Brannon's Second Reply
by Brannon Hancock
Hey guys –
[Apologies in advance for this novel-length treatise.] I’ve replied to some of you individually already but not all of you collectively, so let me just toss in one thing for consideration – I’d love to know what each of you think, so please respond if you feel so inclined. What began as a discussion about the Nazarene Church’s problematic understanding of ministry, both pre- and post-ordination, has quite rightly moved on to a general discussion about how we formulate (poorly) and convey (unfathomably poorly) our doctrine, both in the Manual and in our local churches. All of you obviously have much first-hand experience with the lack of education in our local churches, the “people in the pews” as I often say – which is not meant to create a false distinction between pastors/scholars/students on one hand and laity on the other, but rather to specify the local church situation, where the people in the pews are very often include pastors, scholars and students. And it is evident to me that each of you who have responded have developed (or are developing) a burden for rectifying this “lack” due to your first-hand experience.
Joseph, who has made it his personal crusade to “eradicate ignorance in the Church” (and of course we should all lend our support to this cause!), has on several occasions in this dialogue brought up the need for a Catechism that would be implemented, taught and (most importantly) required prior to membership (except in the case of transfers, I’d assume). No doubt this is needed, and no doubt the one that Hoskins et al wrote for Nashville First Church a few years back would be a fantastic place to start – thankfully my wife when through that class w/ Hoskins one summer when she was attending NFC, so I do have a copy of it somewhere (not here in Scotland unfortunately; probably in TN in a box somewhere).
Also something to think about is what I sense is an increase in the number of infant baptisms in the Nazarene Church…something we allow for – and indeed, if the Manual’s “order” is any indication (as a couple of you wish to suggest), it would seem to be the primary or even preferred method, considering that the “liturgy” (stop laughing!) for infant baptism appears first, then infant “dedication.” Of course, upon close examination you will notice that the services are nearly identical, and the infant-baptismal liturgy pretty much sucks – the authors have taken great pains to insure that the language communicates that this does NOT make the child a Christian or equal their salvation. But still – I keep hearing about pastors who have begun to make use of this suppressed (or merely overlooked) option and some who even actively encourage baptism over dedication rather than passively offering to do whatever the parents wish. This kind of trend, however slight at the present time, gives me hope for our denomination. However, as I have asked one of my Nazarene pastor friends who insists on baptizing babies as often as possible (and flinging water from the basin onto the congregation and imploring them to “remember your baptism!” in good Eastern Orthodox style), what do we do with babies we’ve baptized in a denomination that does not catechize and confirm? I’d like to think all those baby-baptizing pastors will have a chance to put those children through Catechism in their early teenage years (or whenever) and then, perhaps in the context of a baptismal service, “confirm” them – or, in the revised language of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches in Scotland, allow them to “reaffirm their baptismal vows” before the church. But given the turn-over of pastors AND laity in our churches (as one of you pointed out), I doubt this will happen in very many cases. So all this is to say: yes, we need a Catechism – and not just one that a local church designs and implements, but one written and published by the general church for general use. And yes we need to use it – in fact, probably at first we need to put EVERYBODY through it, from the newest of new Nazarenes to the 90 year old saintly charter members of some of our congregations – for as probably all of you have come to realize in one way or another, even those elderly life-long Nazarenes often have a very limited understanding of who we are or what we believe as a denomination.
This digression is really just to make a point, and it is this about which I’d like to get some feedback from you guys: it seems to me that if we really want to see changes happen in our churches, we must begin with practice, not theory. Now, I know I seem to be creating a (false) distinction between theory and practice, between docta and doxa, which is of course a big faux pas, but what I mean is, the important thing is not merely that we reformulate our Articles of Faith, or write and publish a Nazarene Catechism, or for God’s sake improve our baptismal liturgy (infant or otherwise), but that we incrementally begin to change our practices, local church by local church. We will not eradicate ignorance by coming up with a highly-refined way of teaching Nazarenes what it means to be Nazarene, because I’m afraid this just won’t cut across the board, considering precisely the sorts of things several of you have pointed out in this discussion: the lack of theological education of even our pastors not to mention our laity! Denomination-wide renewal is called for, and I hope sooner rather than later, but I firmly believe that the way to eradicate ignorance in the local church is to begin by transforming our practices; by reflecting on what we do when we gather together as a church on Sundays (and other times) and beginning to change the ways we worship our God and the ways we teach our faith, which happens in worship – songs, sermons, prayers, sacraments, “liturgy”/order of service – as well as in Sunday School classes and even in our casual fellowship.
