Nazarene Roundtable

Faith

2010-05-02T18:27:00.006-05:00

Not too long along we celebrated Easter. Naturally, that morning we talked about the resurrection with our students at church. While we have had some great conversations with our students lately, this was not one of them. Going off the assumption that the resurrection did indeed happen we asked them: so what? In other words, what does it mean for our lives today that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the grave 2,000 years ago. All we got were blank stares.

It wasn't that they were confused by the question, rather they had never really thought about it before. For them, and I think many of us, there seems to be this basic assumption that as Christians all we need to be concerned about the resurrection is that it happened. In other words, all we need is faith.

But this got me wondering....is that really what faith is? Or least, is that the type of faith we see in the bible, or the lives of the saints?

It has been my experience that more often than not when we as Christian say we have "faith" what we mean is that we agree that something happened or something is true. Faith = intellectual ascent. But if that is what "faith" is, and "faith" is what saves us, then how are we any different from the devil? Or to push that a little further, if faith is agreeing that something is true then why isn't the devil "saved" because Paul is pretty clear that even the devil and his angels know that Jesus rose from the grave and they "shudder".

Maybe faith is something more....maybe even something else entirely.

I think if we are really to have a biblical understanding of what faith really is we will see that it has very little to do with agreeing that something happened. Instead, I think we see it played out predominately in two very distinct ways.

First, the faith of the saints isn't passive, it's active and VERY much so. Their faith has fruits and if their faith isn't bearing fruit, i.e. if they are loving the unlovable, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, etc., then there is no faith. It's something you do, not an intellectual stance that you take.

Second, and more importantly, faith in the bible is worship. It's not simply the intellectual acknowledgment that "Jesus is Lord", it is life lived in a posture of worship. It is a life of death to self. A life lived on bended knee. A life entirely dependent upon God wherein the creation doesn't try to put itself in the place of the Creator. Faith is the position our lives take at the feet of God.

Looking back, it's really no surprise to me that our students had that dumbfounded look on their faces when we asked them what the resurrection meant for their lives. For them, and so many of us, faith simply means intellectual ascent. Maybe it's just me, but I think we need to do a much better job of teaching and understanding what it means to have "faith."

Touching the Unclean

2010-04-13T14:23:00.005-05:00

My annual meeting with the district board of credentials is coming up very quickly, so I made sure to look at the list of possible questions the Tennessee District asked us to be prepared to answer. It should come as no surprise that two of the questions are: 1)What is entire sanctification? and 2)What does it mean to be a Nazarene? As I began to work through how I will answer these questions in front of the board, the various issues at play in my life at the moment led me to begin thinking: Is is possible that as Nazarenes we have a very limited understanding of entire sanctification? In other words, if we are honest about how we play out this doctrine would be more accurate to call our beloved doctrine "limited sanctification"? Here's what I mean:

Last year at my district credentials meeting I was asked what I thought the manual means when it says that as pastors we are to have a "christian ethic." My response, in short, was that I think we too often define this by what we don't do, rather than the things we actually do. Generic answer to be sure, but truthful none the less, particularly, I think, in the context of the Church of the Nazarene and entire sanctification. It has been my experience that by and large the general consensus understanding of entire sanctification, at least among most laity and many pastors, is that is about "me" and what "I" don't do, or sometimes do, in order to be set apart.

As I have been wrestling with just how to answer this year's credentials questions I have begun to wonder: If that is all sanctification is, then is it really entire? In other words, if sanctification is meant to be entire, then shouldn't it extend beyond ourselves?

If we were to do an honest examination of our doctrine, or at least its popular understanding, I think that we would be forced to recognize that our understanding of sanctification, or holiness, tends to be confined almost exclusively to the Levitical holiness code. For the people of Israel holiness was achieved by not touching diseased skin, keeping away from corpses, doing nothing on the Sabbath, and eating the right food. For the people called Nazarene our holiness very often falls along these same lines: no dancing, no movies, no drinking, and make sure you wear a tie on Sunday. It would seem, that we forget that the holiness practiced by Jesus was, to say the least, a bit different.

Fundamentally, to be holy in Israel meant to be spiritually clean, and any contact with anything unclean, whether that be an object or an action, made one unclean. Then Jesus comes along as the cleanest of the clean, the holiest of the holy, and turns this notion upside down. He seeks about the unclean things of the world (leapers, prostitutes, tax collectors, dead bodies), reaches out and does the unthinkable: he touches them. However, rather than becoming unclean himself, those things which his holiness comes in contact with in turn become clean themselves.

I think that this is an incredibly important idea that as a holiness people we tragically too often forget. We define ourselves by the via negativa and scream out in protest if something or someone or especially some way of doing the faith enters our doors. Is it possible, that it in the embracing of the unclean, even, or perhaps especially if, it reeks of the "pagan", it is made clean through the grace of God and reconciled back to its Creator and His purposes? Is it not fundamental to our beloved doctrine that in order for it to truly be "entire" it must extend beyond ourselves and out to the rest of creation? In other words, isn't God's sanctifying work meant to encompass EVERYTHING and EVERYONE? And if it does not, if we keep it to ourselves, then does this gift of sanctification not lose both its grace and it's holiness? Such a self centered understanding of sanctification surely cannot called either "entire" or "holy."

As a sanctified people don't we need recognize that in being "called unto holiness" we are called, like Jesus, to extend that holiness, that grace, to the unclean?

The Church's Future...

2010-02-09T09:59:00.002-05:00

Hello to All, I trust you are enjoying the season of Epiphany. I hope that God is revealing Himself to you in a variety of ways, as we journey towards Lent.

I just finished a book that spoke of re-imagining/re-thinking the structures of the church. Written by an Anglican who lives in Britain, this book outlined what the author saw as an imminent problem emerging in Anglicanism. He observes the current Christian climate in the UK and says that the Christian population is dwindling, and the attendance at public worship is becoming smaller and smaller. Looking at the statistics, this is true, particularly regarding the Church of England. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11080

As a result, this author suggests that the church needs to re-think its conception of the ministry. Fewer and fewer people are entering the quest for holy orders, which may be reflective of the church population receding on the whole. The lack of ministers, he thinks, will ultimately dwindle down to nothing and the church as we know it (meaning in structure; his case being episcopal) will not be able to continue.

His proposal to remedy this is quite radical. He basically suggests that the proposition of the 'priesthood of all believers' must be taking to its extreme end: every member of the church is as if he/she was a priest, holding the same calling, privileges, and office. To be fair, he does suggest that the 're-thought' church would continue to have those with the labels of priests, bishops, and deacons, but the authority of the ordained would not be any different than the authority of the lay-person. Everyone would be on an equal level with each other regarding all things required of the gathered community.

His dream is that all the members of the body of Christ would participate equally in the life of the church. An ambitious proposal, a radical proposal, but a viable proposal?

Some questions:

What do we think about the meaning of the term: 'The priesthood of all believers'?
What does this proposal say about the ministerial office?
What does this say about the sacramental aspects of the worshiping community?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, trying to work through some decisions being made about a church that I am connected to. It is in need of some change (think small congregation, not enough money to support, but definitely needs to continue being a light to its community), we are just not sure what that change needs to be.

Joseph

She's Gone Country...

2009-03-01T12:45:00.002-05:00

I come from Southern USA, Tennessee to be more precise. As a result, my life has been bombarded by country music. I have to admit, for years and years I detested this particular genre, but after I moved to Nashville I found that when you live in that city for a while country music invades your life and you must listen to it. After a few years I came to embrace this genre of music and I listen to it quite often.

I heard a song last night (I live in the UK and came across a country station last night while driving through Wales, which is the first and only station of its kind that I have found, so it was a nice discovery) on the radio called, 'Down the Road' by Kenny Chesney and I listened to an interesting lyric. The song talks about this man's life and how he grows and progresses through its stages. One of the lyrics in the refrain made me have a double-take. It says,

'Her momma wants to know/Am I washed in the blood or just in the water.'

Hmmm? This is a very interesting statement about Mr. Chesney's sacramental theology. I believe I know what he is trying to say, but it made me think more about country music and its theological influence on its listeners. The lyric suggests that one can be baptised but not 'saved', but if I understand correctly, to be baptised one (or one's parents in the case of infant baptism) must first profess a belief in the salvific work of Christ.

There are many lyrics like this in country music and I often wonder how influential the theology in country music is on its listeners.

Any one have any other loaded/theological country music lyrics to share? I know there must be a ton of them out there. Let's see how many we can come up with, Good and Bad.

Peace,
Joseph

'I am the Vine and you are the branches'

2009-01-14T11:55:00.003-05:00

Happy New Year to you all and Happy Season of Epiphany for those who care :-) . As a first blog for the year I wanted to share with everyone one of my Christmas presents. It's the icon called, 'Tree of Life', or 'I am the Vine'. The iconographer bases this icon on the passage from John 15 when Jesus says,

'I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.'

