Keith Drury's article: Who says what the Bible says?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This is an outstanding and thought provoking article on "binding and loosing" well worth reading:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.quadrilateral.community.htm

[Hans Deventer]

Wow! Very good article indeed. The only thing I ever read in this direction came from a Messianic Jew, David Stern, who also wanted to take this command seriously. He called it establishing a Messianic "halachah".

[Dave McClung]

I think this is a great article.

If we accept his position, then it places NazNet in an entirely different light. The only goal I have ever had for NazNet is to build community. Now, Drury comes along and suggests that community has the power to bind or loose the members of the community. Could it be that our discussions on theology and politics carry more weight than we think? Does it mean that each member of the community has an obligation to participate in the discussion on matters of applying scripture to every day life?

Dave

[Ian Gentles]

Superb article, would love to see Wesleys type of meetings return.

[Ian Gentles]

I think this is a great article.

If we accept his position, then it places NazNet in an entirely different light. The only goal I have ever had for NazNet is to build community. Now, Drury comes along and suggests that community has the power to bind or loose the members of the community. Could it be that our discussions on theology and politics carry more weight than we think? Does it mean that each member of the community has an obligation to participate in the discussion on matters of applying scripture to every day life?

Dave

Within reason I do feel that obligation exists!

Have given this thread an excellent rating, looking foreward to seeing where it goes. :)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm not sure that NazNet would qualify as a small group in the Wesleyan sense. The members of a Methodist group had committed together to encourage but also discipline one another. I don't think anyone comes to NazNet with that level of commitment in mind.

I do think that NazNet discussions on matters of general interest in the denomination reflect trends in the Church as a whole. For instance, the conversations about Open Theism tell us that Nazarenes are beginning to think about this matter, but aren't in real agreement about it.

Drury's approach: Tradition influences the denomination influences small groups influences individuals pictures a flow of thought in how to apply biblical principles to one's life that includes a willingness to accept discipline from one another.

I doubt that what he is describing is working very well in the Western Church world. We are such individualists that we want everything to be "God told me." In fact, I have had people, when confronted with the standards of the Church say things like, "Well, I don't have to do what the Church says, I have to do what God says." In that, they were dismissing the authority of the Church to "bind" or "loose" anything in their life.



I think this is a great article.

If we accept his position, then it places NazNet in an entirely different light. The only goal I have ever had for NazNet is to build community. Now, Drury comes along and suggests that community has the power to bind or loose the members of the community. Could it be that our discussions on theology and politics carry more weight than we think? Does it mean that each member of the community has an obligation to participate in the discussion on matters of applying scripture to every day life?

Dave

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I doubt that what he is describing is working very well in the Western Church world. We are such individualists that we want everything to be "God told me." In fact, I have had people, when confronted with the standards of the Church say things like, "Well, I don't have to do what the Church says, I have to do what God says." In that, they were dismissing the authority of the Church to "bind" or "loose" anything in their life.

One place it does work beautifully is Fellowship Bible Church in western Little Rock. The church began with that level of commitment in 1977 and has kept it to this day. Lives have been radically transformed with the loving accountability that the Community Groups offer/ed. I realize this type of long-term commitment is rare in today's church culture, but FBC is a wonderful example that the "binding" and "loosing" can work to build one another up in the faith and stimulate one another to good deeds.

Scott, you are correct in my estimation - NN has nowhere that level of committment and it would be extremely difficult with people who don't know one another or ever see one another.

Thanks for posting the link to the article!

Blessings+

[Ian Gentles]

"Accountability" now there is a word!
People today are soo independant that very few are fully acountable to any church group. I mean, how many Nazarenes fully obey the Manual?

[Hans Deventer]

Ian,

Let me speak for my self: I don't. But I do abide by our Articles of Faith, and I think they are what really matters anyway.
Other than that, I've been in the kitchen too often to fully appreciate every meal.

[Brian Hammons]

Hans says:

Let me speak for my self: I don't. But I do abide by our Articles of Faith, and I think they are what really matters anyway.

I think Hans' statement in response to Ian's question in regards to abiding by the CotN Manual is a hallmark as to why "binding" and "loosing" is lost in most of our societies today. Please, Hans, no offense intended. I'm with you in your response. . . it's just that you were the first to (maybe bravely) to admit/post it.

Most of us will submit to authority and be accountable only when it suits us individually. Whether it is a result of modern influences or lack of holiness or a culture of narcissism [sp] (we can chose one of these or countless other sources to attribute it to), I believe we have lost nearly every vestige of community. We have become so self-sufficient, that for the most part we are unwilling to filter anything through even our christian or denominational communities. To quote Scott:

I doubt that what he is describing is working very well in the Western Church world. We are such individualists that we want everything to be "God told me." In fact, I have had people, when confronted with the standards of the Church say things like, "Well, I don't have to do what the Church says, I have to do what God says." In that, they were dismissing the authority of the Church to "bind" or "loose" anything in their life.

