I certainly agree that when antagonistic comments are made about posts, I usually just skip over them and only read the comments that are invested in constructive dialogue about the original post.
The one new question I would simply add is how many of the antagonists actually fit the original design of this site? In other words, how many of them are Nazarene, and also "identify" with the emergent movement? It seems like those two qualifications would weed out many of the comments and posts that lead to the creators of this site being so tired. This blog is designed to allow "Nazarenes" who "identify" with the emergent movement a place to come and think, process, wrestle and press, not have to defend, argue, or "fight" against folks who are either NOT Nazarene, or do NOT identify with the emergent movement.
My dad is a mechanical engineer. When things would start to get too complicated, he would often come back to a very basic and "technical" engineering metaphor to help get them back on track - K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. That engineering lesson he taught me has served me very well in many aspects of my life over the years! Perhaps it is a principle which, if applied here, might help get things back on track here too.
Some thoughts offered from a KISS Nazarene Pastor.
Until reading this post, I don't think I was even aware that you guys were having heated discussions in the comments here. Though I can definitely see how it would happen, for the reasons Mike M. shared. There are those who feel like the emergent conversation is a dangerous heresy that is infecting the Nazarene denomination, and they don't even need a Google search to find this one! :)
And, of course, there are plenty of others who are concerned about the perspectives and ideas being tossed about in this conversation who, as Todd pointed out, don't have the context for it yet. This stuff can be pretty scary for someone whose faith was forged in the fires of fundamentalist-tinged evangelicalism!
If it's becoming a problem, the simplest solution would be to follow suggestion 2 from Josh's post: write up a basic introduction for those wishing to participate in the discussion and point people toward it. Something that shares the basic assumptions, clears the air on some common objections, and lays out the ground rules for the conversation. Anyone getting out of line can be gently reminded of the blog's purpose and ground rules, and if they ignore it, their posts can be deleted. (I assume Blogger and Disqus provide for that sort of thing, anyway. I'm a WordPress man myself.) This, of course, requires someone(s) willing to shepherd the conversations.
BTW, I think James' "Open Letter" post from earlier this month moves in the direction of the introduction I'm talking about here. It clarifies the context of the conversation and even points toward an alternative place for conversations that don't quite fit here. Good stuff.
I think that sometimes, quite possibly, anger is falsely percieved. Maybe, if the parties were talking face to face, the perception would be different.
And...seriously, how can one be hostile to "emergent thinking" if "emergent" is just a "conversation" that is incomplete in its formulation and has no set doctrinal statement?
Isn't this "conversation" supposed to be inclusive, muddy, difficult, multi-faceted, multi-layered, diverse, etc. and something to be wrestled with, grappled with and mulled over? How can folks of one opinion, the same mindset, the same context, and similar opinions produce this kind of described conversation?
Do you want forced consensus rather than a dynamic conversation? To me, that is what is seemingly being proposed.
By setting "rules of engagement" (which kind of sounds like something akin to the dreaded Covenant of Christian Conduct that so many emergent types want to do away with), won't this be counter-productive to connecting "as Nazarenes with the larger conversations of the emergent movement, the Kingdom of God and the world"?
Wouldn't setting "rules of engagement", by the very nature of the act, be exclusive and limiting in the scope and diversity of the conversation?
Though, I think that I actually understand this sentiment:
"I understand the benefit of the later, but along with Dave and possibly James, I am growing weary of defending ourselves and responding to hostile comments. Also, I think such comment streams might detract from our overall goal."
Don't you think that this sentiment is one of the very reasons that the "emergent conversation" and its participants face "hostility" in the Nazarene Church?
Through our interaction on this blog, do you understand how it would be possible, and legitimate, for the COTN, and members thereof, to view the emergents as always negative and critical towards the Church and Church members (you know the so-called prudes, fundamentalists and legalists)? How they might get tired of the constant battering, questioning, and debate, which is a large part of the emergent conversation? How they might not see the emergent conversation, with all of its provacative verbiage and the less than orthodox leaders and teachers (being very generous here), as a productive conversation? How the COTN, and other churches, might view the emergent conversation as something that distracts from the Church's overall goal? (Does the emergent conversation and the Church even agree on a common goal? If there is no common goal, then there will never be unity and overall support for the "conversation". What is the emrgent conversations ultimate goal?) Do you see how the COTN, and other churches, might be worn out by the emergent hostility towards orthodox Christianity, the resulting debate, and the required defense?