To all who read this blog, may Christ be in you and you in Him and may your joy be made complete this new year and every year. Bear good fruit, represent Christ in all things, and most of all Love one another.

Grace and Peace to all of you,

Joseph

Can the Word alone do its Job?

2008-11-17T11:00:00.002-05:00

I've been reading Richard Hooker (1554-1600) as a part of my studies, and I've come across an interesting idea that he discusses in Book V of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Defending the Church of England practice of the Public Reading of the Scriptures, Hooker makes the case that preaching is not absolutely necessary to evangelism. The Puritans decided that the goal of salvation could only be reached through the preaching of the Word, therefore, the public reading of the Scriptures as part of Worship was not needed, or should not be practiced, unless preaching followed. In other words, the only passages to be read aloud in a worship service were the ones that would presently be preached, exposed, and added to with commentary. Otherwise, according to the Puritan way, no public reading of the Scriptures would be allowed.

I found this story quite interesting and contemporary to us today. Many churches today have neglected the public reading of the Scriptures as a part of the worship service, except for the passages that will be preached on the day. Many argue that it is a time issue, that it takes too much time just to read the Bible aloud. Also, some would not see the point of reading a passage if it was not preached in the same service.

A few questions:

Is preaching necessary for salvation (evangelism)?
Must preaching follow the reading of the Word?
Can hearing the Scriptures alone be effectual for salvation (evangelism)?
What are the public Scripture reading practices in your local Nazarene congregations?

And please do not get me wrong. I am in no way claiming that preaching is unnecessary or useless.

The Peace of Christ be always with You,
Joseph

The ecclesiology of blogging...

2008-11-11T09:49:00.002-05:00

I've had some interesting back-and-forth recently, and with a few people even going back three years now to the inception of this blog and it's companion, about not simply the value but even the sheer possibility of having healthy conversation, especially about things of a theological nature, in venues such as blogs, social-networking sites, discussion boards and the like. While I fully acknowledge that such "online conversation spaces" (as I like to call them) can turn nasty and inhospitable, and at such a time are usually best disestablished and laid to rest, I've also seen them become a very encouraging and redemptive resource for pastors, lay persons and students of all sorts for the exchange of insights and experiences, for those who seek understanding and sometimes just for the purpose of floating an idea and allowing it to be scrutinized.

On the other hand, I've read my postmodern critical theory, and I know that words, once spoken or written, are orphaned and no longer under my control (as if they ever were or are), and can very easily be misconstrued, twisted, de-contextualized and abused as weapons against me or against anyone else for that matter. Then again, this risk is inherent to all language and therefore any and every form of communication. Which is to say, one might be able to minimize the risk (by limiting oneself to certain forms of communication, and avoiding others, like blogs), but it is ultimately inescapable....whether I publish something in a peer-reviewed journal, or speak it from a pulpit or a lectern in the classroom, or say it to somebody face-to-face, my words take on a life of their own from the moment they are uttered; they control me, not I them. I can seek to explain, clarify, retract - all of which merely increase the risk of further linguistic mis-fire.

So here's what I wonder, in light of all this: most of us would probably agree that the best place to "do theology" or to have theological discussions is within the church, the ecclesia or "assembly" - not off on my own somewhere; not in the ivory towers of academia; but within a "body" of some sort. Are we who populate this online conversation space a "body"? We are clearly dis-embodied insofar as we are digitally-mediated, separated by geography, time-zones, etc; but might we still understand there to be a sense and a spirit of "community," of ecclesia, about our interaction and conversation? Perhaps not, I don't know. What is at stake, I suppose, is whether or not a venue such as this is a viable space to engage in theological discourse. If not, we best abandon it. If so, is it worth fighting for, and to what lengths?

"You all know that I'm a proud Nazbo..."

2008-11-04T12:21:00.001-05:00

Oh. My.

God bless PLNU.

Comfort

2008-10-17T14:21:00.002-05:00

I had the chance to read over some of the comments regarding the collar post on our sister blog Sacramental Nazarenes. To be honest I could probably go either way on that issue. However, what stuck out to me was what seemed to be a common thread running through the arguments of the detractors to clerical dress. The argmunent against such a tradition seemed to be based in large part on the perception, and in particular, the comfort level of the congregation and, especially those outside the church, who, it is perceived, would be turned off by such formality.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the most destructive trend to hit the church in it's recent history is "seeker sensitivity." I don't say this because I have no regard for those "seeking the Lord". I wouldn't be in my current job if I felt that way. I care deeply for the lost, however, I take tremendous exception at the idea that the church should change or alter it's practices and/or beliefs in order to make church more comfortable for a "seeker."

Without going into a long diatribe about the idiocy of this notion, (it is my hope that the obvious problem of those on the outside dictating what is going on inside is problematic enough), I would rather raise the question: When exactly are those on the "inside", the regular congregtation, supposed to be comfortable? Are we supposed to be comfortable giving authority to a book that is 2000+ years old? Are we supposed to be comfortable living a life that is different from so many around us? Are we supposed to be comfortable when we claim that a virgin gave birth? Should we be comfortable claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully man and fully God? Should we be comfortable declaring that God died hanging from a tree? Should we be comfortable claiming that He physically rose from the dead? Is it supposed to be comfortable kneeling on an altar and admitting our mistakes? Are we supposed to be comfortable forgiving, loving, and not holding a grudge? Or perhaps we should be comfortable affirming stories about arks, seas parting, giants slain, fire that doesn't consume, water into wine, and feeding thousands from nothing.

It seems to me that there should never come a point in the life of the church that even it's own people are ever completely comfortable. If we reach that point then surely we do not really believe the things that we profess, or even worse, have so corrupted the faith that it looks nothing like the gospel handed down by grace of the Holy Spirit.

To once again paraphrase the great Stanley Hauerwas, "It is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world because it doesn't know that it's the world." Sometimes that means professing, acting and even dressing in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable. If anything we need more uncomfortablilty in the church. I can't imagine that cross we stare at on Sunday morning was very comfortable to hang on, so why should things be comfortable for us?

Grace and peace,
Zack

Episcopal? Presbyterian? Conciliar? Democratic?

2008-09-11T09:54:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-08T20:54:00.005-05:00

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

2008-09-05T10:57:00.003-05:00

'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

Evangelical Ecclesiology...

2008-07-07T05:06:00.003-05:00

...Reality or Illusion?

This is the title to a recent collection of essays that I have read. A very interesting topic, especially in light of the overwhelming birth of so many 'non-denominational' churches around the world and, I cringe when I think about it, on the internet. I am fascinated with the idea that anyone can just go and build a church out of nothing with no authority, structure, order, overseer, or supporter. And now, we have seen (I believe this was a topic for a blog on here at one time) the initiation of 'multi-site' churches, where the 'mother/founding' church has spawned 'daughter/satellite' churches all over the world. It seems to be just another attempt at denominationalism, without calling it that.

So the question is this. For these churches, who I would dare say all call themselves 'evangelical', do they have an ecclesiology, or is it just an illusion? Or could it be a 'liquid church' that has no need for ecclesiology, unless the circumstance calls for it? For example, is it ok for Christians to drop ecclesial order for soteriological goals, or should evangelism and ecclesiology live in communion with one another? If the former, enough said, but if the latter, how? In light of the fact that the Church of the Nazarene allies itself with the 'National Association of Evangelicals (Possibly another blog topic), we need to ask the quesiton, ' How does evangelism and ecclesiology live in communion with one another?'

Peace,
Joseph

What we've all been waiting for...

2008-06-06T23:18:00.009-05:00

Ever wonder how you can become a Christian? All you have to do is pray this prayer:

"Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to purchase a place in Heaven for me. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life."

Okay, okay...I know the whole "pray the sinner's prayer" thing isn't anything new in the world of evangelistic methods...But, I don't know, this just seemed particularly strange to me to discover on a rather high-profile evangelical denomination's very own sanctioned website.

What's even a little bit weirder is the way you get to this page. First...

...go to their homepage. Then...

...think to yourself, "Hmmm, I'd really like to know Jesus..." and lo and behold, up in the right-hand corner, right next to "Contact Us" and "About the [insert acronym here]" you just might notice a little tab that says "I want to know Jesus." So...

...mosey on over to that page, and a few mouse clicks later, you're good to go. Or so it would seem.

I don't really even know where to begin with this - just thought I'd share it and see what you guys make of it. I don't know if we should discuss the efficacy of website evangelistic techniques, the possibility of online conversions, or the questionable theological implications of a prayer that claims that Jesus' death and resurrection purchase a place in Heaven for me. So what, like God has all this empty real estate up in Heaven and the asking price is Jesus' death and resurrection? I mean...seriously?

It's funny, too, how certain evangelical churches (our own esteemed denomination being no exception) might be skeptical towards, or even condemning of, certain types of "scripted" or prepared (read: "liturgical") worship or prayer, and yet this kind of quick-fix prayer is just the ticket to "get 'em saved"...last time I checked, the only way Jesus himself instructed us to pray was "Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name..." (cf. Matt. 6:9-13). But perhaps that is a discussion for another blog.

