SWID district ass'y [Archive]

Marsha Lynn

18th July 2007, 11:39 PM (23:39)

My husband and I returned home early from Southwest Indiana D.A. this afternoon for a couple of reasons -- missed the ordination service this evening; went to the funeral home for a community member instead.

Not much excitement at D.A. The regular 2-minute pastor reports -- "it has been a tough year but God is good. The numbers don't reflect the marvelous things that are happening at Podunk Church of the Nazarene." More pastors missing than usual.

SWID doesn't have many NazNetters and I didn't actually get a chance to talk to either of the two I saw there -- Sharon Williams and David Warren (who as district secretary wasn't exactly looking for conversation). I missed one of my favorite pastors from the district, a personable young man whom I first met at General Ass'y in 2005 after he posted a few times on NazNet. Inquiry revealed that he has made a move to the Unitarian Church. I tried to get just enough details to be able to get more information directly from him without the accompanying commentary I was getting from others. The word "blog" was tossed around so I came home and did a google search. I landed at http://andyb1015.wordpress.com/.

It's ironic that I was late for the start of this morning's session because I was sitting in the glow of the motel "hot spot" posting some comments on why young adults are leaving the Church of the Nazarene. (Not being a delegate, I could get away with tardiness.) Then I discover at lunch that this young pastor has moved on. It makes me sad.

Marsha

Dave McClung

19th July 2007, 12:06 AM (00:06)

...I missed one of my favorite pastors from the district, a personable young man whom I first met at General Ass'y in 2005 after he posted a few times on NazNet. Inquiry revealed that he has made a move to the Unitarian Church. I tried to get just enough details to be able to get more information directly from him without the accompanying commentary I was getting from others. The word "blog" was tossed around so I came home and did a google search. I landed at http://andyb1015.wordpress.com/. ...

Marsha

I have to confess that I don't understand. I can understand when a member of the clergy resigns from the ministry, but I can't understand how one can remain in the clergy while completely rejecting the faith.

Roland Hearn

19th July 2007, 01:00 AM (01:00)

Wow, that is a sad story. In a nut shell that is the result of an etherial cognitive development devoid of any meaningful transformation. If you have the transformation so that the proof is in your own life and not in some arbitrary theological system such dramatic swings are unlikely to happen.

I have never met a religious parent who was unable to give his or her child reasons to be good–generally some variation on reciprocity (how would you feel if someone did that to you?) or universalizability (what if everybody did that?). The invocation of authority comes as a coda (…and God wants us to be nice), rarely as the central message. And it’s difficult to imagine even the most religion-drunk parents saying, “Don’t steal, Timmy. I have no idea why it’s bad, but God says not to, so there you have it.” And, at the risk of waxing platitudinous, they learn more from what we do than from what we say anyway.

If that is all he has ever seen, and it probably is, then his progression makes sense. The problem is his experience is obviously way more limited than his questions. I think we as the church have some serious issues within "how we frame faith" to address. We must stop being satisfied with less than genuine transformation in our own lives. We must then keep loving people until they see genuine transformation in their lives. Transformation, not education and/or experience, must be the key for how we evaluate the work we are doing. And for goodness sake can't we please stop hurling cannon fodder into ministry where we have not been involved in processing their struggles.

Gord Evans

19th July 2007, 02:26 AM (02:26)

Wow, that is a sad story. In a nut shell that is the result of an etherial cognitive development devoid of any meaningful transformation.

Moving on ... possibly the inevitable human response to an unanswered cry for help ... for a vision of light and love ... for direction through darkness ... for guideposts on the crooked path.

Where, along the way, are the lamps and the guideposts to ease the troubled journey?

Where is the grace?

Too busy.

Roland Hearn

19th July 2007, 02:53 AM (02:53)

Moving on ... possibly the inevitable human response to an unanswered cry for help ... for a vision of light and love ... for direction through darkness ... for guideposts on the crooked path.

Where, along the way, are the lamps and the guideposts to ease the troubled journey?

Where is the grace?

Too busy.
Brilliant!

Marsha Lynn

19th July 2007, 11:44 PM (23:44)

I have to confess that I don't understand. I can understand when a member of the clergy resigns from the ministry, but I can't understand how one can remain in the clergy while completely rejecting the faith.