And, again...seriously, how can you make provacative statements, inclusive of foul language, and not expect to recieve some response that might not be in harmony and agreement with your stated position?
Regards,
"So...if we respond to hostile comments, or get tired of being attacked, we are in, fact, being hostile?"
No.
And...I don't like the label "hostile" anyways. Why do any comments need labels? Why can't they all just be comments in a larger conversation?
"You state that because the leaders of this site are tired of being constantly attacked, that that is an act of hostility toward the Nazarene Church?"
No.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear.
I was attempting to put the contributors of this blog, and the others who felt/feel attacked by some of those who have voiced disagreement with some of the content of the emergent conversation, the ones that are weary and tired of defending the emergent conversation from the constant "onslaught" against it, "in the shoes" of some of the members of the COTN who may feel the same way but in a reversed way.
Some members of the COTN, and the Church, may feel tired and worn out by the constant "onslaught" that they get from participants of the emergent conversation. I was trying to illicit some empathy and some understanding in regards to their perspective of the emergent conversation, and how it is conducted.
Do you undersatnd that some of the things that are said in the emergent conversation, done in the conversation, and taught in the conversation make many COTN members, and many Church members, feel the same weary and worn out way - the way many here don't like feeling? Do you understand that many don't want their church community to be a constantly questioned community either?
Regards,
Just as I'm sure that folks of various (traditional) Nazarene frames of mind get tired of being called fundamentalists, various Emerging Nazarenes get tired of being called heretics, and lumped in with people who support obviously non-nazarene trains of thought.
I think that any community which is not constantly asking the question "is this true to Jesus Christ, in service of the world around us?" is dead. But I think that there's a difference between accountability and attacking, and I believe that the questioning that you are referring to are when people who label themselves as emergent appear, to your eyes, to be actually attacking with their questions the things that you hold true as Christianity, and then retreating when approached on this by saying "oh, it's just conversation". when we all know that there's a difference between conversation and hyberbole.
None of us, I think, are advocating that American assassins go down to Venezuela and assassinate the president for the good of God and America...but one of the louder "Christian" voices in America has, and so we have to be somewhat apologetic when we go to people, we can't just say "oh, he's not one of us". He's a Christian, right?
By the same token, those of us who have taken this Emerging journey quite seriously, as disciples, as nazarenes, WANT to talk to you. We want to answer your questions, to achieve dialogue with you. But it's hard to do that when you approach us with sarcasm, or are only willing to hear us in light of the more extreme members of this group.
Can you offer us mercy, so that we have room to be humble?
You ask, "...seriously, how can one be hostile to "emergent thinking" if "emergent" is just a "conversation" that is incomplete in its formulation and has no set doctrinal statement?"
I don't know, how do you do it? I have read comment after comment after comment from you throughout various blog entries and you always come in with your guns blazing. You make very bold statements that emergent is somehow hostile to orthodox Christianity, yet the things that you tend to consider "orthodox" are very Zwinglian in thought. So I guess orthodox is the same as the Reformation?
"And, again...seriously, how can you make provacative statements, inclusive of foul language, and not expect to recieve some response that might not be in harmony and agreement with your stated position?"
It is a good thing that the Bible never makes provocative statements, includes foul language... I mean, how else would we be in such harmony? I mean, Paul, do you honestly seek harmony and agreement when you comment on the entries here? If you do seek harmony/agreement, are you turned away by the supposed heresies of this blog and that is why you come off so arrogant? Do your comments build up the church more or less than their entries/comments?
Actually, I do not completely disagree with your thoughts concerning the possible exclusiveness of this blog. But I also think that there is a line that has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. This blog is exclusive to those who know about it, have a computer with an internet connection, and can read (or have someone read to them). Exclusiveness is not a negative trait, even to most emergent thinking -- just the ones that are fearful about something else.
"You make very bold statements that emergent is somehow hostile to orthodox Christianity..."
Reading and listening to some of the content of McLaren, Bell, Sweet, Campolo, Tickle, Rollins, Jones, McKnight, Pagitt, etc., I think that it is more than reasonable (and not very bold) to say that "emergent" is hostile to orthodox Christianity.
"yet the things that you tend to consider "orthodox" are very Zwinglian in thought."
I disagree. The things that I tend to consider "orthodox" are very much rooted in scripture, which is THE authority in Christian faith and practice. Sometimes, given that Zwingli held to the authority of scripture, I would assume that our views overlap or sound similar.
"So I guess orthodox is the same as the Reformation?"
