Confused about the "Emergent Church"?

Well, then THIS is the post for you. Be prepared to laugh.

Infant Baptism: A work in progress

I decided to do some research into the Church of the Nazarene and Infant Baptism. I went to the Trevecca Archives, a place that hardly ever sees the light of a human face, the other day and I found out some interesting things, but I believe I might have opened a book that has yet to be written. Here are my findings:

- Infant Baptism was in the first Manuals of the Church of the Nazarene, beginning in 1908.
- It was also found in works prior to the 1908 beginning year of formality. There were "manuals" written by the people who would later become Nazarenes from 1898-1908.
- Infant Baptism stands ALONE alongside the Baptism of Believers in the Manual from 1908-1936.
- In 1936, Baby/Yound Child Dedication iss INTRODUCED into the Manual.
- Infant Baptism and Dedication stand together from 1936-1972.
- In 1972, Infant Baptism is REMOVED from the Manual.
- In 1980, Infant Baptism is RE-INTRODUCED into the Manual alogside Dedication, as it has held that place to the current day.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1936, only provides the fact that Dedication was added, but no explanation was made. It only says the Act was proposed and approved.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1972 says nothing of taking Infant Baptism out of the Manual. I looked at 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980, and none of them show an action taken that strikes the Infant Baptism Ritual from the Manual. It just appears in the 1968 Manual and it is not there in the 1972 Manual.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1980 only provides the fact that Infant Baptism will be added back into the Manual.
- I found a book, put together by General Middendorf in 1997, called The Church Rituals Handbook, in which he gives a brief history of Infant Baptism and its place in the Church of the Nazarene. Interestingly, he DEFENDS Infant Baptism as a blessed ritual of the Church that should be practiced!
- Middendorf also uses some big Nazarene names to help in the defense of Infant Baptism, i.e. Dunning, Wakefield, Wiley, Grider, and Staples.
- Here is a quote, taken from that work (p. 21), of H. Ray Dunning:
"Furthermore, a genuine validity can be attached to infant baptism if it is seen as the
induction of the child into the covenant community with a concomitant commitment of the community to help guide the child 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. It might, in fact, militate against the loss of children from the church by guarding against the church becoming spectators until the child experiences an adult conversion."
- I have sent Middendorf an email, asking where he did most of his research for this Church Rituals Handbook.
- I have also sent an email to the Nazarene Archives in Kansas City requesting the minutes from the committee meetings that decided the fate of Infant Baptism in 1936, 1972, and 1980.
- I want names, districts, and dialogue that pushed the General Assembly to move as it did.

So this is a work in progress. I'm sure there will be more to come. Any information out there is greatly appreciated!

God be praised!

Joseph

Just Hit the Highlights

We continued out study of the Nazarene Articles of Faith last night. This was our third session and we began the night with where we left off, Article 9. Before we left the house to go to the church, my father, the pastor, asked if I would be finished teaching tonight. I responded by saying, " There is no way we will finish tonight." He responded, "Well, just hit the highlights."

That phrase resounded in my mind for the next few moments. Isn't this what the Church of the Nazarene has done for years? Isn't this the reason I am teaching these classes on the Articles in the first place? In our church, we have just "hit the highlights". What better way to produce ignorance and apathy in our cogregations than to just hit the tip of the iceberg on everything and forget the details. We are a denomination BECAUSE of the details. We are a part of the Protestant Church BECAUSE of the details, so why continue to "hit the highlights"?

I responded to my father by saying what you have just read and he passively agreed. But here is the beauty of the Holy Spirit. We began the service last night with a couple of songs and prayer, then I began to speak. We spoke about justification, regeneration, adoption, entire sanctification, and baptism. In those, I did, more or less, "hit the highlights", and I explained to the congregation that I wished I could dive more into the details, but time would not allow.

What happened next was the glorious work of the Holy Spirit. We moved to the next Article on the Lord's Supper and I began to explain the factors involved in this sacrament. We began to talk about who is allowed to take communion, and what do we as the Church of the Nazarene believe about this debate. I began to see the legalism involved in having an exclusive table, or a closed table, and I mentioned the "means of grace", and the Spirit began to speak. The Spirit of the Lord took over and for a few moments I could not talk. I knew something had to get out, but I physically could not talk. After a while of fighting back my physical muteness, I began to speak, but it is like I have never spoken before. I was not talking. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit was speaking through me.