Dave, I may be fooled here, but I don't think that Andy is "completely rejecting the faith". Rather, I see him as fully embracing the right to think, to ask questions, to wrestle with faith issues rather than toeing the "company line".

One of the things that I have become aware of through NazNet is the box that defines the limits of appropriate doctrine for a minister in the Church of the Nazarene. As a layperson with no formal education in theology, if I say something off-the-wall, people who find my ideas shockingly unthinkable can dismiss them as reflecting my lack of training in these matters. However, if a pastor were to say the same thing, there would be yellow flags thrown on the field from every direction. We can't have a minister of the gospel presenting false doctrine!

Some pastors seem to be able to express new ways of looking at old things in terms that don't trigger the alarms. Others struggle. Once word gets out that someone has some "pretty strange ideas", a lack of trust can lead to an atmosphere of inquisition and the box closes in, defining for the pastor what he can and cannot think. I can see where it would be tempting to break out of that box and say, "I'm not sure at this moment that I believe in a personal God at all!"

It seems to me that somewhere along the journey of making our faith really ours, we have to experiment with letting it go completely. I have a lot of respect for Andy and truly wish him the best as he chooses to explore his faith in a less restrictive environment than SW Indiana Nazarenedom.

Marsha

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 12:15 AM (00:15)

Roland, I appreciate your comments, as always. I think, however, that there needs to be some allowance for spreading one's wings wide and doing a few crazy dives when finally released from a cage. Until you've tried fitting into the theological boundaries drawn by constituents of the most conservative districts in the denomination, I don't think you can fathom how restrictive they can be.

I posted a comment on Andy's blog inviting him back to NazNet. His response was positive, although only time will tell whether he'll find the time and energy to come around here. I think you will appreciate his spirit as much as I do if y'all get a chance to become acquainted.

Marsha

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 10:03 AM (10:03)

When my wife finished her bachelor's degree at MNU we went to some awards breakfast where Prof. Mark Hayse spoke. As part of his doctoral work he spent a good deal of time with a unitarian congregation and he noted how most everyone was there because they got run out of an evangelical denomination for asking too many and too difficult questions. His challenge for the graduates was to use their learning to embrace the questions of people rather than run from them.

It was one of the more powerful and impacting lessons I've learned concerning ministry and I wasn't even the intended audience.

(I don't know what sort of education this guy has, but sometimes I feel like our grassroots method of ministerial education can allow some people to enter full-time ministry without ever facing some of the difficult questions of the faith in a supportive environment. Most denominations will not ordain someone without a formal MDiv for this very reason. I value our course of study program and wouldn't necessarily get rid of it, but this is certainly a shortcoming that could be addressed. People, especially ministerial students need a safe forum to explore their ideas. I'm not sure I'd still be in the Church of the Nazarene without the guidance of professors and the learning environment of NTS. There are certainly places outside a seminary or university to experience this environment, but we need to make sure that all preparing ministers find one.)

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 10:39 AM (10:39)

Transformation, not education and/or experience, must be the key for how we evaluate the work we are doing. And for goodness sake can't we please stop hurling cannon fodder into ministry where we have not been involved in processing their struggles.

OK, I'm feeling a little dense here. Six people, thus far, have punched the 'thanks' button after reading this post. Yet, I have read the last sentence multiple times and can't wring any sense out of it. Perhaps it's the "transformation counts more than education" part of the post that has drawn the thanks. (And I can appreciate that message up to the point where it makes the questionable assumption that my friend Andy has had no transforming encounter with God in his past and was dishonest through the entire ordination process. At that point I find it dismissive and offensive, but, in the absence of a personal acquaintance, not maliciously so.) However, if it's the "cannon fodder" part that is drawing the thanks, I would like to also absorb the truth to be found there.

Fodder = food (right?)

Cannon fodder = food for a cannon. (What do cannons eat? Cannon balls?)

What does it look like when someone hurls cannon fodder into ministry? Are they firing on ministry? On the minister? Who is struggling and who are "we" who have not been involved in that struggle?

I usually enjoy your metaphors, Roland, but I don't get this one. Would you mind using more literal words to express what you're saying here?

Thanks.

:fav16

Marsha

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 10:56 AM (10:56)

I think I said thanks, and if so it was because Roland's analogy meant (to me, anyway) make sure you don't pass judgment without knowing the whole story.