I would say that othodox Christianity is what is presented in the New Testament and that the Reformation brought us back closer to New Testament orthodox Christianity.
"But I also think that there is a line that has to be drawn in the sand somewhere."
I, also, am a firm believer in "drawing lines in the sand". In fact, scripture requires that Christians "draw lines in the sand" as it relates to doctrine and practice.
"It is a good thing that the Bible never makes provocative statements, includes foul language"
The Bible does not use profanity.
"Paul, do you honestly seek harmony and agreement when you comment on the entries here?"
Yes...if overall unity is based on like-mindedness in Christ, based on the teachings of Christ as found in scripture.
No...if unity means agreement with certain emergent false assumptions and unbiblical doctrines and practices. (We are not supposed to be unified in these things.)
Regards,
More adequately, the language in the bible is not understood as profanity because it is phrased in a way which we are used to, but still contains ideas or phrases which could be put in a much more offensive way.
John tells the church in Revelation to "come out of" Babylon. Which could also be stated "quit fucking that whore and return to God". It's the same thing, just different language. In fact, that language has been used repeatedly about the Children of God, both in the Old and New Testament. Not pretty language. Not often quoted in church. But very much in the bible.
Or the guy who was being harassed while traveling, so he gave the harassers his mistress, and they raped her to death, so he chopped her body into 12 pieces and sent a piece to each part of Israel.
Pretty and poetic, and entirely sound in theology, able to be presented to small children easily?
And certainly, there's no reason why Jews won't let their kids read the original Hebrew version of "Song of Solomon" until they're adults, no sir...
WOW! I'm so impressed and shocked you know how to say the F word. You need to learn the difference between spiritual adultery and sexual. The bible is full of sexual references and metaphors, but that's just crude brother.
Really man,
Steven
And I don't think that it's possible to commit sexual adultery without committing spiritual adultery. Our bodies being the temple of the Lord, anything that we do with them that is contrary both to ourselves and to the others in our community is both spiritually and physically damaging.
My point is that, depending on who is reading it, and how they are expressing it, the bible contains plenty that would or has offended many...it's all about presentation, and the heart with which one takes things.
if I enter into these forums, or any others, looking to be offended, I will be offended.
If I enter into them looking to love others and see Christ in them, and learn from the process, then I will do so.
I would also state, lastly, that it is possible to have attitudes that are just as offensive to people as words. So I might say, I find Paul's spiritual crudeness toward his brothers and sisters offensive. But it would likely be seen as infantile and off-topic, neh?
Yes I was being sarcastic, I just get tired of people dropping the F-bomb like that. I don't think it adds to the conversation.
Peace,
Steven
Ephesians 5:1-10:
1
So be imitators of God, 1 as beloved children,
2
and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.
3
Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,
4
no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.
5
Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6
Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. 2
7
So do not be associated with them.
8
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light,
9
for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth.
10
Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.
Your view of scripture as THE authority in Christian faith and practice negates scriptures call to find our authority also in the mutual submission to one another as the Body of Christ. In this you see orthodoxy primarily as right belief that is disjointed from orthopraxy; which is the orthodoxy of right according to the Way we are called to as a community.
Likewise, your view of scripture as THE authority denies the symbiotic relationship between scripture and the Church. Scripture is God breathed because God breathed life into the church and the Apostles; like respiration God brings us scripture as what was breathed out by the Church, then it is breathed back into the Church community as we share in the scripture. Scripture itself speaks of giving the church authority, The Body of Christ whom God is the head. To say scripture is THE authority denies the authority of the Church where scripture came from.
This does not mean that we can toss out scripture, because we are part of a LIVING church and the Apostles and the early church testimony still have a prominent voice in our community. We are connected to them in a very real way and to separate from them is heresy because in doing so we would separate ourselves from the LIVING Church through out history.
I think the reformation gave back the voice to the early church and the Apostles that the Catholic Church they were a part of at the time marginalized, which by nature of the break in unity with the early church is heretical. However, as a matter of a pendulum swing through history I think the reformation has lead some to go too far in the other direction and break unity with the Church by removing the reality of the Church’s role in the formation of scripture. Your view of “biblical” puts the bible in a vacuum which gives a book authority rather than the authority that comes from the life of Christ through the Church in the world as given voice in scripture. Your view really is quite a perverted view of the bible and authority.
For someone so concerned about orthodoxy your theology is just plain bad and only really fits into the pop Christianity version of reformed theology found on Christian radio. This is how you judge orthodoxy and I am afraid because of this you may not have a real good idea about what that really means.