For the next 20 minutes, the Spirit spoke through me about how the non-Chirstian can walk into this church and sense a love so powerful, it is overwhelming. We went through the order of a typical worship service and explained how the practices of the Church can speak to the one who knows nothing about God. We continued to speak about how much each part of the service can mean to someone. Even the offering means that we are a giving people, who do not have to give, but we give out of love for God and for others. We then spoke about the sermon, and we said whether or not it is a salvation sermon, it doesn't matter for the Word is being pronounced. We spoke about how much worth is found within the hymns, and how much a hymn can speak to someone. We spoke about the Lord's Supper next and it is only by the Grace of God that my voice continued to be audible. "Who are we to say that God cannot work through this practice of the Faith?" "Who is to say that a person who does not know the Lord, cannot be made to know Him at this sacred moment?" "Who is to say that God's Holy Spirit cannot move upon a person partaking of this practice that was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself?" The congregation began to speak up with the same Spirit. We ended the night with prayer, joined hands in a circle as one, the Body of Christ, and we talked to God and thanked Him for coming and speaking.

I believe in the Lord's Supper as a means of Grace. I believe that the Spirit can speak to anyone through this sacred act, and I believe that Salvation can come at the Table, where we meet God Himself.

I thank God for last night. I pray that He will continue to move His Church. Out of a service where we were supposed to "hit the hightlights", Christ came and led us into the details.

Thanks be to God.

Humbled and Open,
Joseph

Bigger, Better, Faster, More:

I just listened to a very interesting interview with Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan and the creative genius behind Nooma. Mars Hill became a megachurch almost overnight - as the story goes, without any advertising other than word-of-mouth, they had 3,000+ folks turn up their first Sunday and currently run around 10,000 over three services. Anyway, in the interview he is asked to comment on how he reconciles his unique style of thinking, teaching, writing, ministry and the like (which IS pretty unique) with being the "teaching pastor" at a megachurch. In response, he states that perhaps the "dominant question of our generation" is "Can something be big and still have a soul?"

Now, I don't intend this to be a discussion of Rob Bell, who I think is pretty dang cool, incidentally, but I wonder what people think about this question: whether it is an important question or not, and how you'd go about answering it. I, for one, have made some pretty "anti-big-church" comments in discussions on this and other blogs and often do so in person. These sentiments overlap, naturally, with a somewhat leftist, anti-corporate (which is to say, anti-capitalism-when-it's-taken-to-the-ridiculous-extremes-we-are-beginning-to-observe) attitude that has developed in me over the past few years. Such attitudes get me in trouble sometimes, like when an anti-Walmart comment I made sparked my first real drag-out debate with my father-in-law over worldviews, economics and politics (we were long overdue, believe me).

In that debate/argument/discussion with my father-in-law, he expressed his concern that it seems like a lot of "young people today" (I'm never really sure who such phrases are supposed to indicate, or whether or not I am truly part of whatever socio-cultural trend people who use such phrases want to highlight) have this tendency to be against anything that's big and successful. "Sure they might do some things wrong or have room to improve, but they must be doing a lot more things right to become so successful!" (my paraphrase of his point).

But I tend to think that wildly successful corporations and the like probably became so successful perhaps at first by conducting business with integrity and sound principles, but eventually by a slow and steady process of compromise. In other words, I don't think anything will be successful if it sets out to be evil and ruthless - you've gotta start out "good" to get anywhere - but nothing will becoming dominantly sucessful - a Walmart or Starbucks or Microsoft - without taking a LOT of shady steps along the way.

The deal is, I think this is especially true where Christianity is concerned. Maybe it's just the result of what I've observed in the strange cultural climate of American evangelicalism, but I have a hard time believing that if a church were really being The Church - selling all they have to tend to the poor; sharing everything in common - and were really preaching the gospel where Jesus bids a man "Come and die" (to invoke Bonhoeffer), that they'd be able to grow to congregations of 10,000 over a matter of years. I suspect that churches who really embody this ethic, the authentic ethic of The Church, especially in America, will drive away as many people as they attract, and at best will maintain a small, closely-knit communal feel, and at worst, will be driven into extinction, crucifixion style, by a culture that cannot and will not accept such an upside-down value system.