Mike Schutz

20th July 2007, 11:40 AM (11:40)

Cindi Hammons

20th July 2007, 11:59 AM (11:59)

Marsha,

My thanks to Roland related directly to his statement:

We must stop being satisfied with less than genuine transformation in our own lives. We must then keep loving people until they see genuine transformation in their lives.

Regarding your friend Andy, I have to be honest with you and tell you that his blog has kept me awake for a couple of nights thinking. I don't know him or his personality, so I certainly can't judge him...and shouldn't if I could. But a couple of his blog statements are worrying to me. (Hey, if you don't want people to comment on your writing, don't write in a public blog! No?) He stated, "I have come to question the existence of a personal God. My experience in ministry leads me to believe that an intervening, prayer-answering God does not exist...I do not find any proof for the extraordinary claim of a personal god at this point in my journey. " Yet, he has professed to being "called" into the ministry. That statement is extremely bothersome to me as he is moving forward to minister in another congregation.

Maybe my question isn't about Andy, but more about, can one be "called" to a ministry and not believe in a personal, intervening, prayer answering God? Last night during Bible School, a church member went up to the altar after the children had moved on to other areas. She was weeping, and begging God to answer her prayers. So, what does one say to this person when one doesn't believe in a personal God? "Yeah, well, that's too bad?"

I understand many of his questions, and I understand living in the Bible belt. However, his doubts about God truly have caused me some sleepless time.

Wesley Smith

20th July 2007, 12:02 PM (12:02)

I have only perused Andy's blog, so it isn't possible for me to give a very studied opinion. Having thought about the issue last evening and this morning, it seems to me that rejecting a personal God seems rather totally connected with the essence of the Christian belief system. So, while I do believe that we need room to flex and bend our theology, this seems quite like saying I'm going to try to live my physical life on something besides oxygen.

These days there is a lot of room for disagreement in the Church of the Nazarene. As a pastor of 36 years, I can hardly believe the space we are now given to vent disagreements both theologically and governmentally. Rejection of a personal God? Yikes. That sounds, to me, very much like leaving the faith.

Hope this thread grows.

Friend,

Wes

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 12:30 PM (12:30)

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 12:46 PM (12:46)

In military circles, they would call his blog "burning the bridges behind you."

I went back and read all the posts in the last four months. I just don't see that.

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 12:47 PM (12:47)

Cindy,

Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry for your loss of sleep, although puzzling about such issues might be as good a way as any to spend sleepless hours.

I'm becoming more aware as this thread develops that not only do I believe in God, but I also believe in Andy. Thus, I couldn't comprehend Roland's last sentence because it seemed to be saying not to do the very thing that in my mind he had just done -- assume that we can assess someone's spiritual state (relying on cognitive skills in the absence of a transformational experience) without having walked beside that person. Apparently, that's what he was indeed saying (although his annoying habit of being asleep at inconvenient hours of the day is delaying his explanation). The disconnect isn't that he was doing what he was also cautioning us not to do, but that my optimism for Andy basically sets aside what he has written in his blog as an inadequate basis on which to assess his spiritual journey whereas Roland was accepting those same words as the final word on the matter.

I guess I should confess that I'm relying more on my personal discernment skills than actual knowledge in this case. I have probably spent a total of less than an hour in face-to-face conversation with Andy over the past two years and have absorbed maybe a handful of sentences in his favor from his mentors. However, those few exchanges have primarily been about spiritual things. I tried to encourage him to stick around NazNet after he first posted and still feel like you all would enjoy dialog with him. But it's all feelings. Obviously, his apostasy is unquestionable based on the black-and-white evidence of his blog.

So how can someone who once claimed to be called of God to ministry now continue in ministry after the darkness has dimmed not only the memory of his call but his faith in God? Somehow that question seems much less troublesome to me than to others. Maybe that's because I just finished rereading a two-book fictional series by George McDonald that paints a picture of how an Anglican minister in Victorian England did that very thing. As his doubts grew until he couldn't even vouch for the existence of God, he volunteered to step away from the pulpit. However, his overseer (I forget all the terms, maybe the vicar?) gave him room to develop his faith while still preaching. And as he dealt with hurting people, his honesty made him strong where his doubts made him weak and his faith gradually blossomed into something far beyond the unquestioning acceptance of the church's beliefs that had marked his life prior to that time. And as the congregation followed his journey, some raged against his right to stand in the pulpit while admitting to doubts in his mind. However, others became stronger for having walked alongside him through his dark days.