[UPDATE, 30 sec. later] I was sitting here thinking how glad I am that our denomination hasn't deemed such tactics useful...I mean, check out our homepage, and nope, no "Get Saved" or "I want to know Jesus" tab to be found. But wait...what's this box that says "Visitor's Center - click here to enter - beliefs, churches & more"...? So I click and...aw, nuts...seems I spoke too soon. There it is, in the list to the left: "How to know Jesus." [*heavy sigh*]

I guess we DO have to keep up with the Baptists. At least our prayer doesn't contain that one line that irked me before about purchasing Heaven ... although otherwise it's not a great deal different. And, to be fair, at least the other denomination's version didn't have us saying "I now accept you as my personal Savior." (Snarky aside: "This year, for Father's Day, what do you give the dad who has everything? If he's already got a personal computer, a personal trainer, and a personal assistant, then this year give him the only thing he's lacking: a personal Savior!! That's right folks! Even that special guy in your life can own his very own personal Jesus. And don't worry: there's plenty of him to go around! Operators are standing by!")

Who knows? Maybe these things do get results, and maybe they've got the stats to back it up. Maybe the attitude is, even if it only leads to one conversion, it was worth it. I guess I just wonder if it really IS worth it, though, when what we're doing is giving the impression to our "visitors" that it's just that easy: sitting there staring at the soft glow of your computer screen, read a few lines of text, pray this prayer, and badda-bing-badda-boom, welcome to the Christian faith! Seek out a church, sure, because that's a nice supplement to your new-found, personal Christian faith - it'll probably help you to know some other Christian folks, and to have a place to serve and to give, and to "be fed." Hey, maybe even "get baptized" at some point! (Or not...I mean, whatever suits you...really!) But rest assured you sorted the big one out by yourself already when a website led you to Jesus and you "got saved." (Got Milk? anyone...? Get on it, ye cafe press t-shirt entrepreneurs. That one's a freebie.) As one who stands convinced that the Christian life is anything but easy, and that life in and as the Body of Christ demands far more than what this represents, I just don't think I can accept this...can you?

Prince Caspian

2008-04-25T12:04:00.002-05:00

There are few people who have had more influence on my theological upbringing than C.S. Lewis. My parents gave me the "Chronicles of Narnia" when I was little and I haven't been able to put Lewis down since. For my money there is no greater work of Christian fiction than "The Great Divorce." So, as lame as it might be I can't wait for the next Narnia movie to come out. (Actually I am really hoping they stay with the series long enough to make The Last Battle)

As a youth pastor I have been inundated with material for the Prince Caspian movie. My mailbox has been stuffed full with all kinds of posters, fliers, and suggestions on how to incorporate the material into my programing. Before I go any further, I should let it be known that yes I do plan on taking my youth group to see the movie. However, I have no plans on incorporating any of the material I have been sent into my regular programming. To be quite honest I can't see it as anything more than an elaborate marketing scheme to get more people to buy movie tickets because it is the "Christian thing to do."

Without getting into a discussion on what "Christian business" should look like, the question I want to ask is "How much, if any, influence should "pop culture" have on the church?" As a youth pastor, and someone who is fairly new to full-time ministry, I struggle with this question. I need "stuff" that is going to be appealing to teenagers if I want to get them in the doors, but I refuse the notion, which seems to be the prevailing approach in youth ministry, that what we offer, i.e. the bible, isn't relevant enough, so we need to "spice it up." So, I'm torn.

And then in the midst of my thesis research I read this quote by Jurgen Moltmann which has really challenged me. In his book "The Crucified God," he said, "A Christianity which does not measure itself in theology and practice by this criterion [faith in a crucified Christ] loses its identity and becomes confused with the surrounding world; it becomes the religious fulfillment of the prevailing social interests, or of the interests of those who dominate society. It becomes a chameleon which can no longer be distinguished from the leaves of the tree in which it sits."

It seems to me that we have made the inability to distinguish the church from the prevailing culture a badge of honor, so that we celebrate when people walk through our doors and don't realize that they are at church. But I have to agree with Moltmann that this must not be the case.

So with that thought in mind, I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about this issue. Particularly in light of our recent conversation on emergent _____________ it seems to be profoundly relevant. Again, I am torn on the issue. So what do you think?

Credentials

2008-04-22T11:40:00.002-05:00

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

Review: A New Earth

2008-04-18T10:11:00.002-05:00

A new phenomenon has graced (or disgraced) the presence of popular television for the past few weeks. Oprah, the famous (or infamous) talk show host has endorsed a new book for her book club. Labeling this choice 'a bold move', Oprah decided that this book is different and deserves more time and effort than any of her other books that she has suggested for her book club. Therefore, every Monday night, for the past 8 weeks, Oprah has had a 'virtual class discussion' on this book, A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle.

After receiving a youtube video link on a forwarded email, I decided that it may be beneficial to take a deeper look into this work. The youtube video has an obvious bias, and I do not like to take things at face value when they are critical of someone else's work, so I did my own research. Oprah has provided these class sessions for free on iTunes, so I downloaded the first hour and a half session and watched it.

Tolle and Oprah (it's interesting how we only use her first name when referring to her) talked to each other and to people from around the world about the first chapter of the book, A New Earth. One lady videoed in a question that asked, 'How can I still be a Christian and use this teaching? Is it possible to reconcile the two together?' The answers from Tolle and Oprah were very interesting, to say the least. Oprah proceeded to tell a story of why she left the Baptist church she attended for years. Her reason was because the pastor one morning said that 'God is a jealous God.' Upon hearing this, Oprah responded (at 27 years of age), 'What? God is a jealous God? Jealous of what? Jealous of me? I thought God is Love.' After this revelation, Oprah left the church.

Now, the answer, although not sufficient in my opinion, basically went like this: God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-present, and we cannot keep God 'in the box', so we need to be open to ANY means by which God relates to each individual (paraphrased by me). The bottom line is that Oprah believes that Tolle's methods are totally kosher with the Christian Faith and that his methods actually enhance our Faith in Christ.

Immediately after hearing this, I decided it would be worth a read. If it enhances Christianity, then I sure want to see what this is about, right? (please excuse the sarcasm) So I checked the book out of our public library and read it, in a very short amount of time, by the way. Here are some quotes I found interesting:

'Christ can be seen as the archetypal human, embodying both the pain and the possibility of transcendence.' (144)

'The possibility of such a transformation [of consciousness] has been the central message of the great wisdom teachings of humankind. The messengers - Buddha, Jesus, and others, not all of them known - were humanity's early flowers. A widespread flowering was not yet possible at that time, and their message became largely misunderstood and often greatly distorted.' (6)

'In Hindu teachings, this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation, and in Buddhism, it is the end of suffering.' (13)

And my personal favorite:
'Almost every woman has her share in the collective female pain-body (term used to describe the 'bad' which is in us), which tends to become activated particularly just prior to the time of menstruation. At that time many woman become overwhelmed by intense negative emotion.' (155)

These quotes just give a snippet of 'enlightenment' (pun intended) into the writing of Tolle.

Although this book is among a myriad of New Age material out there, I was particularly upset with Mr. Tolle and his academic integrity, or lack thereof. He uses Platonic philosophy mixed with Freudian psychology and he gives ZERO credit to either of them. He has an entire chapter dedicated to the concept of the 'ego' and says nothing of Sigmund Freud. And he talks about the 'Forms' and the images of the Forms but says nothing of Plato. This is not acceptable in academia and should be condemned as plagiarism.

Finally, Tolle's 'inspiration' for the title of the book comes from the Bible, where Jesus talks about 'a new heaven and a new earth'. He says, 'A new heaven is the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness, and a new earth is its reflection in the physical realm' (23). In Tolle's mind, and Oprah's voice, humanity is increasing becoming 'aware' of who we intrinsically are. This is done by being in the 'present state of consciousness' and not thinking of the past or the future, only the now (his former book is called, The Power of Now). By becoming aware of our 'presentness', what Tolle actually refers to as the 'I Am', we will be transformed into the higher state of consciousness, which will yield a new earth, which will be free of pain.

I thought it poignant to read and write about this book because of the extremely large influence Oprah has on millions of people in the world in general, and millions of Christians in particular. Tolle is a plagiarist, an author with no academic integrity, who also takes the Bible completely out of context with every passage he uses. This book IS NOT kosher with the Christian Faith, and SHOULD NOT be used to 'enhance' our Christian beliefs. It negates the person and work of Christ. It places I, me, my at the center of the universe, and it destroys any conception of original sin. Oprah may be a nice person, but her endorsement of this book as being something every Christian should read and use seems to be an act of a 'wolf in sheeps clothing'.

Oh, and by the way, Tolle believes in the Big Bang Theory, to which he adds: The world started as a big bang of the material. It is growing bigger and more complex every day. Eventually, however, it will get to the point where it begins to shrink down to nothingness again. At that point, another bang will happen and start the process all over again. Good one Tolle.