Is this just a personal hang-up? Is it okay for churches to have 10,000, or even 1,000, members? Can a (any) "megachurch" actually be the Body of Christ in the world in such a way as to deserve the name "church"?

Flags?

I was driving by a church yesterday and I noticed there was a flagpole in front of the building. What I saw made me cringe. On the flagpole where two flags: American Flag and Christian Flag. Which was on top?... the American Flag.

What does this say?

I have a right!

I'm sure we all wonder why we have so many divisions in the Church. This is one of the reasons of our discussion. You ever wonder why we have so many independent, freewill, and non-denominational churches particularly in America? I have an idea why.

In my last comment on Brannon's last blog, I mentioned the fact that the church in America has bought into the corporate world and the democracy of which we are a part, as citizens of this country. I submit, my friends, that these two factors are major in explaining why we have so many divisions in the church in America. Our corporate, democratic minds seep into the workings of the church, thus fusing them together to the point that in some churches, there is no line dividing America with the Church.

The capitalistic corporate world has infiltrated the church to the point that the only "growing" churches are the megachurches who utilize the corporate style of administration and practice. You learn in the corporate world to "give them what they want", or, "the customer is always right". Basing a church in this form makes the church member a consumer, and the church a producer. Therefore, we have these huge churches who cater to the masses, which yields high numbers and brings in much money. Success in America comes in the form of the dollar. If you give the members what they want, tell them what they wanna hear, and send them away thinking that they have been to church, you will have a church that will come back every Sunday, and a church that will pay big bucks to keep this producer afloat. I am willing to assume that you all are familiar with a large congregation in a Texas city that has bought into this corporate model. With over 20,000 attendees per weekend, this church is successful in the corporate mind, but have you ever listened to a sermon? Wow. I feel like I rule the world and I can do anything I want to and God "owes" it to me because Christ's "champion bloodline" runs through my veins. Who wouldn't want to go to a church where a motivational speaker pats you on the back each and every weekend? I implore you: Boycott Joel Osteen and please tell the Church the truth about Christ and Christianity. It is difficult, it is hard, and we deserve nothing. We don't even deserve to live. It is by the grace of God that I am breathing right this very moment.

Now we turn to the second factor of reasoning: the democratic mind. I just mentioned that people may think that God "owes" them something. I find that mindset in the church many times. Why do we think we deserve anything from the church? Why do we think that if we are not getting what we want from a church, we can just go make our own? Democracy, my friends, democracy.

In America, we live in a democratic society. As citizens of this country we live under the Constitution of the United States of America. Before this document was written, another document declared our independence from Britain. The Declaration of Independence makes some assertions that are evident in the American Church,
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
For this discussion, we will be most concerned with the phrase, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". According to this government document, we have rights because we are human beings. Not to go down a rabbit trail, but when this was signed, African people were not human. Hmmm. Anyway, this document states that we all are deserving of rights, we all have rights, and we all are owed these rights.

Have you ever been in a church where someone felt owed? Ever heard someone say, "I am a member of this church, and I have a RIGHT to be in the board meeting", or, "I have a RIGHT to stand up in front of everyone and tell them how much I think you are a bad pastor/preacher/teacher", or even, "I don't like this church and I have a right to start my own church!" These are all examples of things that might come out from a member of a church who feels owed.

My friends, we have no rights in the church, save the grace of God that is given at His Will. We are not owed anything, we are to give everything. We gave up our rights when we believed in Jesus Christ and said we would follow Him. It is not our Church, it is His Church. He is the Ruler, and we are His servants willing to do whatever we are asked to do because we love Him because He first loved us.

Just some thoughts on why we have division in this country.

Rightless Servant,
Joseph

The Corporatization of Ecclesial Language (and Fashion)

Is anyone else bothered by the way our denomination (and others like us) have "de-ecclesial-ized" our terminology when it comes to church hierarchy? Why have we replaced "bishop" with "District Superintendent" (and in that case, why not "district/regional manager?"), and "Archbishop" with "General Superintendent"? I mean, I KNOW why, historically (anti-Catholic backlash, etc - same reason we don't like incense and liturgies), but what does this imply, theologically?

It really follows, then, doesn't it, that we'd come to expect our pastors to wear snappy suits, rather than vestments, and talk to us like motivational mangerial types, rather than proclaim the gospel of the Word like the prophets and priests of God Almighty they are charged to be.

