Credentials
So, it's that time of the year again and I am due to appear before the Board of Credentials in order to renew my license for the Tennessee District Church of the Nazarene. This will be the fourth year that I have had a district minister's license, and last year was the first year I was actually asked a "real" question. It was about sanctification. Long story short we didn't see eye to eye on what that word means, and I cowered in front of the board and agreed with what they had to say. (I emphasized process, they were very emphatic on instantaneous entire sanctification, as I recall)
This year they have begun a new process. Instead of surprising the candidate with a random question they have sent us all a list of six possible questions which might be asked. So, in keeping with our grassroots effort to reeducate the Church of the Nazarene I thought it would be interesting to post these questions, share in brief my response to them, and see how everyone else would respond to them. So, without further to do, here they are:
1) Define sin; both original and personal.
2) What are the spiritual disciplines that you are engaged in to keep your heart and life fresh?
3) What is the difference between initial sanctification and entire sanctification?
4) Explain how you would answer the question, “What is a Nazarene?”
5) What are two or three Scriptures that help inform your understanding of entire sanctification?
6) You kneel beside a seeker at an altar in your church after a message on salvation. You ask the seeker, “What would you like the Lord to do for you?” The seeker responds, “I want to be born again.” What is your response?
1)This question hits home for me in particular because I am currently working on it as part of my thesis. I define sin as inverted relationship, or perhaps more specifically, idolatry. I think sin is less about breaking a set rules, then it is us trying to put ourselves in the place of the "rule maker." In other words, idolatry. I don't think the notion of broken relationship is adequate because I don't think it works with notions of prevenient grace or any idea that God is and continues to be the source of all life and being. If the relationship was severed then how could we continue to exist? Inverted relationship, on the other hand, wherein we the creature have tried to "snatch" divinity away from God (see the Genesis account, Romans 5, Philippians 2) and put ourselves, mere creatures, in the place of the creature, radicalizes sin and takes it far more seriously than notions of "missing the mark" or "broken relationship" because it names it for what it is: idolatry. As for original sin, I would break away from Augustine on this point and reject a notion of some sort of genetically inherited trait wherein we are all born with sin. If we are born with sin, then why are we held responsible for it? I would argue more for a propensity for sin based on selfish, or idolatrous, desires that arise from our "free will."
2)I read a lot. I converse a lot. I pray a lot. Not really sure how to answer this question. If they are looking for some sort of regiment they aren't going to find it with me, it's just not my personality. In order for me to keep things "fresh" I need flux in my spiritual life i.e. sometime it's the Bible, sometimes a theology book; sometimes its time intentionally set aside to pray, sometimes it's spontaneous in my office.......
3)Ahh.....sanctification. I think we put far too much emphasis on crisis moments and "magic" words at an altar. This isn't to totally negate their importance. I think they are very significant as they signify a life altering moment. However, I think we too often leave our theology of sanctification (and justification, for that matter, although I would point out that Wesley didn't really separate the two) stop at the altar. I think that crisis moments at an altar are just the beginning of a lifelong process. Certainly the process towards a life apart from sin (sin my definition above) may be "quicker" for some then for others, but I don't think any of us are made "perfect" in a moment. Even if we say God see us that way, is that even true? Doesn't it make God look a bit naive, or even worse, a lair? Initial sanctification for me, at this point in my journey and understanding, is a moment which I think begins at "justification" or at a "second crisis moment" wherein we completely dedicate our lives to God. Again I am not sure how that is different from justification, except in that it flows from it. Long story short, I think that "initial sanctification" is the first step of a long journey and that "entire sanctification" is the end of that long journey when we fully recognize and live out our place in creation: as creatures totally devoted to their Creator. And, once again, that journey may end sooner for some than for others. (I think that was all as clear as mud)
4)Well...we're kinda like the Baptists...(j.k) Here I would quote the old "Wesleyan-Armenian...." line and add something to the effect that we are a people who recognize the essential call to holiness in the Christian life and who feel called to remind the church of that calling through its life and proclamation.
5)Since sanctification is based on the issue of sin, I would draw from the passages that influence my understanding of sin, in particular Romans 5 and Philippians 2, and of course what specific passages mention "holiness".