Peace to All,
Joseph

Review: Why We're Not Emergent

2008-04-15T09:36:00.002-05:00

We have been having a good back and forth discussion on the previous blog, and recently (out of researching for this discussion) I was introduced to the website: www.notemergent.com. Now for obvious reasons I wanted to find out what this was all about, so I went to the site and found this book pictured above. These two authors generously, or out of marketing prowess, provided a free chapter of the book, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). I read the free chapter and decided it may be worth the $11.99 to order it at Christianbook.com. Received last Thursday, I have now finished the book and I will provide a few thoughts here on the roundtable.

Written by two authors with very different writing styles, the book keeps you from getting too bored. Kevin Deyoung is a Cordon-Conwell Seminary trained pastor of University Reformed Church (yes, he is a part of the Reformed Church) in Michigan. Ted Kluck is a professional sports writer for ESPN The Magazine. For the times one may become bogged down in Deyoung's theologically potent chapters, the mood swings and the reading becomes much lighter when Kluck is at the pen. This was welcomed.

As you may be guessing, yes these guys are heavily steeped in the Reformed tradition, Heidelberg Catechism and all. They were introduced to the 'emerging conversation' through a church down the road a bit called Mars Hill Bible Church, where Rob Bell is at the controls. Seeing the interest in their University Students at their own church towards Bell's teachings, these two guys decided to investigate this thing called, 'emergent/emerging church'. Purporting to have read thousands of pages of emergent literature and attending many emerging events/churches, Deyoung and Kluck believe themselves to qualified to respond.

Without getting into the details, or into the extreme Reformed versus the extreme Emergent claims, the book has one major theme: The Christian Church needs balance. Therefore, the book is primarily a warning to those who are rejecting, or just neglecting, some truths about the Christian Faith that cannot be compromised. One of the ultimate examples is Rob Bell in his book, Velvet Elvis, who claims that the virgin birth of Christ may not be necessary to Christianity. I have read the Mars Hill Bible Church beliefs, and Rob Bell's church does confess to believing the virgin birth, but his passage in Velvet Elvis, these guys argue, is threatening and scary.

According to the authors, the bottom line is this: Christianity has a few things that cannot be compromised. Without them, we are nothing, and we must be careful not to lose them. Deyoung and Kluck are extremely concerned with the concept of Atonement and Salvation: Christ's Ultimate purpose. They want to make sure that we balance the 'journey' and 'relationship' with the reality of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and purpose. Deyoung, in the final chapter, reminds us of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. Each had something positive about them, but all can learn something from the others. He concludes: 'Call it linear, dogmatic, or hopelessly otherworldy, but it's what Christians have held onto for millennia as their only comfort in life and in death. And by God's grace such an articulation of the Christian message will emerge and reemerge, unapologetically and unhesitatingly, as front and center in all our churches' (253).

Even though the title may not reflect it, this book is a good addition to the emerging conversation, and hopefully it will be well received. Although I may not agree with all of what is said in the book, and I may see a bit of bias in its presentation, the goal has been met and the point is well put: Balance the experience, the journey, of Christianity with the reality of Christ's purpose, which is salvation from sin, death, and the grave.

Peace to All, and may this not be the only book review on the Roundtable!

Joseph

Another Voice

2008-04-04T18:01:00.003-05:00

It's been three days since April Fools and I still fell for the scam. Unfortunately, this scam is all too rooted in reality. The scam being perpetrated was that a group had been commissioned to write a new addition to the historical statement of the manual which would recognize the place of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene. The bigger scam, however, is the emergent movement itself. To be clear, I do not think that those who align themselves are con-artists, in fact I think most of them are good people with good intentions, namely bringing the gospel to the world. However, I think they are blind to their own deception. In their evangelical fervor to spread the gospel they have exchanged, or rather disposed of, the radical claims of the Christian faith and instead supplemented them with a seeker-sensitivity that is embarrassed of it's own history and void of any truth. In their fervor they have forgotten that it is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world. Without going into a long diatribe, I say all this to say that the "emergence", to borrow the term, of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene is my "line in the sand". I have long been a critic in the shadows, like I'm sure many of us are on any number of issues, but I think the time has come for a "call to arms." For too long the conversation has been between a "traditional" church who, rightfully so, is wary and skeptical, but apparently either not concerned enough, or in the case of many lay people, lacking the ability to articulate their fears and doubts, and the emergent movement who see themselves as the only alternative, or solution, to whatever problems the church may (or may not) be facing. I propose the "emergence" of another voice, one which celebrates the tradition of the church which has been passed down through the blood of martyrs, which rejects the accommodation of the world, and which exposes the ontotheological grounding and nihilistic end of the emergent movement. As members of the Nazarene church, in particular, we have heeded a call to a distinct way of life, one which cannot be forsaken, or "re-narrated", because it makes outsiders, or even insiders, uncomfortable. The emergence of the emergent movement and it's re-narration and relativising of the church can only lead to one place: the death of the faith. I do not know what form all of this would take, however, I think the easy place to start would be here. I think that the legacy of those who have come before us in the faith calls us to be a voice of truth and the future of the church depends upon it. For those of you who adhere to this movement, and are living and loving this 'realm of relativism', please help me to understand if I am wrong in my assertions. Invite me, invite us, into the 'conversation' and 'come let us reason it out.' If we are all in this together we need all voices heard. Grace and peace.

Zack

Blind Faith? Perfect...

2008-04-03T08:06:00.002-05:00

Luke 7.1-10 - Centurion's Servant Healed

As I may have mentioned, we are going through the Gospel according to Luke in our Wednesday night bible study with the young Adults. I am loving it because I haven't done much biblical studies. Last night we went through chapter 7 of Luke.

Sermon ideas pop into my head all the time these days, and last night was no different. After reading and discussing the first 10 verses of Luke, it hit me like a ton of bricks. We can learn so much from this Roman Centurion. For those who don't remember or don't want to go read it (link provided above) the story goes like this:

A Roman Centurion hears about Jesus; he knows that Jesus has been accomplishing some miraculous miracles. He has a servant who is ill, so he sends some of his Jewish friends to meet Jesus and ask Him to come and heal his servant. Jesus obliges and comes, but before He can get to the Centurion's house, He is met by some of the Centurion's servants. They have a conversation in which the servants tell Jesus that the Centurion says, 'Just say the word and my servant will be healed' (paraphrased by me). Jesus is blown away at this guys faith, and He tells the servants that this sick one has been healed. Jesus then goes on His way.

Now the obvious theme of this story is faith, which has been common throughout the first few chapters of Luke, but this faith is a bit different. With the others whom Jesus touched, or healed, they saw Him face to face. They made their requests to Him personally. The Centurion, however, did not. He never met Jesus, he had only heard about Him. His faith is so great that he tells Jesus, through his servants, that he believes that what he asks of Him will be done. Jesus, seeing his great faith, has a moment of 'What??!' This Roman has more faith in Me than My own people? Jesus' humanness is made evident in this moment. Because of this great faith, the servant is healed.

Great story, right? But there is one thing that I found fascinating about it. The Centurion and Jesus NEVER see each other. Even though Jesus came to his house, the Centurion sent servants out to talk to Him. Jesus and the Centurion never see each other face to face, although they may have been a few hundred feet or less from each other. What is amazing is the fact that Jesus, after he grants the request, goes on His way. He knows He doesn't have to meet the Centurion face to face. He knows that the faith of the man is enough.

My point is this. If this Roman Centurion, a man who could have met Jesus face to face as a person to a person, can have that much faith and still not see Jesus, how can we, living 2,000 years later, not have the same amount of faith? Jesus goes on His way, knowing the Centurion believed without seeing. Can we be like the Centurion? Can we believe yet not see? If we do, my friends, we are called, 'Blessed'.

May we be strengthened and encouraged in the reading of this story of great faith. Even though we do not see Him, we still believe.

Grace and Peace,
Joseph

Icons are Good

2008-04-01T14:05:00.002-05:00

Let me begin by saying, I am a lifetime member of the Church of the Nazarene, born into the church, really. But this born Nazarene likes to consider himself an ecumenical Christian, a catholic Christian. Because of this, I love to explore and utilize different practices and tools found in other Christian traditions. One of these tools I love is the Icon, a tool most associated with the Orthodox Christian Tradition, the Eastern Christian Church, if you will. I have grown to admire the use of iconography in worship, prayer, solemnity, and teaching.

This past Saturday, I began teaching a class on theology for the Ministerial Studies program offered by our Church of the Nazarene district. The students are made up of males and females who are on the ordination track in our church. They have not been formally trained in seminary or university, so the church provides required classes in order for the students to complete the education requirements for ordination. So Saturday, I taught a lesson on the Person of Christ to 5 students, all older than me.

