Episcopal? Presbyterian? Conciliar? Democratic?

A topic of interest has arisen from our latest blog comments of which may be best pursued as its own blog, so as not to take away from the previous topic of Women in Ministry. Also, on our sister blog, Sacramental Nazarenes, this same idea has found its way to the fore on the most recent stream of comments. So here we go. New topic.

It has occurred to me that our form of ecclesial government in the Church of the Nazarene is one that has been formed out of a conglomerate of traditions. We claim Anglican, Methodist, and Pentecostal heritages, but from these different traditions, where did we come up with our structured form of government? From what I gather, we basically have a purely democratic form of government, strikingly similar to the national government of the United States of America. Representation, Elections, Majority Rules, etc.

Here are some questions: Is this form of government biblical/adequate/universal? Does it promote equality? Does it really represent the majority of its 'constituents' (keep in mind the majority of Nazarenes now live outside the USA)? In light of the recent observations we have made, does it promote clerical authority or popular opinion? And finally, does it promote community or individualism? (for those modern, post-modern debaters out there)

I've expressed a bit of my view on the last blog's comments. What are yours?

Joseph

Neither Jew Nor Gentile

When the Church of the Nazarene was founded our forefathers (and foremothers) took Paul seriously when he wrote "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ." Our denomination was founded by great men AND women who found each other to be equally instrumental in the life of the church. When so many other Christian traditions refused to acknowledge the role of women in the church, we were ordaining them. "Phineas Bresee...was fond of saying, 'some of our best 'men' are women." (From the book Ordained Women in the Church of the Nazarene. It's a good one. Check it out.)

Now, some 100 years after Pilot Point we seem to have gone backwards, rather than continuing our forefathers/mothers lead. Obviously, we have taken the big step of electing a woman as a General Superintendent, which is wonderful, but, at least in my own personal experience, I fail to see any trickle down effect from this whatsoever. Growing up in the Church of the Nazarene I don't recall ever meeting or even hearing about any female pastors. In school at a Nazarene university I had several female classmates, but I don't know of any who currently serve as senior pastors, and only a few who even ended up in full-time ministry.

Case in point: I have a long time friend and mentor who has faithfully served the Church of the Nazarene her entire life: as a member, a student at a Nazarene school, a Sunday School teacher, a youth worker, and as a district NYI president. She has the education and the experience (she preaches nearly every Sunday), but every door into youth ministry has been closed shut for her, and to say that she has had a difficult time being ordained would be an understatement. She has been shunned from full time youth ministry because, as they are always quick to point out, she is single and, in their opinion, too old. (She is in her mid to late 30s) While others, less qualified, and sometimes also single, who "happen to be male" are hired.

I wish that I could say that this case is an aberration. I wish that I didn't think that if she was a man she would have been hired and ordained long ago. My own experience, however, leads me to believe otherwise. Too often I find our church stuck in some sort of 1950s, antiquated, unchristian, mindset that says that women are not as qualified to lead as men. They make good children's pastors, they can sing in the choir, they can even be missionaries, and of course cook in the church kitchen, but they cannot be senior pastors. This may not be what we profess but it is certainly what we practice. Certainly there are cases in our denomination where women are leading churches, but these seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule. So what went wrong? What has changed in the past 100 years when both men and women worked hand in hand in positions of leadership to establish our church. And more importantly, what can we do to change the glass ceiling of female leadership in our denomination? Because if we are to be faithful to our forefathers/mothers, the call of Paul, and the example of Christ, then something must change.

On Megachurches and Building Funds

'We were convinced that houses of worship should be plain and cheap, to save from financial burdens, and that everything should say welcome to the poor...We went in poverty, to give ourselves - and what God might give us - determined to forego provision for the future and old age, in order to see the salvation of God while we were yet here...We would be glad to do much more, yet hundreds of dollars have gone to the poor, with loving ministry of every kind, and with it a way has been opened up to the hearts of men and women, that has been unutterable joy. The gospel comes to a multitude without money and without price, and the poorest of the poor are entitled to a front seat at the Church of the Nazarene...' - Phineas Bresee, October, 1898


One Hundred and ten years ago this October a man distrought with the ornate, middle-to-upper-class 1st Methodist Church of Los Angeles proclaimed what is written above. He said that this new thing he was involved in, this 'Church of the Nazarene' would not be like the church he left. He vowed that it would not be a place where money was used to build bigger and better buildings, ones that were attractive to the rich and affluent, but rather Nazarene buildings were to be plain, and cheap. These were to be places that promoted equality, invitation to all, and with one purpose: the proclamation of salvation in Christ. The money that came in was not to be used to 'build bigger barns', or to be hoarded for future enjoyment, but to be distributed to the poor, to those in immediate need. This idea was not popular to the elite, but it fueled a movement that became a church. The Church of the Nazarene was founded with these ideas about its houses of worship.

So what happened? I know most houses of worship that carry the name 'Church of the Nazarene' would fall in line with the quote above, but what about the ones who don't? How does a large, even mega, Church of the Nazarene justify the spending of millions of dollars on creating these massive places of worship? When our founder established that we should not place ouselves under 'financial burdens' in regards to our buildings, how do we justify locking congregations into paying out millions over years/decades on a mortgage, when there are immediate needs in our communities, in our own congregation?

I guess my sentiment is this: I believe that the Nazarene congregations who have spent and are spending millions on their buildings do good work, BUT I have yet to hear a good explanation of WHY it takes a multi-million dollar facility to do the good work. And I believe our founder would resonate with this sentiment.

So let us celebrate our 100 years, but also let us re-examine our 100 years in an effort to remain faithful to Christ, and to those who have handed over to us, His Church.

Grace and Peace,
Joseph