6) I would say "Awesome, but first let me get a record of that so that I can write you down as one of the people that have been saved under my ministry for the credentials application." Here is my Methodist influence coming in, I'm not really that interested anymore in altar conversions, mainly because I think that is all we have really been interested in as a Nazarene church. I would certainly take the time to explain a little bit more what "born again" means and I would definitely pray with/for them, but I would be much more interested in setting aside several times for us to meet in the coming days, or even weeks, and talk about it so that the "convert" really understands the decision they are making and will really be equipped to go forward from that conversion.
Well obviously these are very brief responses, some of which probably raise more questions that they answer. I would love to respond to any questions about my responses, but I would be more interested to know how everyone else would respond to the questions.
Grace and Peace,
Zack
This year they have begun a new process. Instead of surprising the candidate with a random question they have sent us all a list of six possible questions which might be asked. So, in keeping with our grassroots effort to reeducate the Church of the Nazarene I thought it would be interesting to post these questions, share in brief my response to them, and see how everyone else would respond to them. So, without further to do, here they are:
1) Define sin; both original and personal.
2) What are the spiritual disciplines that you are engaged in to keep your heart and life fresh?
3) What is the difference between initial sanctification and entire sanctification?
4) Explain how you would answer the question, “What is a Nazarene?”
5) What are two or three Scriptures that help inform your understanding of entire sanctification?
6) You kneel beside a seeker at an altar in your church after a message on salvation. You ask the seeker, “What would you like the Lord to do for you?” The seeker responds, “I want to be born again.” What is your response?
1)This question hits home for me in particular because I am currently working on it as part of my thesis. I define sin as inverted relationship, or perhaps more specifically, idolatry. I think sin is less about breaking a set rules, then it is us trying to put ourselves in the place of the "rule maker." In other words, idolatry. I don't think the notion of broken relationship is adequate because I don't think it works with notions of prevenient grace or any idea that God is and continues to be the source of all life and being. If the relationship was severed then how could we continue to exist? Inverted relationship, on the other hand, wherein we the creature have tried to "snatch" divinity away from God (see the Genesis account, Romans 5, Philippians 2) and put ourselves, mere creatures, in the place of the creature, radicalizes sin and takes it far more seriously than notions of "missing the mark" or "broken relationship" because it names it for what it is: idolatry. As for original sin, I would break away from Augustine on this point and reject a notion of some sort of genetically inherited trait wherein we are all born with sin. If we are born with sin, then why are we held responsible for it? I would argue more for a propensity for sin based on selfish, or idolatrous, desires that arise from our "free will."
2)I read a lot. I converse a lot. I pray a lot. Not really sure how to answer this question. If they are looking for some sort of regiment they aren't going to find it with me, it's just not my personality. In order for me to keep things "fresh" I need flux in my spiritual life i.e. sometime it's the Bible, sometimes a theology book; sometimes its time intentionally set aside to pray, sometimes it's spontaneous in my office.......
3)Ahh.....sanctification. I think we put far too much emphasis on crisis moments and "magic" words at an altar. This isn't to totally negate their importance. I think they are very significant as they signify a life altering moment. However, I think we too often leave our theology of sanctification (and justification, for that matter, although I would point out that Wesley didn't really separate the two) stop at the altar. I think that crisis moments at an altar are just the beginning of a lifelong process. Certainly the process towards a life apart from sin (sin my definition above) may be "quicker" for some then for others, but I don't think any of us are made "perfect" in a moment. Even if we say God see us that way, is that even true? Doesn't it make God look a bit naive, or even worse, a lair? Initial sanctification for me, at this point in my journey and understanding, is a moment which I think begins at "justification" or at a "second crisis moment" wherein we completely dedicate our lives to God. Again I am not sure how that is different from justification, except in that it flows from it. Long story short, I think that "initial sanctification" is the first step of a long journey and that "entire sanctification" is the end of that long journey when we fully recognize and live out our place in creation: as creatures totally devoted to their Creator. And, once again, that journey may end sooner for some than for others. (I think that was all as clear as mud)
4)Well...we're kinda like the Baptists...(j.k) Here I would quote the old "Wesleyan-Armenian...." line and add something to the effect that we are a people who recognize the essential call to holiness in the Christian life and who feel called to remind the church of that calling through its life and proclamation.
5)Since sanctification is based on the issue of sin, I would draw from the passages that influence my understanding of sin, in particular Romans 5 and Philippians 2, and of course what specific passages mention "holiness".