I probably did not express myself well enough to state my point of view. . .maybe I'll try again in a day or two after having a chance to reflect on it more. BTW Hans, I'm trying to locate a copy of McClaren's book, and am looking forward to exchange ideas with you about what he writes. I think there is a "salt of the earth" issue here as well. Especially when you consider the function of salt: 1. to create thirst and 2. to preserve.
Maybe we are losing our saltiness in that we are losing our ability/desire to preserve.

[BobHunt]

i have had some of the very same questions in my mind for a long time, except on a smaller scale. Most of you know that we came out of a very legalistic denomination, where all the rules and standards were these: no tv, no buying on Sunday, sleeves below the elbow, women only wore dresses, women could not cut their hair and the list went on and on. I began to get the feeling that they paid more attention to these things than seeing new converts!
And, lately I have begun to wonder WHERE did all these kinds of rules come from in that denomination? Who made them up and what kind of a person were they? How do I know today, a hundred years later if that person really knew the Lord or not? Im sure if I asked these questions to them today, I would be only labeled as worldly and trying to push my own worldly ideas. Why cant they answer me truthfully? Is it because they do not know? Did some ministers make them up at a conference? If so, by what guidelines did they go by?

[Ian Gentles]

I dont bother over much with the manual myself.
Reason I used the Manual illistration was more to do with question of accountability, to church, denomination, etc! Trying to point out we are a generation that dosent like accountability in our modern independance!

[Hans Deventer]

I think Hans' statement in response to Ian's question in regards to abiding by the CotN Manual is a hallmark as to why "binding" and "loosing" is lost in most of our societies today. Please, Hans, no offense intended. I'm with you in your response. . . it's just that you were the first to (maybe bravely) to admit/post it.

Most of us will submit to authority and be accountable only when it suits us individually. Whether it is a result of modern influences or lack of holiness or a culture of narcissism [sp] (we can chose one of these or countless other sources to attribute it to), I believe we have lost nearly every vestige of community. We have become so self-sufficient, that for the most part we are unwilling to filter anything through even our christian or denominational communities.

Brian, no offense is taken! You know, I am actually willing to abide by rules others have laid down. For I see clearly that a church, as any organization, needs rules to function, and obviously, those rules won't always be to my liking. But what I do want is that if I have objections, that they would be seriously considered and discussed, especially when I'm a member of the body that lays down those rules. When that does not happen, that body is losing authority and is becoming irrelevant. For relevance is a mutual gift.

God sent Jesus to save us. It costed Him dearly. I still don't understand much of why He hasn't come back to end this world's misery, and I'm knocking on the door for an answer. I don't get one. But He DID tell me He loves me so much, He actually died for me. He takes me that seriously, and how much more serious could that be? So that is where I can rest in the silence of the answer I'm looking for, for He so abundently made clear that I AM indeed being valued.

I think this is the bottom line. We need to be loved = valued. We don't always need to have our way, but we really can't live without love. And vice versa, if love IS expressed, we can take a lot of "no's".

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think one of the strengths of the Methodist small group is that the small group not only creates accountability partners, but it also serves as a filter to rules and regs handed down at the denominational level.

I picture a group sitting around the table, directing us in how to apply biblical principles to practical issues in our lives. One seat is held by the "traditions of Christianity" another seat, by "current denominational rules" and another seat by "small group" -- local believers in whom we have confidence and to which we are accountable.

Now, on a given issue, each of these carefully listens to one another - but don't always come to full agreement. Tradition, by it's nature, can only offer general help in questions of a contemporary nature. Denomination, can be a bit more specific, but is unaware of local influences. The small group knows the contemporary influences and the local situation, but needs to hear what Christians across the centuries and in the broader view of the denomination have thought about similar issues.

So, each has a vote, guiding us in what is right or wrong.

If the vote doesn't exactly align with the denomination, it doesn't mean that we have rejected the denomination -- just that other issues brought us to a difference sense of right and wrong in that one matter.


Ian,

Let me speak for my self: I don't. But I do abide by our Articles of Faith, and I think they are what really matters anyway.
Other than that, I've been in the kitchen too often to fully appreciate every meal.

[Pete Vecchi]

This is a bit off topic, but I just a little bit ago had a chance to look at the article. It brought up some questions that I wanted to post on his website, which I registered for a few months ago.

When I logged on it said something about the site having been hacked by Cyber Nightmare and the site was slow to respond and looked like it was all messed up.

Is it right to pray for a website? I think that Kieth Drury has been offering a GREAT service with his insights and putting them on a public forum. It is a shame that someone would have to choose to hack into a site like that.

Then again, I haven't visited the site all that often in the past few weeks, so maybe nothing is wrong. Maybe someone who has been to Drury's website more often--specifically the area where you can login to make comments--can look at that and see if the site appears to be messed up or if it is just some funky design.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

It has been hacked. I saw that over the weekend. When I registered there I saw that they had registration set to wide open, anyone could register or post. That just opened the door for someone to do as much damage as possible.