"Paul, I think your mistake is that you consider reformed theology to be the absolute center of orthodoxy and this why you have a very different view of what is orthodox from a more historic view of what that means."
No...I do not consider reformed theology to be the absolute center of orthodoxy. I believe that the Bible is the absolute center of Christian orthodoxy.
"In this you see orthodoxy primarily as right belief that is disjointed from orthopraxy; which is the orthodoxy of right according to the Way we are called to as a community. "
No...I don't. And...I don't believe that I even know anyone who "sees orthodoxy primarily a right belief that is disjointed from orthopraxy".
"Likewise, your view of scripture as THE authority denies the symbiotic relationship between scripture and the Church. Scripture is God breathed because God breathed life into the church and the Apostles; like respiration God brings us"
My view of scripture doesn't deny anything but that man is the authority in matters of Christian doctrine and Christian practice. And...scripture is God-breathed because that is how God gave it to us. Scripture wasn't brought about by the Church, it was brought about the Holy Spirit.
"To say scripture is THE authority denies the authority of the Church where scripture came from."
Scripture didn't come from the Church. It came from the Holy Spirit.
"Your view of “biblical” puts the bible in a vacuum which gives a book authority rather than the authority that comes from the life of Christ through the Church in the world as given voice in scripture. Your view really is quite a perverted view of the bible and authority."
No...my view is not as described above and does not do what you say it does and therefore is not perverted. My view of scripture is consistent with scripture. You will find that the early church fathers had a view of scripture as being THE authority. This, of course, was long before the Reformation.
And...just because the Bible gives the Church certain authorities (pastors, elders, and the like) does not mean that those authorities have any authority in the determinning Christian faith and Christain practice. All doctrine has already been established, by scripture through the Holy Spirit, and all Church authorities are bound and subject to it.
Regards,
You wrote, “Scripture didn't come from the Church. It came from the Holy Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit is the “God breathed” part, I never denied that and absolutely affirm it. But your statement that “Scripture didn't come from the Church” is absurd. It is not “either/or” it is “both/and”. You’re rejecting that the reality of the church’s role in bringing about scripture and this shows that you have lost all objectivity in your quest to try and win arguments. Scripture came by BOTH the Holy Spirit and the church.
Also, how can “all church authorities be bound and subject to scripture” that was supposedly “already established” when it was church authorities from the Apostles and the early church that wrote all the NT down? Not to mention that the church, by the guidance of the Spirit, had to determine what was to be included and what would not be in the cannon.
You are denying the continued incarnational presence of Christ in his Church (His Body) when you act as if scripture wasn’t given to us through a partnership of human beings submitted to the Holy Spirit. Again you are absolutely lost when it comes to understanding this symbiotic relationship.
I am hope you will retract your extreme statement that “scripture did not come from the church” upon me bringing this to your attention. You can’t possibly really deny this as part of the reality of how scripture came to be.
Finally you wrote, “I do not consider reformed theology to be the absolute center of orthodoxy. I believe that the Bible is the absolute center of Christian orthodoxy.”
Really? I think the life of Jesus himself is at the absolute center of Christian orthodoxy. From there comes the all the rest. The fact that you put the bible as “the ABSOLUTE center of Christian orthodoxy” just shows how confused you really are. The word for putting anything other than Jesus at the absolute center, which you will likely deny you have done in your own self delusion, is idolatry.
I would agree that our scripture points to Jesus who is at the absolute center (as does the body of Christ and all of creation), but saying that the Bible IS the absolute center is heretical.
I think that we lost each other, here.
I was referencing/concentrating more on the words of scripture themselves when I commented, rather than referencing/commenting on the developed canon.
Intersetingly, though, Dr. Norman Geisler (don't worry...he isn't a Calvinist), and I am sure others, has written on the topic of the canon and submits that the Church was not a judge of what was in the canon, but was more just a jury affirming what God had already established. I would tend to agree more with a Geisler-type position on the issue.
And...on the issue of Christian orthodoxy, which is having the right and true opinion/belief on Christian Faith and practice...
It is only the Bible that establishes right and true opinion/belief on the Christian faith and practice, including right and true opinions and belief of Christ. There are no other communications, by God, for the Church, that establishes right and true opinion/belief/doctrine...the Bible is it. Therefore, scripture is central to Christian orthodoxy. This thinking was alive and well prior to the Reformation and can be seen in the writings of the apostles and continued through the writings of the early Church fathers.