Of course, George McDonald was writing fiction for a living because his beliefs were so radical that there was no place of ministry for him in the Church of England.

:rolleyes:

Marsha

Billy Cox

20th July 2007, 01:20 PM (13:20)

Billy Cox

20th July 2007, 01:28 PM (13:28)

I don't know what sort of education this guy has, but sometimes I feel like our grassroots method of ministerial education can allow some people to enter full-time ministry without ever facing some of the difficult questions of the faith in a supportive environment.

In my experience of the Church of the Nazarene, pastoral education is to ministry what premarital counseling is to marriage.

The purpose is not to dissuade someone from the career they are choosing, but is rather to equip them as best as possible for ministry and for lifelong learning.

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 01:35 PM (13:35)

(I don't know what sort of education this guy has, but sometimes I feel like our grassroots method of ministerial education can allow some people to enter full-time ministry without ever facing some of the difficult questions of the faith in a supportive environment. Most denominations will not ordain someone without a formal MDiv for this very reason. I value our course of study program and wouldn't necessarily get rid of it, but this is certainly a shortcoming that could be addressed. People, especially ministerial students need a safe forum to explore their ideas. I'm not sure I'd still be in the Church of the Nazarene without the guidance of professors and the learning environment of NTS. There are certainly places outside a seminary or university to experience this environment, but we need to make sure that all preparing ministers find one.)

Andy's background is in another denomination (can't remember which) and his path to ordination was via the course of studies with good mentoring.

I think you make a very good point here. How can one deal with questions in an environment where those around you primarily deal in answers and view questions as indicative of a need for greater mentoring? Teaching people to think for themselves seems to be way down the list of goals for the course of studies.

Marsha

Hans Deventer

20th July 2007, 01:45 PM (13:45)

Jeremy D. Scott

20th July 2007, 01:49 PM (13:49)

In my experience of the Church of the Nazarene, pastoral education is to ministry what premarital counseling is to marriage.

The purpose is not to dissuade someone from the career they are choosing, but is rather to equip them as best as possible for ministry and for lifelong learning.

What a great analogy.

However, while the object is not to dissuade, I certainly hope that it is sometimes to say, "Hey, this isn't for you," both in pastoral ministry and in marriage.

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 01:50 PM (13:50)

I went back and read all the posts in the last four months. I just don't see that.

Have you considered the impact of his blog on the people in the congregation where he used to be the pastor? What parts of the sermons that he preached should they now accept as the truth? What about the people he "led to the Lord?" What about the children who looked up to him as their spiritual leader? Some of those people will never trust a pastor again.

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 01:53 PM (13:53)

These days there is a lot of room for disagreement in the Church of the Nazarene. As a pastor of 36 years, I can hardly believe the space we are now given to vent disagreements both theologically and governmentally. Rejection of a personal God? Yikes. That sounds, to me, very much like leaving the faith.

Hi, Wes. I'm not sure where you are seeing alarming space for venting disagreement (other than perhaps on NazNet), but I hope you caught that this freedom is certainly not present here in SW Indiana. Andy is no longer a minister in the Church of the Nazarene and when I mentioned that I would like to contact him and invite him back to NazNet, I was asked if I thought that would be a good idea given his current views. Should someone who is expressing doubts be invited to post where they might influence wavering young NazNetters?

Yep, you will be glad to know that we keep the boundaries drawn tight around here. My own pastor treads on thin ice now and then by questioning the dispensationalist time-line of the return of Christ, but we have laypeople who have read Tim LaHaye and listened to Nazarene preachers for years and years and are willing to expend much energy keeping him in line.

The doctrine police are alive and well here and willing to send any number of Olivet professors packing for daring to step over the tightly-drawn boundaries. (I could offer to send you a list but you probably could make one of your own.)

I guess you're just living too close to the edge of the continent, Wes. Come join those of us in the middle and you'll feel much more secure about the future of the Church of the Nazarene -- as long as you don't mind that virtually every graduate of our teen groups, no matter how spiritually committed, finds another place to land.

(disclaimer: This is not primarily intended to be sarcasm, but I don't have time to fix it right now to take the sting out of it; I truly respect the views of every person who has contributed to this thread and am not really so defensive as I might sound.)