At the end of the day, I don’t believe in a dichotomy between theory and practice – as I remember Hoskins once saying, Christians are people who say what they mean and mean what they say, or put otherwise, who live how they believe and believe how they live. We have to keep these things together in all ways and at all times: putting pen to paper and writing a Catechism isn’t enough, we’ve got to teach it to people! But my concern would be that if we don’t “pave the way” for such teaching by slowly started to change the way we worship from a less ego-centric, individualistic model to one that emphasizes the community and hence reasserts the Church as central to the Christian life, the “imposition” of Catechetical training as a prerequisite to membership would be met with much resistance. Of course, via our Catechism we would want to begin teaching members that the Church and her teaching is necessary our Christian life, even to our sanctification…but think about your average Nazarene, or even your average Nazarene pastor (I’m thinking of my father right now, who pastors a church of 200 in Nashville) – do you think they’d accept simply being taught something that in some ways clashes with what they have always thought and believed? My guess is that they would not be nearly as open to this as they would to being gradually reshaped through worship and practice (i.e. the whole of the liturgy: word and sacrament – which is another false dichotomy, of course, but that’s for another discussion) into people who WOULD eventually be open to this kind of teaching. But this would take patience on “our” part (I mean, people like us, with similar convictions) and grace on everybody’s part and the kind of redemptive work that only the Holy Spirit can undertake.
In short and in sum, I am convinced that if we want to see the Nazarene Church begin to become the kind of church it certainly has the potential to be, and to reconnect with its greater historic tradition, we must begin by transforming the way we worship. The kind of “revival” our churches always seem so desperate for will only come as a side-effect of liturgical renewal.
By the by, would any of you be interested in taking this conversation and future conversations that might be along these lines into the blogosphere? I’m thinking of something along the lines of young, bright, reflective Nazarenes, the “next generation” of leaders so to speak, who are interested in things like doctrinal improvement, liturgical transformation, sacramental renewal, an increased commitment to the education of both clergy and laity, the challenges of working toward this end within the local church setting, and the like. I’ve come across recently developed websites for “emergent/emerging Nazarenes” (see http://www.emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/ and http://www.emergingnazarenes.com/ if you’re interested) which are interesting and seem to hit on some of these sorts of things, but I personally remain unconvinced by the language of “emergence” and would rather avoid any form of the word “emerge” or “radical”…an online space to share these kinds of ideas, to post and comment freely (all would be given posting privileges), blah blah blah, you know the sort of thing I’m taking about…any takers?
In the peace of Christ,
Brannon
Hey guys –
[Apologies in advance for this novel-length treatise.] I’ve replied to some of you individually already but not all of you collectively, so let me just toss in one thing for consideration – I’d love to know what each of you think, so please respond if you feel so inclined. What began as a discussion about the Nazarene Church’s problematic understanding of ministry, both pre- and post-ordination, has quite rightly moved on to a general discussion about how we formulate (poorly) and convey (unfathomably poorly) our doctrine, both in the Manual and in our local churches. All of you obviously have much first-hand experience with the lack of education in our local churches, the “people in the pews” as I often say – which is not meant to create a false distinction between pastors/scholars/students on one hand and laity on the other, but rather to specify the local church situation, where the people in the pews are very often include pastors, scholars and students. And it is evident to me that each of you who have responded have developed (or are developing) a burden for rectifying this “lack” due to your first-hand experience.
Joseph, who has made it his personal crusade to “eradicate ignorance in the Church” (and of course we should all lend our support to this cause!), has on several occasions in this dialogue brought up the need for a Catechism that would be implemented, taught and (most importantly) required prior to membership (except in the case of transfers, I’d assume). No doubt this is needed, and no doubt the one that Hoskins et al wrote for Nashville First Church a few years back would be a fantastic place to start – thankfully my wife when through that class w/ Hoskins one summer when she was attending NFC, so I do have a copy of it somewhere (not here in Scotland unfortunately; probably in TN in a box somewhere).
Also something to think about is what I sense is an increase in the number of infant baptisms in the Nazarene Church…something we allow for – and indeed, if the Manual’s “order” is any indication (as a couple of you wish to suggest), it would seem to be the primary or even preferred method, considering that the “liturgy” (stop laughing!) for infant baptism appears first, then infant “dedication.” Of course, upon close examination you will notice that the services are nearly identical, and the infant-baptismal liturgy pretty much sucks – the authors have taken great pains to insure that the language communicates that this does NOT make the child a Christian or equal their salvation. But still – I keep hearing about pastors who have begun to make use of this suppressed (or merely overlooked) option and some who even actively encourage baptism over dedication rather than passively offering to do whatever the parents wish. This kind of trend, however slight at the present time, gives me hope for our denomination. However, as I have asked one of my Nazarene pastor friends who insists on baptizing babies as often as possible (and flinging water from the basin onto the congregation and imploring them to “remember your baptism!” in good Eastern Orthodox style), what do we do with babies we’ve baptized in a denomination that does not catechize and confirm? I’d like to think all those baby-baptizing pastors will have a chance to put those children through Catechism in their early teenage years (or whenever) and then, perhaps in the context of a baptismal service, “confirm” them – or, in the revised language of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches in Scotland, allow them to “reaffirm their baptismal vows” before the church. But given the turn-over of pastors AND laity in our churches (as one of you pointed out), I doubt this will happen in very many cases. So all this is to say: yes, we need a Catechism – and not just one that a local church designs and implements, but one written and published by the general church for general use. And yes we need to use it – in fact, probably at first we need to put EVERYBODY through it, from the newest of new Nazarenes to the 90 year old saintly charter members of some of our congregations – for as probably all of you have come to realize in one way or another, even those elderly life-long Nazarenes often have a very limited understanding of who we are or what we believe as a denomination.