This does not mean that I believe that Jesus Christ is not central to the Christian faith...He is (and I, obviously, believe that). And...I in know way idolize scripture, nor am I confused, nor delusional, nor heretical on the issue.
Regards,
Forgive me I think Josh rightly pointed out that some of my frustration came through as I feel our conversation goes in circles.
Here’s the thing, you view orthodoxy as “having the right and true opinion/belief on Christian Faith and practice”. Likewise you say that, “only the Bible that establishes right and true opinion/belief on the Christian faith and practice”.
The problem I have with this is not that it isn’t at all true, it’s that it isn’t true enough. It severally limits orthodoxy to being about belief concerning Christian Faith and practice, and reduces Christ’s presence in the world to just a book. I believe even scripture points beyond itself, it points to Christ’s presence in the world, that Jesus is living and orthodoxy is about keeping instep with Christ, not just as individuals but as part of His community through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
Orthodoxy is not just about right opinion and right belief, it is about life; the Life. We went round about this in another thread concerning Ephesians, as Paul directs us to be connected to the Body as way to ensure orthodoxy. This is not just about being connected to a source of good teaching, it is also about actually living in the orthodox Christian Way of unity in Christ.
I think our communication problem can be summed up this way. You are looking at orthodoxy in a linear way and I am looking at it from a more nonlinear perspective. The problem I have with the linear view is that it tends to marginalize elements of orthodoxy in favor of what can fit easily in a line or a row. For you orthodoxy is about belief and opinion, therefore it must come from a reliable source of information.
In a nonlinear view, orthodoxy is about a Way, this included elements of your view (really all of it except the exclusiveness aspects of what limits your definition) but has a far more dynamic understanding. Orthodoxy is not just about belief and opinion, but literally about the Life of Christ which we encounter and experience in Him.
You wrote, “There are no other communications by God” to establish orthodoxy besides the Bible, yet everything about Christ who we believe is actually alive and present in the world communicates orthodoxy. The Eucharist communicates and establishes orthodoxy. Compassion and love communicates and establishes orthodoxy, Unity and solidarity with the Church communicates and establishes orthodoxy. What we do for “the least of these” communicates and establishes orthodoxy. Making disciples communicates and establishes orthodoxy. And so on.
From a linear perspective you will simply say that these are the practices that come FROM the bible, but while that may true from an informational sense, it isn’t true in the sense that these things come from Christ himself working in us as we live in the world.
At this point, I am not trying to convince you to agree with me and I ask that you stop trying to convince me to agree with you. I just hope this helps you at least understand where it is I am coming from. I feel I have a good understanding of where you are coming from.
the 'word' became flesh brother. and that flesh is Jesus Christ. he is who we worship. not scripture.
i am not advocating that everyone believe whatever they want, although that is what we do. we believe what we choose to. however, i affirm you and your beliefs as much as they are a part of you. i just disagree with the absolutism of your view.
I certainly do not know "all of what scripture is saying", but I know, with certainty, certain things that the Bible clearly says.
That is but one of the beauties of the Bible...
It is a cure for much that is wrong with postmodern thought. There are clearly defined terms that have clear and distinct meanings that transcend time, culture and context (as Truth always does).
And...I don't care if people disagree with my view. I do, however, care if they disagree with God's clearly communicated "views".
God's Word articulates, very clearly, to us, the absolute right Christian faith and right Christian practice. And...these things are written in a manner that are easily understood (but not always so easily and faithfully lived out).
And...Church history is what it is. I don't know how folks can have differing accounts of documented historical occurences (other than by revising history).
You may disagree with me, and the absolutism of my view, which is fine, but disagreeing with God's Word, is not fine.
with a 'very clear' reading of the scriptures we find that slavery is right and just under God. we find that Godly men have concubines. we find that women should never, ever speak in church, period and that we all should drink a little wine a day.
so i'm confused as to how the Church of the Nazarene can ordain women, be against slavery, stand against polygamy, and stand against social drinking. either the scriptures aren't so 'clear' and need discernment, or the Church of the Nazarene can't discern the scriptures.
Please show me, in the Bible, it states that slavery is "right and just under God".
The historical fact that slavery existed does not mean that God says that it is "just and right."
And...what significance does the historical reality that men had concubines play in what God tells us is right doctrine and practice?
Were men like Solomon, who had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines, obedient to God's command as it related to marriage and fidelity?
(Read Deuteronomy 17 for starters)
The Bible does not tell us to repeat the sinful actions that are recorded for us in scripture.