Marsha

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 02:17 PM (14:17)

Have you considered the impact of his blog on the people in the congregation where he used to be the pastor? What parts of the sermons that he preached should they now accept as the truth? What about the people he "led to the Lord?" What about the children who looked up to him as their spiritual leader? Some of those people will never trust a pastor again.

I guess I just assumed he'd been as open with the people in his congregation as he was on his blog. Andy just strikes me as someone being very honest. I didn't get the impression he was hiding anything from anyone.

I'd be more inclined to blame the people who wouldn't or couldn't put up with his questions. I guess I resonate with him, being that many of the questions and objections on the blog are the same ones I have or have had. I just wonder if I wouldn't have wound up in the same place he's in right now if I had had different people listening and responding to me.

He might be burning bridges with some of the people in his congregations, but I doubt they were bridges I'd trust to support my weight in the first place. I've always taken the term "burning bridges behind you" as an intentional act to alienate people. I don't see any intentionality here, just honest questioning.

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 02:19 PM (14:19)

I hope you caught that this freedom is certainly not present here in SW Indiana.

I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up. What strikes me most poignantly about Andy's blog posts is that I wish he had found better representative of the Church of the Nazarene.

Jeremy Abel

20th July 2007, 02:30 PM (14:30)

Good afternoon. I made my way over here from Andy's blog. By way of introduction I'll say that I am an LCMS Lutheran who has been a friend of Andy's for over 15 years. I want to commend Marsha Lynn for her defense of Andy's character. My main purpose for posting here is to assure everyone that Andy is a man of integrity - so honest, in fact, that he has decided to leave the CotN because he can no longer subscribe to their doctrine. That is something that ought to be commended, even by those like me who cannot agree with his conclusions.

Roland seems to be subscribing to the old line that Andy must never have been saved or he wouldn't be doing this. Does a Lutheran need to disabuse an Arminian of this Calvinist notion? Andy did his share of aisle walking in the days when we were both members of the Pentecostal Holiness churches, an obscure branch of very strict old-fashioned Pentecostals virtually unknown to the world at large. So, yes, he has had all those spiritual experiences generally expected of Pentecostals and Nazarenes. I do not mean that sarcastically or disrepectfully. I can think of no better way to say it.

Believe me, I am not here to cause trouble. I am disturbed, however, by the willingness of some posters to question Andy's integrity. I will not allow that to go unchallenged - no matter how much I may disagree with Andy's theological position.

Hans Deventer

20th July 2007, 03:04 PM (15:04)

Roland seems to be subscribing to the old line that Andy must never have been saved or he wouldn't be doing this.

Jeremy, welcome to NazNet! And I appreciate you taking time to tell us about Andy whom you know so much better than all of us here.

However, I will also say that I know Roland somewhat better than you do and trust me, he is not subscribing to the theory that Andy was never saved. Roland is as far from the old line holiness pastor as it gets, in a positive way that is. His comment to Gord's message may help shed some light.

As I read his post, Roland regrets that as church in general, including the CotN, we've been way to busy filling people with information, and not remotely enough with loving them in such a way that God can bring about "genuine transformation".

That's quite another story.

Cindi Hammons

20th July 2007, 03:07 PM (15:07)

Yep, you will be glad to know that we keep the boundaries drawn tight around here...

The doctrine police are alive and well here and willing to send any number of Olivet professors packing for daring to step over the tightly-drawn boundaries. (I could offer to send you a list but you probably could make one of your own.)...

...Come join those of us in the middle and you'll feel much more secure about the future of the Church of the Nazarene -- as long as you don't mind that virtually every graduate of our teen groups, no matter how spiritually committed, finds another place to land.

Marsha,

How hilarious and sad at the same time!!! As I said in another post, living in the Bible belt, I can understand many of Andy's questions and I can surely understand many of the points you made in the post I have quoted here! I have felt, at times, that the "religion police" are walking our church aisles here in the Bible belt, daring us to step out of line one little bit, or to try something new (new=sinful). :eek: And I do truly believe that most people in my community would disagree with much of what is discussed here on NazNet. It has been a breath of fresh air for me personally to find that I am not just an odd duck, but that there are really people (read: Nazarenes) who believe much the way I do.....AND IT IS OKAY!