This digression is really just to make a point, and it is this about which I’d like to get some feedback from you guys: it seems to me that if we really want to see changes happen in our churches, we must begin with practice, not theory. Now, I know I seem to be creating a (false) distinction between theory and practice, between docta and doxa, which is of course a big faux pas, but what I mean is, the important thing is not merely that we reformulate our Articles of Faith, or write and publish a Nazarene Catechism, or for God’s sake improve our baptismal liturgy (infant or otherwise), but that we incrementally begin to change our practices, local church by local church. We will not eradicate ignorance by coming up with a highly-refined way of teaching Nazarenes what it means to be Nazarene, because I’m afraid this just won’t cut across the board, considering precisely the sorts of things several of you have pointed out in this discussion: the lack of theological education of even our pastors not to mention our laity! Denomination-wide renewal is called for, and I hope sooner rather than later, but I firmly believe that the way to eradicate ignorance in the local church is to begin by transforming our practices; by reflecting on what we do when we gather together as a church on Sundays (and other times) and beginning to change the ways we worship our God and the ways we teach our faith, which happens in worship – songs, sermons, prayers, sacraments, “liturgy”/order of service – as well as in Sunday School classes and even in our casual fellowship.
At the end of the day, I don’t believe in a dichotomy between theory and practice – as I remember Hoskins once saying, Christians are people who say what they mean and mean what they say, or put otherwise, who live how they believe and believe how they live. We have to keep these things together in all ways and at all times: putting pen to paper and writing a Catechism isn’t enough, we’ve got to teach it to people! But my concern would be that if we don’t “pave the way” for such teaching by slowly started to change the way we worship from a less ego-centric, individualistic model to one that emphasizes the community and hence reasserts the Church as central to the Christian life, the “imposition” of Catechetical training as a prerequisite to membership would be met with much resistance. Of course, via our Catechism we would want to begin teaching members that the Church and her teaching is necessary our Christian life, even to our sanctification…but think about your average Nazarene, or even your average Nazarene pastor (I’m thinking of my father right now, who pastors a church of 200 in Nashville) – do you think they’d accept simply being taught something that in some ways clashes with what they have always thought and believed? My guess is that they would not be nearly as open to this as they would to being gradually reshaped through worship and practice (i.e. the whole of the liturgy: word and sacrament – which is another false dichotomy, of course, but that’s for another discussion) into people who WOULD eventually be open to this kind of teaching. But this would take patience on “our” part (I mean, people like us, with similar convictions) and grace on everybody’s part and the kind of redemptive work that only the Holy Spirit can undertake.
In short and in sum, I am convinced that if we want to see the Nazarene Church begin to become the kind of church it certainly has the potential to be, and to reconnect with its greater historic tradition, we must begin by transforming the way we worship. The kind of “revival” our churches always seem so desperate for will only come as a side-effect of liturgical renewal.
By the by, would any of you be interested in taking this conversation and future conversations that might be along these lines into the blogosphere? I’m thinking of something along the lines of young, bright, reflective Nazarenes, the “next generation” of leaders so to speak, who are interested in things like doctrinal improvement, liturgical transformation, sacramental renewal, an increased commitment to the education of both clergy and laity, the challenges of working toward this end within the local church setting, and the like. I’ve come across recently developed websites for “emergent/emerging Nazarenes” (see http://www.emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/ and http://www.emergingnazarenes.com/ if you’re interested) which are interesting and seem to hit on some of these sorts of things, but I personally remain unconvinced by the language of “emergence” and would rather avoid any form of the word “emerge” or “radical”…an online space to share these kinds of ideas, to post and comment freely (all would be given posting privileges), blah blah blah, you know the sort of thing I’m taking about…any takers?
In the peace of Christ,
Brannon
posted by Scott M. Collins | 12:15 PM
2 Comments:
Of course I will respond! That is our reason for being: read, listen, pray, respond, and in all, seek.