To mix it up a bit, and to practice what I just preached, I used an Icon as a teaching tool. It is the one you see above, The Nativity of Christ. I planned on explaining the Icon and the meaning behind the details, to which I prefaced with an explanation of Icons and their meaning an purpose. I explained that the term 'icon' means something that points to something else. When we look at an icon, we see something more than the icon, we see what the icon depicts, what it represents, and what it attempts to re-create in our minds and hearts. Also, I added that we are to be 'icons' of Christ. Ones who live as pointers to Him. When one sees us and engages with us, does that one see Christ?

After explaining the meaning, we proceeded to exegete the Nativity of Christ. We pointed out the obvious things, but as we went on, they got into it. They started pointing out things that I never thought of. It was great! Quite possibly the first icon some of these people had seen, and they were drawn to its meaning and they were empowered by its purpose. The icon, the thing which points to something else, served it purpose that day. The students learned, the teacher learned, and it was all to the glory of Christ. May we live as icons of Him.

And so, I ask you what I asked them, what does this icon represent, and to what does it point?

Peace be with you,
Joseph

Let's Get it Going Again

2008-03-19T08:08:00.003-05:00

For some reason or another, I did a browse of some old blogs that I used to read and participate in as a contributor/commentor. And who would have thought, my friend Brannon, the creative initiator behind 'Sanctifying Worship' had a new post!

In light of this discovery, I decided to check the last post that I have placed on my home blog, here at 'Nazarene Roundtable'. Seeing that the date was almost one year ago to the day, I felt ashamed and embarrassed. Well, not really. I have been incredibly busy in the past two years, and most of my writing has been done in essays and a dissertation. As I am not on a degree course right now, I believe it can be beneficial to put some new thoughts out to the world.

Therefore, in response to the actions taken by my friend Brannon, I too will submit a blog in an effort to keep our 2-3 year old vision alive.

Here we go...

If you know me, you know that I am not a Biblical scholar, but recently I have become extremely interested in investigating the Bible, its people, stories, and message. Since the last post, I have preached numerous times and I have begun to teach a Wednesday night youth/young people class on the Gospel according to Luke. The preparation for this class and discussion in this class has enhanced my knowledge and understanding of Luke tremendously. Now, the historical theologian who reads thousands of pages of history, has become the historical theologian, the one who has a million sermon ideas a day.

We are now in the midst of Holy Week, the week when we remember the Passion narrative, Jesus' final week with us on Earth. Each day this week, we have had the privilege of having a service at noon each day at the First United Methodist Church in the town where I live. Organised and carried out by the Ministerial Association (And ecumenical conglomerate of pastors from around the community who meet regularly for prayer and who pool money together into a general fund that is then distributed to those in the community who have need.) Monday through Friday a different pastor from a different church gives a short message on the last week of Christ's ministry on Earth. It is wonderful to hear the different styles, perspectives, and messages that are pronounced by these pastors. We are all the Body of Christ, and this week helps to give a physical picture of our Unity as those who proclaim Christ as Lord.

Anyway, the minister yesterday used the story in Exodus about how the Hebrews were out in the desert and there were snakes in the camp who were biting and, in effect, killing many of the people. Moses cried out to God for a deliverance from the death. God responded by telling Moses to make a brazen, or bronze, serpent and place it on a pole. He told Moses to 'lift up' the pole into the sky so that all may see it, and when they do, they will be healed.

Now the obvious illustration is that this story in the Old Testament is alluding to Jesus in the New Testament being 'lifted up' on the cross and when He is lifted up, He brings deliverance, healing, salvation. But, I thought of another illustration yesterday using this same story. Instead of speaking about the action being taken, I was drawn to the tool, or instrument, used to perform the action. In the story with Moses, God told him to make an image of the the serpent. He told him to make an image of the very thing causing the pain, agony, and ultimately, death. That very image of the cause of the pain, would then become the instrument used for deliverance, and healing.

In the same way, Jesus came to save humanity from our impending death. To do that He became the very image, the very thing, that caused pain, agony, and death. He became Humanity to save humanity from itself. The perfect image of God, perfect Humanity, the Second Adam, became One with the instrument of death in order to conquer death.

This was the thought that came to mind yesterday during the Holy Week sermon I heard. As it is fresh on my mind, I wished to share it as my first blog back. May we be reminded of the person and work of Christ this week. He came as Humanity to save all of humanity.

Grace and Peace to all.

Joseph

Sunday School vs(?) Christian Education

2007-03-15T04:17:00.000-05:00

Lately I have been thinking of the concept of Sunday School. I can't get away from the idea that Sunday School needs to realise how much potential it has in training Christians. I feel like we have neglected this forum and put the pressure of explicating our faith solely on the sermon, or the pastor him/herself. But the sermon is usually a monologue, which allows for no discussion or questions, unless a pastor is gracious enough and the parishioner is bold enough to talk after the sermon. In light of this, I am throwing around things in my head dealing with how Sunday School can utilise its potential. The first concept in my head is to change the name from Sunday School to Christian Education. A simple name change seems that it could have an effect on the average Sunday School attendee. In doing this, the entire structure of the Sunday School would change. Instead of Sunday School Superintendent, have a Christian Education Coordinator/Superintendent

/Principal/whatever. And the Sunday School board would be known as the Christian Education Board and also, there would be Christian Educators, not Sunday School teachers.

This idea comes from my experience with Sunday School growing up and even today. It seems that the main purpose of the superintendent, board, and teachers is keeping supplied in materials, teachers and in trying to grow in number. When these are the foci, we seem to be neglecting the actual substance of teaching and knowing the progress of our students in knowledge and understanding. If this is the case, we are producing dumb Christians. If we produce dumb Christians, then how are they to know how to discuss, or even claim, what they believe? Also, if a dumb Christian is speaking to a smart non-Christian, the smart non-Christian probably has the capacity to trip up the dumb Christian even to the point of the Christian leaving the Church. This is the adverse effect of the purpose of Sunday School. I guess what I am saying is that I am tired of talking to people of all ages in the Church of the Nazarene who do not know what a Creed is, not to mention what the Apostle's or Nicene Creed is. I am tired of hearing believers struggle to explain Christianity by reverting to catch phrases that we hear every Sunday in church or every day on TBN. Something needs to be done. We need to produce intelligent Christians who can claim and explain what they believe.

In the beginning, Sunday Schools were sometimes better than the public schools. Teaching all different subjects, reading, writing, mathematics, etiquette, etc., the Sunday Schools became places of academia. They even had libraries that were envied by the local schools.

I guess my question is: What went wrong and how can we fix it? Is anyone out there teaching theological concepts, the history of the Church, and ways to communicate the Christian faith to others, in addition to the normal practice of teaching the Scriptures? I would love to hear that this is happening. Can we make Sunday School "harder"? (God forbid we ask anyone to read a book :-)

Peace,
Joseph

Tis' the Season...

2006-11-28T17:58:00.000-05:00

One question: What is the purpose of the Christmas Tree in Christendom?

Currently, I am having trouble placing it's significance in this season of the Christian calendar.

Peace be with you all.
Joseph

Sanctification Reconsidered (?)

2006-10-22T17:43:00.000-05:00

Seems as if the time is ripe for a new post on this, the Nazarene Roundtable, and what better place to go than straight to the heart of Nazarenedom: Sanctification.

I have metioned before some experiences I have had in the past year at my home church in rural East Tennessee. Most of these allusions have been about the youth group, but some were about the Church as a whole. This occasion, will be the latter.

As mentioned before, I taught a four-night series of lessons on the Church of the Nazarene Articles of Faith to this wonderful group of people, of the average age - 65. The most loving set of people I have ever been involved with, this group has been encouraging and caring for our family since the move to Tennessee in 1994. Being a small congregation, averaging less than 100 each week, the people all know each other well and still love each other. If one is new to the congregation, that one is by no means new at the end of the day. I say these things in an attempt to contexualize a situation that may not be familiar to all. Basically, it is a church of mostly old people, who love life, love each other, and have been set in their ways for years and years, and they like it that way, but in addition to this, they are particularly receptive of new situations and unpredicted, or unplanned, situations.

The first couple of nights go well, the congregation is receptive and asks good questions and I am pleased with the response. We then come to the last night. This night includes the Article on Sanctification, well, Entire Sanctification. I do my best to explain this concept and the Nazarene historical understanding of this concept. With some help from the pastor, and with, I pray, guidance of the Holy Spirit, we continue through to the end of the Articles and the service is over.

Upon finishing the lesson, I am standing in the front of the Church, gathering up my materials when a man comes up to me and proceeds to tell me something that I will never forget. This man's name is Bill, he has been a part of the Church of the Nazarene virtually his whole life. He is in his 70's, in age, and he loves God and loves people. This night, he made a profound statement that I want to share. He says,

"I have been a part of the Church of the Nazarene for many years. I have heard about Sanctification and Entire Sanctification in preaching, teaching, and conversation. I have sat in services where the preacher preached on Entire Sanctification and many people went to the altar and received the Holy Spirit as I had understood the process to be taught and experienced. But I have never heard Sanctification taught like I heard it tonight. Tonight, I truly believe that the Lord sanctifies. I was never one to go to the altar and pray. I didn't want to go and pray for Entire Sanctification in front of everyone. So I prayed in the pew and at home. I have prayed for years, but tonight I believe my prayers were heard. Until now, I was not sure if the Lord could sanctify a person unless the preacher preached, the person went down to the altar, and came up shouting. Tonight I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to sanctifiy." (paraphrased by me, this occurred a couple of months ago)

Here we go. A man, over 70 years of age and part of the Church of the Nazarene for about as long, was not sure if the Lord could sanctify him because he did not have a "crisis" experience at a mourner's bench. (I use this term purposefully. This is the historical term for what we now call "the altar" in the COTN. Historically in Christendom, the altar is what the COTN calls the Table.)