6) I would say "Awesome, but first let me get a record of that so that I can write you down as one of the people that have been saved under my ministry for the credentials application." Here is my Methodist influence coming in, I'm not really that interested anymore in altar conversions, mainly because I think that is all we have really been interested in as a Nazarene church. I would certainly take the time to explain a little bit more what "born again" means and I would definitely pray with/for them, but I would be much more interested in setting aside several times for us to meet in the coming days, or even weeks, and talk about it so that the "convert" really understands the decision they are making and will really be equipped to go forward from that conversion.
Well obviously these are very brief responses, some of which probably raise more questions that they answer. I would love to respond to any questions about my responses, but I would be more interested to know how everyone else would respond to the questions.
Grace and Peace,
Zack
posted by Zack | 11:40 AM
16 Comments:
"Awesome, but first let me get a record of that so that I can write you down as one of the people that have been saved under my ministry for the credentials application."
Amazing response. Every year I fill out the application for licensing I cringe at this question.
yeah it's pretty much the worst question ever. it says that we are more interested in numbers than we are with the lives of our people.
Well, to me it seems much too concerned with the instantaneous "crisis" moments. How else would one quantify such an absurd statistic?
I often cringed at that question, too... but not because it felt sterile or "too interested in numbers," but because I couldn't honestly say that anyone had been saved due to my influence in their lives.
Would you like the question better if it asked for the names of people who had said Yes to Jesus in response to your invitation?
Oh, and Zack, you might want to rethink your answer to the initial/entire question. I mean, are you really going to start off that way? :)
Oh, I forgot to add: What's absurd about asking if you're accomplishing the mission? If you were checking in with Jesus himself, don't you think he might ask, "So, are you making disciples like I told you to?"
Rich,
If it were worded like your hypothetical question from Christ (So, are you making disciples like I told you to?), I wouldn't cringe at it. That is a valid question to ask someone that is seeking a particular denomination's support.
I have a problem with trying to attach a number to my ministry. Is the minister who causes 2 or 3 teens to truly deepen their walk with Christ on a daily basis any less effective than a dynamic speaker who can fill the altars?
I just filled out my very first application for a district license, and I asked my wife if my response to the question "How many have been entirely sanctified under your ministry?" could be "All of them."
(She exercised the spousal veto.)
Also - Zack, this is a kind of left-field comment, and not really pertinent, but your comments on sin sent my mind to the more genuine and helpful understanding of the Catholic practice of excommunication, which most Protestants misunderstand (none on this blog, I'm sure). Excommunication is a way of acknowledging a severed relationship between the one who has been excommunicated (the "sinner" if you will) and the community of the faithful. It is for the sake of the sinner, because of course the Church has been charged with the responsibility of administering the sacraments, and as we all know, we eat and drink of our own judgment or condemnation when we receive the Eucharist unworthily - so the Church, out of love (again, this is the ideal - not to say economies of power don't enter into the picture in practice), must deny the sinner entrance to the Table for the sake of his own soul. But at the same time, the sinner does not CEASE to be in relationship to the Church - rather, the "status" or condition of his relationship shifts from one who is part of the communion to one who is outside the communion. So in the end, excommunication is a way of naming the relationship - not the "broken" relationship and especially not the "lack of" relationship - of one who has gone astray from the communion of the faithful.
That strikes me as very much related to how you're conceiving of sin, not as broken or severed relationship, but as inverted but nevertheless relationship. I dig that.
I am teaching 'Theology 2' in the Clergy Development course provided by the East Tennessee District Church of the Nazarene. This Saturday (26) we are discussing the concept of Sanctification. I have asked our class to write me a one page description of their understanding of Sanctification and email it to me before class on Saturday. I hope to discreetly place some of the responses on this comment thread. It should be interesting. Keep in mind, these are all licensed ministers working on ordination.
Good post Zack.
Brannon,
Interesting point about excommunication. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about that aspect. I think the "severing" is certainly a good approach, especially in a world (protestant world in particular) where we really don't take sin that seriously. Just take a look at the billboard on a huge mega-church in Memphis. It reads "Jesus loves you just the way you are." I don't think I've ever read something so ridiculous or flat out non-christian. If Jesus loved us just the way we were, then why would he take the time to put on flesh and then die for our sins? That sort of notion seems to echo Paul's statement "Should we continue to sin so that grace abounds? Meganoita!" (I probably spelled that one wrong. I told you before I can't spell so good)
I think that the notion of severing certainly has it's place. Everybody seems to think that the OT is so much harser on sin than Jesus was, but he's the guy who talks about cutting off hands, gouging out eyes, and eternal damnation.