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 04:54 PM (16:54)

LI guess I just assumed he'd been as open with the people in his congregation as he was on his blog. Andy just strikes me as someone being very honest. I didn't get the impression he was hiding anything from anyone.

I'd be more inclined to blame the people who wouldn't or couldn't put up with his questions. I guess I resonate with him, being that many of the questions and objections on the blog are the same ones I have or have had. I just wonder if I wouldn't have wound up in the same place he's in right now if I had had different people listening and responding to me.

He might be burning bridges with some of the people in his congregations, but I doubt they were bridges I'd trust to support my weight in the first place. I've always taken the term "burning bridges behind you" as an intentional act to alienate people. I don't see any intentionality here, just honest questioning.

May I kindly suggest that you not accept a pastorate if you still have basic issues of whether or not there is a personal God?

I don't have a problem with a person having questions or even being open about the questions. I do have a serious problem with a person who has accepted responsibility to be the spiritual leader of a congregation then disclosing that he or she hasn't established a personal relationship with God. As you know from my prior posts, I am now in a congregation that is hurting because of just such an instance. Our pastor led a number of people to the Lord. Now that it has been disclosed that he had deep spiritual issues in his own life, some of those who came to the Lord under his ministry have given up their faith. One in particular says that he will never attend church (any church) again.

I have been closely associated with two different pastors who gave up their ministry and their testimony soon after being ordained. In both cases it has been disclosed that they were adidcted to porn at the time of their ordination. In both cases, there has been irrepairable harm to their congregations.

The deep sin wasn't in revealing their hidden sin. The serious sin was pretending to be a spiritual leader when they weren't. A person should never accept ordination or a pastorate if they have deep unresolved spiritual issues in their own lives.

Charles W Christian

20th July 2007, 05:04 PM (17:04)

Wow - This is one of the more intriguing threads I've read in awhile, and I thank Marsha for bringing it to our attention.

I have not scoured Andy's blogs in detail (but I probably will eventually), but from a glance, I see signs of relational issues, not just doctrinal. In many ways, pastors have a great job, but there are deep-cutting relational issues that abound and that can change quickly. I'm not trying to analyse Andy, but simply to connect somehow to what it must have taken for him to jump ship -- especially into a denominational group that is about as far from Nazarene as one can get.

That, to me, takes more than a doctrinal change (although I'm sure that has happened). Relationally, even in healthy churches in Nazarenedom (or anywhere), one is "laid bare" quite often in front of a group of people who expect a lot. Sometimes they dump a lot. Sometimes we walk into Sunday mornings with people who would love (even in healthy church environments) to see our heads on a platter! I'm speaking of those who, when attedance is "up", accuse us of "moving too fast," and when attedance is "down", say: "See, I told you this pastor is not a good fit here." There are many who want authority and accountability to be given to them, but they do not want to submit to the authority and accountability themselves. These are not the "pagans" I'm speaking of, but "holiness people" : some who have served on church boards for years -- not just old folks either, younger ones, too -- mostly because co-dependant congregation members just choose to let them. So, a pastor comes in, sees something unhealthy, addresses it, and suddenly he/she is the villain of the story, and even if a majority agrees with the pastor's assessment, they will not stand up to the troublemaker, because "they're so faithful, they give a lot, etc"....

Sound bleak? Well, there's a good side, too: Some people and situations are so life-changing that it makes the kind of stuff I just described pale in comparison. Also, God will show His faithfulness in these hard times in life-changing ways. It's just that we are only human, and when we hear the silence for awhile, it either drives us away in despair or causes us to hang on. I think I've done a little of both in the last 15 years (despaired at times, hung on at other times)....

Anyway, sorry for the long catharsis, but I can understand why these things happen, and I think the doctrinal things are important, but they are more the "effect" at times than they are the "cause."

My prayers will be with Andy and with our denomination....

Still here by God's grace....

Charles

Cindi Hammons

20th July 2007, 05:11 PM (17:11)

Charles,

If you were referring to my post, which it appears you were, I was not talking about the pastors in a church being the "religion police." I could be more specific, but those people are in most congregations and I don't want to hi-jack the thread to talk about those who can kill the spirit.