(And, on a pragmatic note, let us not forget: clerical robes, after the initial investment by either the church or the individual pastor, are MUCH cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain, etc, than having a closet-full of $500 suits, dozens of shirt+tie combinations, etc...)

But is this really as problematic as I oftentimes thing it might be? And is it totally unrealistic to think that we'd ever change this? Or does it even matter? Maybe I think this is a bigger deal than it really is.

Freakin' Deacons...

[Sorry guys, I'm doing this the lazy way...copy-n-paste with slight modifications.]

So, as I was recently saying...

I wonder how and in what sense our confusion about ordained ministry (e.g. when is one a "rev.") relates to our failure to really understand the value of the diaconate as an ordained pastoral but not necessarily priestly role.

Granted, there is much variation even within the Christian tradition as to the role of deacon. For example, in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican traditions, a deacon is a member of the clergy, whereas most protestants consider a deacon part of the laity, although 'ordained' to be a deacon as such. But even within the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition there is some discrepancy here: Anglican deacons can preside over baptisms and weddings, but cannot consecrate the Eucharist, pronounce absolution, etc, whereas Catholic and Orthodox deacons would not baptize or officiate at a marriage.

Clearly the COTN has (on paper, anyway) a deaconate but we don't seem to know why or what to do with them once we've got them. As we've established elsewhere, pretty much anybody in the COTN can administer the sacraments, and although only pastors are "ordained"/comissioned to preach the gospel, really in practice, anyone can get up and preach a sermon, too, provided the pastor okays it (his authority extends at least this far, even if he's not yet an ordained elder!).

So what's the deal with deacons? On the one hand, perhaps we need to come up with a good, clarified understanding of what this valuable ecclesiastical office is and why we have it - bibically, historically, theologically, etc (which is not to say that investigating this question in each of those three 'modes' would yield the same answer). On the other hand: why even bother? One might say that if you want to be ordained in a church like the COTN, ya know, fish-or-cut-bait; either commit and become an ordained elder, or be content as a member of the priesthood of all believers...although whether our laity or even our clergy are a "priesthood" in any proper sense might be a matter of dispute in its own right.

(SPOILER: Just to tip my own hand...I'm a fan of the diaconate. I'd be a bigger fan, in practice, and perhaps even pursue becoming one, if, as I say, we knew what to do with it.)

[UPDATE:] A final point for discussion: how is our lack of clarity about deacons related back to our tendency to understanding one's "call to ministry" on purely personal-individual terms? What I mean is this: isn't this all at least unsurprising considering how little emphasis we place on the church in the process of calling leaders, and their personal response to that call? I mean, we rarely ever turn down anyone for ordination - believe me, I've asked my father, a pastor, who has served on district credentials boards for years. Even if some guy comes forward saying he's been called to preach, even though he has zero education and the most infuriatingly awkward social skills, we'll still probably ordain him because he's a good guy with a good heart and a genuine desire to serve the Lord. And I'm not saying we shouldn't affirm folks like this by ordaining and comissioning them to serve the church. What I am saying, though, is that we should not send them out of the room after their painful interview, and all kinda wink and nod at one another and check the box that says "yes" (or whatever they do) knowing that this ol' boy'll be sent to some tiny, dying church out in the boonies where he'll get on just fine for years and years and we won't really have to worry about him because, let's face it, he's never going to pastor a large, urban or suburban church (and they're the only ones that really "count," right...I mean, literally, count...numbers, dollars, etc?).

Okay, now I'm starting to sound cynical...and I'm not. I don't think we're way off base or anything as a church. I just think the church needs to take itself more seriously in the process of calling both priests and deacons. Different folks have different gifts, and the church should help in the process of discerning how (and why) one might best serve the local church, and by doing so, the Kingdom.

So what's the consensus?

A) Should the not-yet-ordained, but licensed minister be referred to as "Reverend"?

B) What if that person is the pastor (senior / associate / whatever) at a church?

PS. From webster.com: reverend means:
1: worthy of reverence: REVERED
2 a: of or relating to the clergy b: being a member of the clergy -- used as a title: the Reverend Mr. Doe, the Reverend John Doe, Reverend Mrs. Jane Doe

Are any pastors worthy of being revered? I'd say only as much as the other followers of Christ. Thus, the second definition is more fitting in the midst of these questions.