Well...you've got me on the ordaining woman thing (I told you that it was hard to practice it faithfully)...
Since God doesn't condone slavery and polygamy...
I will just attempt to address the social drinking issue. It is not a sin to drink alcoholic beverages, but it is a sin to be drunk. It is also a sin to cause someone else to stumble. As evidenced by our culture and the negative impact that over consumption of alcoholic beverage has had
on our society, individuals, and local churches, are well within their biblical convictions to establish a tea-totalling policy that offsets the potential sin, or even appearance of sin. Isn't that reasonable?
Now, understandably, you may not share that same conviction. If you don't share that same conviction, then just do not become a member of the COTN.
Here is the COTN's reasoning from the Manual:
"34.5. The use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or trafficking
therein; giving influence to, or voting for, the licensing
of places for the sale of the same; using illicit drugs or
trafficking therein; using of tobacco in any of its forms, or
trafficking therein.
In light of the Holy Scriptures and human experience concerning
the ruinous consequences of the use of alcohol as a
beverage, and in light of the findings of medical science regarding
the detrimental effect of both alcohol and tobacco to
the body and mind, as a community of faith committed to
the pursuit of a holy life, our position and practice is abstinence
rather than moderation. Holy Scripture teaches that
our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.With loving regard
for ourselves and others, we call our people to total abstinence
from all intoxicants.
Furthermore, our Christian social responsibility calls us
to use any legitimate and legal means to minimize the availability
of both beverage alcohol and tobacco to others. The
widespread incidence of alcohol abuse in our world demands
that we embody a position that stands as a witness to others.
(903.12-3.14)
(Proverbs 20:1; 23:29—24:2; Hosea 4:10-11; Habakkuk 2:5; Romans
13:8; 14:15-21; 15:1-2; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:9-12, 19-20; 10:31-33;
Galatians 5:13-14, 21; Ephesians 5:18)
(Only unfermented wine should be used in the sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper.) (413.11, 427.7, 428.2, 429.1, 802"
"...Compassion and love communicates and establishes orthodoxy, Unity and solidarity with the Church communicates and establishes orthodoxy. What we do for “the least of these” communicates and establishes orthodoxy. Making disciples communicates and establishes orthodoxy. And so on. "
None of these things "establish" orthodoxy. They are right actions based on already established orthodoxy (via God's Word). You don't put the cart before the horse.
And...just because someone communicates the importance of orthodoxy does not automatically mean that that said person does not believe in the importance of orthopraxy. That is a strawman argument. It is also a historical strawman argument that has been foisted on the Church, before, by people who mean to de-emphasize the importance of sound doctrine. I am not saying that you are doing that, but certainly people have done that and are now doing that. Obviously, holding to sound doctrine is emphasized throughout scripture. It is important because God said it was important (isn't that funny...it is orthopraxy to hold to orthodoxy).
"Orthodoxy" (right belief, right doctrine) has a clear and specific definition and "orthopraxy" (right action) has a clear and specific definition. Orthodoxy establishes orthopraxy. There is no orthopraxy without a first-established orthodoxy.
We are supposed to do (orthopraxy) what the Church did from the beginning:
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching... (Acts 2:42)
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
NKJV (Titus 1:7-9)
And...as to "linear and non-linear" views of orthodoxy, I think that if we really want to reach those in a postmodern culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then we have to be direct, clear, and specific to reach through the mire, the context, the relativism, and the confusion. I don't think how you describe what orthodoxy is will accomplish pointing unsaved postmoderns to the absolute Truth found in God's Word (at least I believe this to be a danger given the lack of clarity).
Isn't our goal to reach postmodern, or any other, people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to then disciple them by teaching them to obey all things that Christ commanded (as found in God's Word)?
Regards,
And speaking of “strawman” arguments, so is your accusation that I am just trying to “de-emphasize the importance of sound doctrine”. I haven’t done that at all, in fact just the opposite. I just believe sound doctrine is MORE than just information.
You said that “there is no orthopraxy without a first-established orthodoxy”, yet Jesus himself embodied both at the same time. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy go beyond being step 1, than steps 2; they are organically intertwined as they reflect the Way the Truth and Life in Jesus Christ. I believe scripture is clear (unless you only read it from a step 1,2, and 3 mindset) that by participating in the Life of Christ we participate in everything that is orthodox. This isn’t just some mechanical process; it is a spiritual process and an organic one as we become one with God incarnate.