I guess my response, and it's only an initial one b/c like I said before I hadn't thought although the sinner is cast out I think the church/Christ should and does continue to reach out in love even if they are not allowed into our most intimate circles, thus, we are still in some sort of relationship at least in the sense that they cannot be "outside" unless there is an "inside". (I realize this is via negativa, and maybe even a bit of a stretch, but if we ground our theology in a trinitarian ontology of relationship I don't understand how we could talk of anything not being in some sort of relationship)And once again, we still continue to reach out to the "lost/outsider" so we are still in relationship to them.
You bring up a good point, and I really appreciate it since it is something that I will definitely need to address. Thanks.
yeah, good stuff, Zack. I think you've got me right: the relationship, the communion, is never really "severed" - it is re-named "excommunication," which is still at it's root a relational designation. It's the sense that the relationship of being "in-communion" shifts into a relationship of being "out-of-" or "beyond-" communion. Excommunication identifies sin as destructive to the fellowship of the Church's communion, and so names that damaged or inverted relationship for what it actually is. But the Church (again, ideally) always excommunicates for the sake of the sinner and in the hope that, through the pain of excommunication, repentence and restoration will be brought about - that the sinner, in this period of "exile," will realize the unbearable weight of their sin and the pain of being outside the communion, and desire to return to the fellowship and communion of the Body of Christ. The Church never (or should never) excommunicate anyone without holding out the hope or promise of restoring communion and right relationship.
Brannon,
On my application for my district license a few years ago I actually did write "all of them" in response to the question "How many have been entirely sanctified under your ministry in the last two years?"
I thought such an absurd unquantifiable question should be answered with an equally absurd unquantifiable answer.
The district office staff seemed to appreciate it- and frankly no one on the Board of credentials gave the question enough credence to take the question or my answer all that seriously.
I think what is scary is if their are districts that do give those types of questions a lot of credence. I think we have a great process as long as good people are involved and everyone is more deep and authentic than such stereotypical questions.
I enjoyed the process, both a few years ago at my initial meeting with the Board of credentials and the annual follow ups after that. I legitimately felt like I had people in my corner who wanted to walk beside me on my journey toward ordination.
Good luck Zack, I hope you have as good an experience as I did.
Peace,
James
If you're OK with my hypothetical question from Jesus, would you be OK if he followed up with, "Would you take me to meet them?" In other words, who are they?
The reason they ask these questions about how many have been saved or entirely sanctified is because they want to make sure you're actually DOING THE WORK. I've met more than one "licensed minister" who simply wasn't doing the work. They were taking classes (some of them). They were participating in "church work" (some of them). But they didn't have relationships with people who don't know Jesus. They weren't encouraging believers to commit themselves fully to Christ's transforming (sanctifying) work in their life.
I honestly don't see what's so bad about the questions. It's not like they're ranking you against other licensed ministers and only ordaining the top 50%! They just want to know if you're doing the work. Has God really called you to this? Has he given you the gifts needed to play this part in the body of Christ? Are you cooperating with him, developing and using those gifts, and doing the work? If so, then there will be some fruit, and there's nothing wrong with those who are overseeing your work checking your branches for it.
Rich, I think you are right when you point for the need for accountability of exploring whether a minister is actually doing the work. I just think it is a terrible way to ask that question because it plays into a mentality that grossly categorizes what the work actually is.
Peace,
James
As an ordained elder, I have always been pastoring when the time for annual reports are due in. This year, I was between assignments and had to fill out an "Unassigned Elder" report. If you think your questions are arbitrary, try these on for size. My district had a supplimental questionaire that had just 2 questions:
1) Are you attending a Nazarene Church? Which One?
2) Are you giving at least 10% of your income to a Nazarene Church? Which One?
I believe these two questions demonstrate the totality of ministerial priorities today. Get them in the door and get them to start giving.
Heath, it probably says more about how few "unassigned elders" feel a need to continue attending and supporting Nazarene churches. I know 2 or 3 who didn't. They attended churches of other denominations while "unassigned"... And I'm not sure if any of them ever made their way back to Nazarenedom. The trend away from denominational loyalty is a reality even among the clergy...
Post a Comment
<< Home