Yes to the commments about the "people in the pews". I am a product of being a person in the pew for my whole life, second row, piano side, mind you. The burden for "rectifying this 'lack'" not only comes from my previous experiences, but my current as well. I see the lack of concern for what we call The Church of the Nazarene, of which we are a part. What I mean is, and we all have voiced our opinions on this: We are not living up to what we claim. Now you may be thinking, "What we claim IS what we are practicing." But I submit, we call ourselves Wesleyan, but we do not know what that means, a mere 225 years after Wesley passed on to Glory. This is my biggest concern. I do not want to pervert the teachings of the one we claim to be named after. And we all certainly do not want to pervert the ONE we all claim to be named after.
I have utilized that Catechism and implemented some things myself into it. I have about 10-15 powerpoint presentations on different points of this Catechism. I would be happy to send those around to anyone curious. Also, thanks to Levi, I have a copy of the NFC Catechism in my possession. Thanks Levi.
On Nazarene infant baptism, I think we are totally confused as a denomination. One church, mine for example, would think it most evil and heretically Roman Catholic to baptize an infant. What has been known as a tabooing feature of our Catholic brothers and sisters, has somehow made it into our Manual. How is this? I thought we did away with it by implementing the popular "dedication" in an attempt to keep running farther and farther away from Luther's starting line.
On the other hand, my church of the college years had a few infant baptisms in my tenure there. It was my first exposure to the Nazarene stint on the sacrament(?). I thought it to be a good thing, especially since the particular pastor took the strides to explain exactly what we believe about the act.
Two churches under the same confession, believing two different things. This happens so often in our church. We are not uniform.
In regards to practice, I have begun this practice in my church. As I have mentioned before, I have been teaching a catechism to the youth in my church since February. Here is where the rubber meets the road on this "grassroots" movement. My kids don't listen, hardly participate, and rarely contribute by paying attention or even talking aloud. But I am still teaching, I am still praying with/for them, I am doing what I can to teach them what it means to be Christian and what it means to be Nazarene. Whether they respond now or not, I do not care. I believe in the work of the Spirit and I have faith that one day something/s will click with them. Somewhere down the road someone is going to ask them about the Trinity and they will have at least some tools to work with. They will have some idea of what Trinity means because years ago, "my youth group had a catechsim class and we learned about this..." This is my prayer.
Now, do we end with this: teach and let the Spirit move years later? No. This is what it means to be grassroots. You begin small, almost insignificant, and gradually, over time things begin to click and as Brannon has mentioned, revival can come through a renewal of liturgy and catechetical teaching.
Obviously, we have begun our blog, Sir Brannon. May we continue this chain of dialogue in hopes that one day someone might listen.
I have jokingly said it once, but I seriously say it again, only with a new name. "Roundtable Summit December 2006 Nashville", or, "Roundtable Summit Summer 2007 Wherever"
Grace and Peace to all.
Joseph - thanks for your thoughtful reply. It is clear that we are on the same page, but I could have guessed as much before even beginning this conversation. What you have said, you have said well, and I have nothing to add except praise and admiration (not adoration, mind you) for what you are doing in your local church with regard to Catechism. This is great news, and as I have said about such things before, gives me hope for our denomination. Stick it out even when it seems like you're not accomplishing anything, because, much like infant baptism, we don't always see the immediate effects of our endeavours as a church. Indeed, this is probably one of the biggest problems of the modern, evangelical church paradigm, the desire to see immediate results, immediate growth, out with the old and in with the newest, biggest, bestest, fastest, grooviest thing around because that's what people want...not tradition, not gorgeous centuries-old music and archaic language, not incense and candles...no of course not! and yet, here we are, having this conversation...products of the very church that remains unprepared to accompany us on this journey and help us fulfill those desires it has instilled in us. Interesting, no? Of course, here my critique extends beyond the COTN, and in a sense, we are in much better shape than many of the churches I'm thinking of, but unfortunately many would like to see us move in this direction...growth growth growth! Butts in the seats and dollars in the plates! we all want to be megachurches...*sigh* This is the logic of capitalism and consumerism taken to its ridiculous logical extreme, and it is, I am convinced, disastrous for the church, and will continue to be so.
But that's probably enough from me for now. In response to your last paragraph, Nazarene Roundtable Dec '06 (or whenever), I say let's do it. I have observed week-long blog-conferences elsewhere and it can work quite well if it is organized and everyone has a particular topic to address. I'd be glad to be involved or help coordinate this in anyway. As I say, I think the key is to come up with as many topics as we might have participants, assign each person a topic to address (giving them plenty of time to write something of course), and even spread the word and try to get non-regular blog participants involved, perhaps - some of our profs and/or pastors, perhaps, or other friends and family members. If conversation is the goal, it is the key to that goal too! Here's to what comes next.
Post a Comment
<< Home