The reality is that you are so thoroughly modern that you are more of an apologist for modernity than you are the gospel. It is in modernity that we break things up into systems that create hard divisions for the sake of our mental models between things like orthodoxy and orthopraxy. In modernity we create these little mental models of how things work, and then we think our model somehow is the exact representation of what we are trying to describe. So according to your model, in linear modern thinking, orthodoxy is step 1 and orthopraxy is step 2 and you are absolutely unable to see these things outside of your modern framework.
You should try to look at things conceptually, or narratively, or thematically sometimes instead of like gears and cogs in a machine. I am not saying that I would throw out modern thinking, just grow beyond it so you can put it in perspective. I also am not saying that modern systematic models don’t reveal truth, but you have to be aware of the limitations of the model.
If you don’t want to do this, there is no sense continuing the conversation because you are just going to argue that your framework of God working in steps 1, and 2 is the only way God works.
Please note that I said this:
"...by people who mean to de-emphasize the importance of sound doctrine. I am not saying that you are doing that..."
I would submit this:
That the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the sound doctrine established in the scripture, is neither modern, nor is it postmodern. The Truth of God, as found in scripture, is absolute and transcends, and reaches beyond and through, philosophies, context, culture and time.
I hear what you are saying and I undersatnd what you are saying...It is just wrong to say that orthopraxy establishes orthdoxy.
Regards,
To clarify I believe that orthodoxy and orthopraxy establish one another as they are two sides of the same coin. You can not have one without the other.
I would also say Truth of God with a capitol “T”, as you put it, is not “found” in scripture, that kind of Truth is only found in Jesus; which I would agree is whom scripture truthfully and faithfully points us too.
I think we have exhausted the places where this particular conversation can go. Until next time,
peace
Isn't this our goal?
Isn't our goal to reach postmodern, or any other, people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to then disciple them by teaching them to obey all things that Christ commanded (as found in God's Word)?
We have reached common ground!
Nazarenes are a hodge podge. Some call it "a big tent". There is a whole range of theological positions for which the Nazarene church does not take an official position. Nazarenes don't even agree on sanctification. At the 1908 merger, the rallying cry was; "In non essentials, freedom. In essentials, unity. In all things, charity." Fundamentalism did not exist in 1908, but when it developed, twelve +/ years later, it enter the Nazarene Church, en masse, to the point that RT Williams, Jr. said in 1928, at the seventh GA, “Every man in this body is a fundamentalist, and so far as we know there is not a modernist in the ranks of the Church of the Nazarene." That statement was not true, however at this point in time, it is my opinion that fundamentalists form the majority in the Nazarene Church. It is my opinion that a vast number of Nazarenes do not know even know what Wesleyanism is, and if given just the principles of Wesleyanism, would be horrified to find that it exists in the Nazarene Church.
For Fundamentalists there are no non essentials, there is no charity, and no prisoners are taken. "Are you now, or have you ever been an emergent." For a case study on how this process works, you can look at the manner in which the managers of Olivet Nazarene U trashed Professor Richard Colling, outlined in his 419 page document of correspondence, titled "Betrayed by Faith", easily found by google.
The reality is this, Fundamentalists cannot even tolerate Wesleyans, much less, emergent Wesleyans, who are completely beyond the pale and might as well join me at the stake. I think this Fundie/Wesleyan rift has been "papered over", lo these many years, but now that evangelicalism and modernism is collapsing, emergents, missionals, spiritual formationists, monastics, and all such fellow travelers, only serve to force the issue and they and the Wesleyans will soon be writing their own "Betrayal by Faith". It appears to me that the purpose of this blog is to provide evidence for that inevitable Inquisition. When I first found this blog, I would have found such such a prospect amusing and entertaining. Apparently, I have matured since, because now it only saddens me.
What saddens me is that you feel you need to post a "disclaimer" on your comment; though I do appreciate the generous spirit as you try to protect us from the "inquisition".
I do think though we do not need to fall in despair, I feel even this post has given in to some despair when in reality there are great signs of hope. I am not saying that there still aren't challenges to overcome but I am not worried about an "inevitable inquisition".
I realize that these feelings sometimes depend on where we live, some districts, like church are more generous than others. But I do think a lot of our leadership is still firmly rooted in solid theology consistent with our Wesleyan roots. I just think despite some recent struggles there is still far more to be encouraged about than discouraged about. I am a Nazarene Pastor and I feel very embraced and affirmed in our Nazarene community. I am thankful for this.