So, how do we preach/teach the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification in the Church of the Nazarene today?

(Yes, I have read Quanstrom's book, Brannon :-)

Peace to All,
Joseph

Do you have to go to church to be Christian?

2006-10-16T16:43:00.000-05:00

This Sunday towards the end of my Sunday School lesson, my brilliant 10th graders were faced with the question, "Do you have to go to church to be a Christian?" After some debate I decided that we didn't have enough time to adequately address this issue and that I would re-visit this topic the following Sunday. I tried several tactics in order to bring them to a certain conclusion, all of which came short. I immediately thought of you all when I returned home, and thought I'd give you all a shot at it.
There are various elements that are at play. Firstly, how do you phrase this question. Is it, "Do you have to go to church if you are a Christian?" or "Do you have to go to church to be a Christian?" Secondly, what makes someone Christian? Scripture states that you simply have to believe Christ died for your sins and that He lives today in order to be saved. Is being saved, being Christian? Thirdly, how would you teach this to 15/16 year old Christians?
I will give my response and their reactions to this debate after my October 22nd lesson. I know that there will be those who support both sides, so I thought this would be an invigorating topic for those who participate in this Roundtable.

MA Dissertation Proposal

2006-10-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

Hey Ladies and Gentlemen:
I just wanted to let you all know what I am working on in school. The following is my MA Dissertation proposal for the University of Manchester via Nazarene Theological College. Please let me in on your thoughts, concerns, suggestions, book titles, etc. Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers.

Proposed Title of Dissertation: On the Sacramental Theology of John Wesley

Outline of Subject Matter of Dissertation:

The purpose of this dissertation is to discover the sacramental theology of John Wesley, his understanding and practice of the sacraments within the church. What did John Wesley believe about the Christian Sacraments, and how are the Sacraments effective in the Christian life? According to Wesley, is Sacramental theology effective for missions?

Outline of Research Method:

This will require a theology of the Sacraments according to John Wesley, which will include an understanding of the sacramental theology of the Church of England. Did John Wesley face controversy over his sacramental theology? Was he criticized for his theology of the sacraments being the “means of grace”? From whom did John Wesley receive his understanding of the Sacraments? How did Wesley pronounce his belief in the Sacraments in practice and in speech?

In thanks,
Joseph

GROW: Dialogue Reposted

2006-09-30T16:16:00.000-05:00

Back by popular demand...just kidding. This post was taken down and reviewed due to some mis-representation/miscommunication. Special thanks to James Diggs for his techno-savvy skills for the recovery of this dialogue. Thanks for all the cooperation and patience from all those involved.

Monday, September 04, 2006 "GROW" Is this the kind of journal Nazarenes are producing?
My wife and I recently recieved a copy of GROW: A journal for the development of missional leaders and missional churches. I had never heard of it before, but thought you would be interested to see the contents of the newest issue. Apparently it has been in circulation for about 10 years, but the title is decieving...at least somewhat. The GROW part is right, it's all about church growth. However, the intention of the journal sounds like some of what we have been talking about in this circle. This is clearly not the case. Here is a quick breakdown.

Page 1: A list of the Top 50 Sunday School Gains in the USA/Canada region. Top 50 means largest % of gained membership. Being at page 1 it obviously has set the tone...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Pages 13-16: An interview with one of the fastest growing Naz churches Valparaiso Church of the Naz in Indiana on the use of Multi-site church growth strategy. I had not heard of this strategy until this article. Apparently, you can drop your kids off at a daycare, go to the worship center down the road, then there is a "The Java-Spot" for the teenagers, and even an Emergent Church inspired building called "The Stain" for college students. All of these are in different locations, hence multi-site. So instead of everyone worshipping together everyone has their own place. So if you don't like one service, you don't have to start going to the Baptist church, you can stay Nazarene and go to a different "site."

Pages 19-25: Basically a couple different variations to the multi-site approach.

Pages 31-34: Virtually a "Yellow Pages" for evangelist in your area. It is actually labeled "Revivalism Ministries."

Pages 37-40: One redeeming value is a piece on the Women's Clegy Conference. Thanks to Nina Gunter. It's not a bad piece. (I'm married to a female minister...could you tell?)

Pages 42-44: This piece covers Turn-around churches. Essentially another method of church growth specifically seeking to understand how churches that have nearly collapsed have found new life again. This church impliments growth through their daycare and children's ministries. The sad thing is that they fail to recognize that the success may have more to do with a prayful and sensative pastor responding in faith and obedience in a time of loss.

Pages 55-57: A piece on Biker Sunday at Grove City Church of the Nazarene in Ohio...need I say more.

I will close with this quote. They thought it was important enough for half a page and a 24 font setting.
"Seven out of the country's ten fastest growing churches offer worship in multiple locations, as do nine of the ten largest churches...we predict that 30,000 American churches will be multi-site within the next few years, which means one or more multi-site churches will probably be in your area." (The Multi-site Church Revolution: Being One Church in Many
locations-Surratt, Ligon, and Bird)
This sounds like a franchise add for McDonalds, but it really has me worried. Historically, the popular American church hasn't been a good idea. I am afraid people are jumping on this band wagon without thinking through this. What are the implications of a church that seeks growth (in numbers) as it's primary objective (this is an old question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts)? Further, what are the communal and theological implications of a multi-site congregation?

Rick Warren and Gregory Boyd

2006-09-24T10:46:00.000-05:00

I found this interview earlier today. Taken from Greg Boyd's website, this interview is a two part discussion with Rick Warren and Greg Boyd, both megachurch pastor's in America, with two different agendas. It is interesting to hear it from the "horse's mouth" what these guys really believe. If you have broadband, this video with run smoothly. Enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5555324196046364882

Peace,
Joseph

Confused about the "Emergent Church"?

2006-08-25T11:51:00.000-05:00

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

Infant Baptism: A work in progress

2006-08-23T11:31:00.001-05:00

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

Nazarene Roundtable

2006-08-14T17:56:00.000-05:00

Hey all. I have a question that I hopw everyone can give me some advice on. My wife and I are seeking to baptize our daughter within the next month or so and I need a solid reason for baptism instead of dedication. I have read many articles online and they all pretty much end up at the same place as the manual. I don't recall there ever being an infant baptism at my church and I would really like a good argument just in case someone tries to tell me I should only dedicate her. I have my own reasons and rationality but would like to hear everyone's opinion. There had been some posts previously about the subject and I meant to ask then but have been busy with moving and a new job. I think this could move my church toward re-sanctifying the sacraments as Brannon said. Especially if they ask me why I chose baptism.
Nazarene Roundtable

Just Hit the Highlights

2006-08-10T09:18:00.000-05:00

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:

2006-08-08T12:18:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-08-06T16:33:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-08-06T15:39:00.000-05:00

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)

2006-08-05T10:37:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-08-01T21:48:00.000-05:00

[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?

2006-08-01T11:50:00.000-05:00

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.

Teaching the Articles of Faith

2006-07-31T09:07:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I asked my father (the pastor of our church) if I could do some lessons on the Nazarene Articles of Faith for the church on Wednesday nights. This is part of the "grassroots movement..." I'm lucky to have a local church that is willing to put me up in front of them to talk! He said that would be fine. He and my mother are out of town this week, so in his absence he has asked me to begin the Articles of Faith lessons this coming Wednesday. Before he left to go out of town, he asked me about the lessons. He said, "So your gonna teach on Wednesday night, right? I then asked if I could have more than one Wednesday night to teach and he responded, "How long will it take to teach the Articles?" My response was this, "A year or more, dad, but I guess I will settle for two Wednesday nights." I love my father, but it is difficult sometimes to come to common ground with him.

So I teach the Articles of Faith on Wednesday night. By the grace of God, I might get through the Trinity.

With the Spirit's help,
Joseph

Sanctifying Worship...

2006-07-29T14:10:00.000-05:00

Just want to clue everyone in to another new Nazarene blog that, after months of deliberation and conversation, I've finally set up. In no way do I want to draw attention away from Nazarene Roundtable, and I intend to continue to be active here as well as there, but my idea for this new blog was to create a forum focussed on the worship practice(s) and prospects in the Church of the Nazarene, with particular interest in the situation of the local church(es).