However, I don't think it will take much to fix the problem, although I may be wrong. It was pretty interesting to see what the hacker was able to do!


This is a bit off topic, but I just a little bit ago had a chance to look at the article. It brought up some questions that I wanted to post on his website, which I registered for a few months ago.

When I logged on it said something about the site having been hacked by Cyber Nightmare and the site was slow to respond and looked like it was all messed up.

Is it right to pray for a website? I think that Kieth Drury has been offering a GREAT service with his insights and putting them on a public forum. It is a shame that someone would have to choose to hack into a site like that.

Then again, I haven't visited the site all that often in the past few weeks, so maybe nothing is wrong. Maybe someone who has been to Drury's website more often--specifically the area where you can login to make comments--can look at that and see if the site appears to be messed up or if it is just some funky design.

[Pete Vecchi]

Here are some thoughts and questions I had after reading this fascinating article:

--With the "small groups" of 12, what if there is one dominant personality within the group? Wouldn't that almost have the same effect as "individual" interpretation, since the group might tend to simply agree with anything said by the dominant personality? This would in effect make things decided by an individual for him/herself and 11 other people.

--Is trying to establish universal "rules" for each different circumstance more a matter of trying to please God, or more a matter of trying to make sure a group of people conforms to a certain set of standards (this could be construed as a "control" issue) -- especially when it comes to the Christian conference?

--Wouldn't the "lag time" of getting specific trends in an ever-faster-paced world addressed in a "Christian Conference" make some issues obsolete and turn others into "Sacred Cows"? For instance, how long has it taken in the Church of the Nazarene general assemblies to deal with the issue of credit card debt? At the same time, how long after the advent of cable television did it take for the church to finally stop separating out the cinema as a place to be avoided?

--With all of the decisions of the old Methodist conferences being so influenced by the writings of one man, while there was no claim of that man's infalibility, it seemed to me as I read the article that we were getting awfully close to calling someone "Pope Wesley."

Those were just some thoughts. What do others think?

[Pete Vecchi]

I was hoping that my questions would spark some conversation, but it looks as though not many posts have been made to the theology forum since yesterday.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Sorry Pete, I have been working through some other stuff and didn't have time to focus enough to reply.

Here are some thoughts and questions I had after reading this fascinating article:

--With the "small groups" of 12, what if there is one dominant personality within the group? Wouldn't that almost have the same effect as "individual" interpretation, since the group might tend to simply agree with anything said by the dominant personality? This would in effect make things decided by an individual for him/herself and 11 other people.

I think you are seeing the small group differently than I do. If I join an accountability group it is because I trust the spirit, wisdom, and judgment of others in the group. If there is someone who dominates every discussion, insists that their way is the only way, etc. I don't want to be in an accountability partnership with them in the first place.

--Is trying to establish universal "rules" for each different circumstance more a matter of trying to please God, or more a matter of trying to make sure a group of people conforms to a certain set of standards (this could be construed as a "control" issue) -- especially when it comes to the Christian conference?

I am not comfortable with "rules" here. The idea of binding and loosing is to find God's intention for how we apply current life situations to already set principles. It has to do with having a living relationship with God, not forcing people to conform.

--Wouldn't the "lag time" of getting specific trends in an ever-faster-paced world addressed in a "Christian Conference" make some issues obsolete and turn others into "Sacred Cows"? For instance, how long has it taken in the Church of the Nazarene general assemblies to deal with the issue of credit card debt? At the same time, how long after the advent of cable television did it take for the church to finally stop separating out the cinema as a place to be avoided?

Again, that is what I was talking about when I said there are different "players" at the table. One of those players is the General Church. Another is Tradition, and another those local believers to whom we have accepted accountability. It is all of this and more. If you have a "rules" mentality you are worried about what the Manual says about movies. If you are in an accountability group saying, "Well the Manual doesn't say it is wrong" means much less than "Is it wrong?"

--With all of the decisions of the old Methodist conferences being so influenced by the writings of one man, while there was no claim of that man's infalibility, it seemed to me as I read the article that we were getting awfully close to calling someone "Pope Wesley."

One person can have great influence if that person is recognized by all as a wise, spiritually minded person. They don't have influence because of their position, they have it because their spiritual authority is recognized by many people.

[Pete Vecchi]

Sorry Pete, I have been working through some other stuff and didn't have time to focus enough to reply..

You mean you have other things to do besides NazNet? :basic03

No problem Scott -- I'm in the same boat right now. I don't have time to sit and think deeply of more to discuss on the issue now.

Have a great day!

[Stephen Kerr]

An excellent article and an excellent thread. I think it was the 1999 last edition of Pastor to Pastor put out by Focus on the Family that discussed the possibility of having real church community via the internet. From some of the discussion it seemed to appear that, if done right, a internet church could be highly effective in discipling people. It stands to reason that, just in the same way as people in small groups are more committed (or less committed) than others (and the same in local congregations) that it would be the same with NazNet-- all depending on how far or deep a person was willing to go.
Take care all.