Hang in there man. Thank you for being a friend to us on this blog. I appreciate your view from both your time inside the denomination and now from outside of it. Please continue to feel you are free to share unapologetically.
I want to amend my last comment after taking a look at the "betrayed by faith" document. Clearly that was an inquisition. Unfortunately Christian universities are dependent on the funding of its constituency and are therefore more tempted to tickle their ears than stand for truth.
I pray that as Wesleyans we will not soon be writing our own version of "Betrayal by Faith". I am hopeful that we are moving in the right direction, though I recognize that fundamentalists are going to continue in their vocal protest. My prayer is that we have more people in leadership with integrity than we leaders without it. Again, I remain hopeful that we do.
We need to stand firm, change is difficult, but I do believe we can weather this storm. This does not mean that we will be without further "casualties", but my hope is that we as a denomination will learn from our mistakes as we keep going forward. Again, I have enough positive encounters with our leaders over negative ones that I still have hope for this in the end.
You can't start off your defense paper talking about how people misunderstand language, and then spend the rest of the paper actively practicing that same thing, and have an adequate leg to stand on. This would appear, as always, to be an issue from both sides.
We told [Dr. Diehl] at that time that some of the Nazarene colleges were inviting contemplative speakers to address the student bodies. Today, the Nazarene colleges and universities are sinking deeper than ever into contemplative. We are saddened that professors and college presidents within the Nazarene church do not share Dr. Diehl's appreciation for our warning against contemplative spirituality (i.e., spiritual formation)."
One reason the "concerned" sites keep promoting Yungen, including a spot on an upcoming DVD is because of Jim Diehl's letter. They think Jim Diehl is being muzzled and all he needs is an activist base.
I actually started a thread on NazNet inquiring about Diehl's alleged comments at the Ohio District Assembly.
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?...
Emergent Questionnaire
1. Is there an altar in your worship gathering/service? If so what is its function? If not is there a piece of furniture that is a replacement for the altar?
2. Is there a particular moment in the worship gathering/service that the corporate people expect to encounter the Holy Spirit? If so what is expected?
3. In the tradition I am writing from we believe that the Holy Spirit works in a worship gathering/service in very instantaneous ways: meaning we expect the transformation of people, is there something in the life of your community that expects the Spirit to work in decisive ways?
4. Are there practices within your worship community that are intentional in that they are practices that the corporate community expects the Holy Spirit to work?
5. Are there any specific instances where there was a specific call for the people of your church communities to expect the Holy Spirit to work in their lives?
6. What furniture do you use in your worship gatherings/ services and why?
7. Finally, please add anything of value you may have to offer, or any other source you see as a necessity.
I appreciate you taking the time to fill out this survey and for your willingness to be a part of this study that will result in a Master’s Thesis with the hope of publishing. Please know that my intent is in no way to put the Emergent Village community in a negative light, but is to help to create dialogue within my particular tradition in regards to theology of worship. It is my hope that our dialogue helps the church function in our present day, culture, and setting all the while having a deep understanding of who we are and why we do what we do.
Just a heads up to avoid confusion. :)
Our church is only strengthened when we come together in humility to have true dialogue.
Peace,
Eric Buell
James, I think you may be getting a bit frustrated. I totally understand, but let's be very careful about words of condemnation like absurd, perverted, and delusional (though maybe you didn't use this one exactly).
One of the great difficulties of us dialoging with Paul is that we have very different fundamental premises. Our assumptions at the beginning of the conversation send us into the conversation from very different angles. We talk about the same things, but we aren't really communicating. I'm not sure how to overcome this. Maybe we need to spend some time talking about those fundamental assumptions.
Again, I want to offer to Paul the opportunity to suggest a basic topic you would like to discuss.
Also, would anyone like to suggest some "rules for engagement"? I don't have the time to work them out right now, but maybe we can post them and discuss them.
I always like to see what other people have done... So you might check out the FAQ pages over at NazNet.com to see how they address this:
http://www.naznet.com/community/faq.php?faq=naz...
http://www.naznet.com/community/faq.php?faq=rules
You also might read Hans' post at the beginning of their Theology forum where he gives some additional helpful thoughts:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?...
- Paul Loeb, "Excerpt: The Impossible Will Take a Little While," Beyond Magazine, Spring 2005, p. 12.
I think this is a large part of the function of this blog - to decrease isolation and to increase a sense of community among people who have similar hopes and challenges.
http://inallthingscharity.wordpress.com/