Anyway, here is my description, copied from the site:

"Sacramental Nazarenes is an online discussion space for members of the Church of the Nazarene who share a deep concern for the worship of our churches. We are devoted to thinking about the past, present and future of our liturgical tradition(s) and sacramental life and desire to explore together what it means to worship in Spirit and in Truth."

Like Nazarene Roundtable, this site is open to all who associate themselves (although not necessarily by membership) with the Church of the Nazarene. Comments are open to all, but in addition, I will gladly give member status and full posting privileges to anyone who expresses interest in contributing...the more the merrier. Just shoot me an email if you want me to add you.

So help me spread the word - I'm especially keen to involve Nazarene pastors and lay ministers who are either doing new (to us - old, liturgically) and daring things in their local churches - you know, things like using the lectionary or responding to scripture readings with "Thanks be to God," or (golly!) weekly or in any way more regular than usual communion services - or those who simply desire for something more and are open to what such "ancient-future" traditions might have to offer.

Random Ruminations: Zack

2006-07-28T10:14:00.000-05:00

Four things: 1)evidently someone hit a nerve 2)Someone else I was talking to who is ordained, said that he heard the same thing that headquarters told me (about being Rev. once you get your district license) and that supposedly it is true 3)I know, or can at least think of, at least a dozen or so people who would be all for starting a new church/denomination (Reformed Church of the Nazarene?) Non-denoms do it all the time and most of them are uneducated crackpots, so why not us? 4)I accidentally washed my "licensed minister ID card" and it disintegrated into a million pieces, so does this mean a)i am not licensed anymore or b)that was irrelevant anyone and everybody is already a "Rev."

Just some random ruminations,

Zack

p.s. From now on please refer to me as the "Very Reverend"

Welcome!

2006-07-25T12:53:00.000-05:00

Dear friends,
My cousin Joseph and I began talking about turning our conversation into a blog to ease the communication and then Brannon suggested the same thing and it was a done deal.

I have taken the liberty of copying all of our e.mails into individual posts (along with Joseph's direct replies as comments on those posts). If you find that you would like ANYTHING edited, just let me know. I hope to be able to grant you access to do this in the future, but if anything is pressing just contact me directly.

Grace and Peace.

Charlie's First Reply

2006-07-25T12:20:00.000-05:00

by Charlie Green

In late reply to everyone's comments, I give my two cents (if its even worth as much). Coming from (and going back to) a small, backwoods, uneducated, and extremely a "do not" church, I find this conversation most stimulating for a person excitied about going back and telling everyone what they learned while they were away, but I feel as though they are not ready for it. The only problem with this is the "do not" attitude small churches (as I have observed) seem to have. By this I mean the church is focused mainly on what not to do to be a Christian rather than on what to do. I find Levi's examination of the order of the Articles important in that the article on sin is mentioned before the sacraments, the Church, sanctification, and even grace! No wonder our church is hell bent on legalism instead of practice. The rules tell us ho to screw up before we even know where to turn if we do. But upon further examination of the order of the articles, the Trinity, being first really offers all the answers if one has taken a Spaulding systematic. The peace, love, and unity of the Trinity offers a perfect example for the Church. So from this understanding of the articles we need to be educated in order to get a full understanding of what they mean. Is this part of the political agenda of the Nazarene demonination. Do they want a bunch of followers and a few leaders? Do they want people to question what they do? Do they want the lowly layperson to become a Pastor, DS, or heaven forbid, a GS? Of course not. Keep the people at the bottom of the heirarchy at the bottom and the people at the top, at the top.

This is one of the reasons why as a denomation we downplay education in order to promote sanctification through the Holy Spirit. Being too educated causes us to think and debug our faith instead of embrace it blindfoldedly (a word?) led by faith in the Holy Spirit. God can work in any way he sees fit. He is who he is, right? Personally, in order to really do something, I like to understand it. I really enjoyed learning about God and the Church during my course of study at Trevecca. I know it is kinda one sided in terms of viewpoints but I have friends with whom I can converse and hear other opinions, sometimes helpful, sometime confusing. But I believe as a denomination we need to teaching our doctrines (articles) to those who want to join the church or even to those who are already members of the local congregation. It is my hope that I can return home humble and eager to teach the youth and adults (but I will primarily be working with the youth) the importance of digging and finding that small nugget, possibly even spec of dust buried deep within our tradition not just as a denomination, but as a Church. And YES, Joseph, ecumenism has a large part to play in this search. I recently have had a friend who converted to Catholocism with whom I am eager to talk to on a regular basis about Christianity, the Church, and our world. Many people in my church would probably deem it a heretical call him a Christian. I look forward to continuing this email with all of you and thanks for reading my ramblings.

Prayfully yours,
Charlie

Brannon's Second Reply

2006-07-25T12:15:00.000-05:00

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

Levi's Second Reply

2006-07-25T12:11:00.000-05:00

by Levi Hamilton

Friends,

I agree with Wade that the Nazarenes are still young. Much like American ambivolence as people are amazed that anybody not an American would hate us, but we as Americans are also young. Typically, as the obnoxiuos rich teenager of world commerce, we stick our nose where we shouldn't, and then make a mess of things that don't really have that much to do with us, as well as all the lying that goes on...no wonder we aren't taken seriously, but as the rich young man always buys dinner, everybody will be our friend to our face (while they are hungry at least). The Nazarenes were started by some highschool grads, not Ivy League Alumni, and so I guess we should be patient as to their understanding of educational importance and ecclesial history.
I also agree that the Manual is lacking. After doing an analysis of the grammer in class one can quickly see that the problems in language and the lack of certain important material cause the manual to be only satisfactory. Once again this can be attributed to youth and ignorance. The articles of faith go from the Trinity (which at least they start here) and skips God the Father to go on to Jesus and then the Holy Spirit. One could argue that God the Father is identified under the Article of the Trinity, but this does not adequately portray that God is three in one. Next is scripture, which I don't know if it should follow God, maybe after Church, but that doesn't come until after Sanctification. The sacraments are rightly located after Church, but these three are all located after sin. Why is sin so high up on the heirarchy? Seems that our focus might be on sin rather than even say Sanctification which isn't for 5 more articles. Anyway, you can see that order could cause some confusion for non-believers, luckily we don't have catechism, so there is no confusion yet (I'm being sarcastic). The fundamentalist also came in and change much of the language around, especially in the Article of Scripture. Plenary inspiration and inerrant were added in the 50's I believe...not 100% on that. No we can explain it away, but the language is still risky since it has been borrowed from fundamentalism and the reform traditions.
My biggest problem with the Manual is the political structure. The church's power structure seems to be formulated using capitalism as a model. The church that brings in more money increases the power of the district. The district that brings in more money increases the amount of votes/power you can bring to General Assembly. We call ourselves an international church but until the last several years all the international churchs had no representation even though they outnumber us...we have more money in the US and thus more power. With the explosion of numbers and thus more money, the international church has become a presence that the domestic church has to respect. We are an international church, yet we have never had a GS from another country, and we only recently voted a female as a GS...correct me if I am wrong, but I thought women in ministry was one of the foundations of Nazarendom. Things are going to become very interesting when the American Nazarene church truly does become international.

Cud for thought,
Levi

Levi's First Reply

2006-07-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

by Levi Hamilton

Friends,
I understand this problem. I myself began the steps toward ordination, but before I had decided whether deaconship or eldership was the path I should take, it apparently was assumed that I was on the elder track. Since then I realized, I am not a preacher by calling, and so should be on the deacon track. I asked a minister whether I should have them change it or not, and his advice was, "I wouldn't worry about it." This bothers me, especially since I know several ministers whom come out of the woodwork and claim God has called them to preach. I wondered why we have specific titles for each specific call to ministry, deacon-education, elder-preaching, deaconess-women stuff (believe me, my wife has problems with that one), etc. Then I realized perhaps its because the sermon is the focal point of the worship service.
When you attend the episcopal or catholic liturgy the homily is only about 10 minutes long. I know the pulpit is the center of Nazarene worship, but I don't hear many good preachers anymore (Or, ministers who preach Christ/Salvation/Holiness). Plus, why burden a minister who isn't as good homiletically to each week write a masterful sermon, and in some cases two sermons. (Or, like my home church just write a long one and preach till 10 after 12 then finish the rest of it in the evening service)
Anyways, that was a tangent, if a preacher is called to preaching, he shouldn't automatically recieve the highest ordination in the church, further, the system seems problematic because it distributes power through a heirarchy which seems to be in contradiction with scripture, I digress. I agree with Joseph that the language used is confusing and misleading. Although, I must confess my doubts for the future of the Naz church. I have seen some of the under table politics that goes on at the upper end of the heirarchy. I am disappointed because I feel like after ordination it simply becomes a game of politics (and sometimes before). I'd rather be busy with ministry, worrying about my parishioners rather than worrying about recongnizing if someone higher up is sitting in the pews and that I had better shake their hand. Sorry this is so long, just haven't been able to vent about this in a while! I hope this encourages discussion rather than depression or doubt. It sounds like its time for a Pow Wow with the big dogs!

Grace and Peace,
Levi

Brannon's First Reply

2006-07-25T11:44:00.000-05:00

by Brannon Hancock

Hi Joseph:

That's pretty funny. Just a few thoughts, and feel free to share them with whomever might be interested (I hate it when other people "reply to all" so I refuse to do so in this case). First of all, as I understand it, Darlene Friend is just flat wrong: one is not a "Reverend" until one is ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. She seems to be erroneously applying the title "Rev." probably simply out of ignorance or misunderstanding, or the ignorance or misunderstanding of those senior to her on the district. Also, while I agree that our allowing yet-to-be-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments is highly problematic, it shouldn't be surprising given our low view of the sacraments in both theology and practice. "Sacramental Nazarenes" like us will do well to remember that, by and large, the Church of the Nazarene does not understand and never has understood what we believe about the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist/Lord's Supper, nor why we undertake such practices outside of the fact that they are (arguably) "biblical" and that Jesus made reference to them somewhere in the NT – which I'm actually not convinced is a good reason to do anything, but that is another matter. All this is to say, of course we allow licensed but not-yet-ordained ministers to administer the sacraments, and for a number of reasons: one, which you have already mentioned, is pastoral need; another is for the training that the duration of one's licensed ministry is to accomplish prior to becoming an ordained elder; another is our commitment to the Protestant Principle, our orientation as a "priesthood of all believers", which is to say, our decisively egalitarian polity – the logic would be, if only "ordained elders" can administer the sacraments, then haven't we just made our pastors into priests and so gone and undone the entire Reformation? (An exaggeration for sure, but I'm sure a part of the reasoning). Now, saying that a licensed minister must be supervised or overseen in his sacramental administration is quite a different thing than saying who can and can't administer the sacraments; a licensed minister can administer the sacraments with the permission and blessing of an ordained elder, which would be "overseeing" or "supervising" without necessarily being present in body (note that many other denominations do this, too). Interestingly, if you read the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene closely, I think you will find (if I recall correctly) that the only real "vocation" to which Nazarene elders are ordained is the preaching of the gospel – sacraments, in keeping with our tradition, are really by the by. So this all to say: while those of us who have glimpsed a larger vision should work hard toward overcoming these lousy traditions and instituting a more comprehensively sacramental way of "being Nazarene," really, none of this should be surprising to us.

Finally, we must keep in mind the way the CoNaz goes about the process of ordination. Granted, I don't fully agree with this process and prefer the way many other churches go about it (I will outline this in a moment and describe what I think is the ideal), but still, we have a long-standing tradition of doing things the way we do them. And that just happens to be: 1) get your local pastor to give you a local license and "oversee" your ministry at your local church in a sort of mentoring role; 2) with the support of your local pastor, approach the district about a district license, which usually denotes the beginning of one's pursuit of ordained ministry (whether pastoral or deaconal); 3) after 2 years of full-time local church ministry as a licensed minister (or more if one's ministry isn't full time), and after completing the course of study and receiving the endorsement of the district credentials board, you may be accepted for ordination by the district, as overseen by a G.S., which is the closest thing we have to the laying on of hands by the bishop in something like "apostolic succession". Our requirement of 2 (or more) years of full-time ministry before one is ordained is something like what the Episcopal (and other) churches do with "curacy", but for them, this comes AFTER ordination. Prior to ordination (and I admit I don't fully understand the process but have picked up quite a bit), the process is very similar to ours as well, consisting of approaching one's local church about what one feels is a calling; the church – not the priest only but perhaps the vestry (church board) or some committee participates in the "discernment" process before referring a potential ordinand to the bishop; the bishop and his council discern further one's fit-ness for ministry before one is invited to become an ordinand, which then involves taking up both local church ministerial duties and academic study; and after sufficient time has passed and studies have been completed, one is ordained as a priest in the Church of God. It is significant to note that, for example, an Episcopal priest can never "lose" his ordination – once he is made an elder/priest in the church, he will be so forever, even though his licensure may be revoked (preventing him from serving as a local minister, administering the sacraments, etc) – because ordination is a sacrament, it is something GOD does, not the church/district, and so, like baptism, it cannot be undone. So, a newly-ordained priest becomes a "curate" which is kind of an assistant priest usually working under a more experienced priest in a local parish, and serves as a curate for 2-3 years before being able to be considered for taking a parish of one's own. Of course, many pursue ordination with no intention of serving as a full-time or "senior" pastor/priest – some desire only to assist, or to be deacons, or to just do "supply" work, or whatever. But the point is, because these other churches take the sacramental life of the church (of which preaching is a part but certainly not the whole – anyone can deliver the homily in Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc, churches, but only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist or baptize a new Christian), over which the ordained minister presides, more seriously than we do, it follows that we would have a different way of doing things. It's not without its problems, and it's not necessary right, but there are legitimate reasons behind it. I'd prefer something more like what the Anglicans/Episcopalians do, but it would take time for us to move toward that kind of ideal.

Just my thoughts. And as I wrestle with my own calling and whether or not the Lord wills that to involve ordained ministry, it is very useful for me to think through some of these things and figure out what I think, where I stand, and why or why not I might want to pursue ordination in a particular ecclesial tradition – that's the BIG question for me at the moment: should I approach the Nazarene church about ordaining me to a pastoral vocation that, for Nazarenes, does not consist of what I feel particularly called to? In think in many ways you are right: the ordination itself is, for Nazarenes, IN PRACTICE if not in doctrine/principle, simply a piece of paper for the wall, a feather in one's cap, an extra little bit of credibility. Thanks for provoking these thoughts by sending this email. I look forward to talking about such things with you here on British soil sometime in the near future.

In peace,
Brannon

The Beginning

2006-07-25T10:42:00.000-05:00

The initial e.mail:

My friend Zack forwarded me a three email conversation he had with a worker in Kansas City. I went to an ordination service last night, so this email really sparked my interest. Read it, comment, don't comment, scrutinize, laugh, whatever, I don't care. I just thought I would attempt to share the conversation.

Grace and Peace to All,
Joseph A. Wood

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: joseph wood
To: Zack Hunt

What's funny to me is the fact that a licensed minister can be a senior pastor of a local church who administers the sacraments, preaches, and is the spiritual leader of a congregation. Ordination is not required when the Church needs pastors, although one is not charged and commissioned to do these things until ordination.

Ironically, I was in an ordination service for the East Tennessee District Assembly last night. Four were ordained as elders, and one as Deacon. The funny thing is the fact that all four Elder candidates are full-time senior pastors and have been for at least one year. How does this happen? The charge of the Licensed minister is basically, do everything you need to do to be ordained, which includes ministry, but ministry as an associate. Also, the licensed minister may administer the sacraments, BUT only under the SUPERVISION of an ordained minister. So does this mean that the licensed minister/senior pastor has to call an ordained minister to come to every Eucharist and every Baptism? Of course not! These licensed minister in the senior pastoral role administers the sacraments, whether there be an ordained elder present or not. So who is supervising the licensed minister?

Is it the fact that we need pastors on the District and this allows for licensed ministers to take on the role, or does it mean that the difference in licensed and ordained is a mere certificate on the wall? This alone downplays the ordination service for me. Knowing that on Sunday, the former licensed minister will enter the pulpit as he did last Sunday, only now he has been prayed for by the host of East Tennessee Elders and his majesty, the General Superintendent. Is his ministry now valid? Is his previous ministry marked as invalid, or incomplete? Most certainly not!!! Our Church needs to either uphold what has been mandated by the manual, or rewrite what has been superfluously written. Why add, in almost every by-law of the manual, "by recommendation and approval of the District Superintendent and the District Advisory Board, this (insert law) can be bypassed"(paraphrased by me, obviously). In other words, most laws in our Church Manual can be underwritten and bypassed by the approval of the District Superintendent and the District Advisory Board.

What does this say of our Denomination? Are we that much in need of pastors that we have to place licensed ministers in senior pastoral roles even before ordination? How many senior pastors in the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Catholic, Methodist, or even Baptist churches are not ordained? Although, I'm not a big fan of the guidelines for Baptist ordination, that church still ordains, charges, and confers the orders of ministerial ordination to every pastor.

I know I am speaking as a licensed, not ordained, minister, but these are my observations. I also know that I am a candidate for Ordained Deacon and not Elder, but these observations apply more to the elder than to the Deacon.

Thoughts? Concerns?

Grace and Peace,
Rev. Joseph A. Wood :-)

---------- Original message ----------
Zack Hunt wrote:

I filled out a profile with headquarters. They sent me the list of pastors they were going to send my profile too, but it had me listed as "Rev." so I email them back pointing out the mistake. This is what our headquarters said.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Darlene Friend
To: Zack Hunt

You received a "Rev." status when you became a district licensed minister.

From: Zack Hunt
To: Darlene Friend

To whom it may concern:

The list of pastors who would be receiving my profile has me listed as "Rev." and I am not yet ordained. Thanks,

Zack Hunt