Roland Hearn

20th July 2007, 05:58 PM (17:58)

OK, I'm feeling a little dense here. Six people, thus far, have punched the 'thanks' button after reading this post. Yet, I have read the last sentence multiple times and can't wring any sense out of it. Perhaps it's the "transformation counts more than education" part of the post that has drawn the thanks. (And I can appreciate that message up to the point where it makes the questionable assumption that my friend Andy has had no transforming encounter with God in his past and was dishonest through the entire ordination process. At that point I find it dismissive and offensive, but, in the absence of a personal acquaintance, not maliciously so.) However, if it's the "cannon fodder" part that is drawing the thanks, I would like to also absorb the truth to be found there.
Fodder = food (right?)
Cannon fodder = food for a cannon. (What do cannons eat? Cannon balls?)
What does it look like when someone hurls cannon fodder into ministry? Are they firing on ministry? On the minister? Who is struggling and who are "we" who have not been involved in that struggle?
I usually enjoy your metaphors, Roland, but I don't get this one. Would you mind using more literal words to express what you're saying here?

Marsha,
I use your sadness about this situation as a platform to address an issue that I feel very strongly about. An issue I think you share the same concerns on. As you suggested I have no personal knowledge of the situation and that puts me at a disadvantage.

Let me address the "cannon fodder" statement first. Wikipedia uses this statement to clarify: "is an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire." My comment is meant to say it is way too easy to put people in situations where they are facing genuine crisis of faith without the resources to respond to that crisis. I've been around the church my whole life, I have served on the DAB and on ministerial credentials. The process we use to get people to the point of ministry relies heavily on credentials of experience and education but we actually do very little to address the issues of transformation beyond the rather obscure questions on the report forms.

I continue to advocate for intimacy among pastors and between pastors and people. We often define love in terms that leaves intimacy aside, yet that is the absolute essential component of love in order for it to be transformational.

So as a pastor, I have watched while pastors come and go, I have seen many have crisis of faith, I have seen people that have clawed there way to the top of the tree only to leave their wife and children for the promise of greener grass. I have watched young pastors go cold in faith in a matter of a few years. I have seen pastors get terminal diseases and drift from the ministry without anyone bothering to ask "how can we love you." I see it all the time. I am tired of it. So we send our troops out to the battle knowing the odds are against them and we seem surprised with the result. Cannon fodder.

The concept of transformation is a tricky one. We believe in transformational encounters but most Christians and pastors I know, including myself as often as not, become perfectly comfortable with status quo. It is in the place of status quo that questions of faith come. The fact is, however, many times even the things that we believe were past transformational encounters often are more about having some deep sense of personal affirmation then it does about actual transformation. Most of us have seen people weeping in prayer in a struggle, or perhaps at an altar, move away from that encounter apparently stronger in their faith only to drift away again from it later.

Transformation, when it is taking place in our lives is undeniable, you can't have it and then deny the reality of a personal God. It is that very comment on your friends part that causes me to believe that it is probably true that his past encounters with God were in the area of affirmation rather than transformation. The word transformation can only mean transformed. If your transformed you aren't what you were. If you are being transformed you are continuing to become something else. Pain, doubt, fear can all mitigate and overwhelm that process. Intimacy provides the correction mechanism whereby in that time we are able to find the context to deal with the situations we struggle with. Genuine transformation leads to genuine intimacy. The two concepts are tightly bound.

I see us with a church that offers a great deal in terms of the hope that is within our theology. We, however, have enshrined education as the guardian of that theology, it isn't. The only guardian of our theology is Christ and our encounters with Him. While encounters with him can be wonderfully affirming they must be transformational. We can tell when they are because we become increasingly intimate. That "intimacy" is the ultimate safety net for struggles.

Rather than doing more to create the environment that protects that process we become much more enamored with getting tasks done and filling job slots, including pulpits. I will continue to cry out, regardless of those that think I am being way too naive, to suggest that our concept of church and ministry must be christocentric to be successful. Christ's way is the way of love and intimacy and protecting those that are in pain, not sending them out into a battle where the likely-hood of survival is low.

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 06:35 PM (18:35)

Dave,

I realize that your church has suffered a severe blow from the revelation of deep, dark secrets on the part of the pastor. However, I think we are talking about two very different scenarios:

1. A young man responds to the call of God to be a pastor. However he struggles with sexual temptation and sometimes gives in to the pull on his life. No one knows. No one sees. There is a certain satisfaction in what he does. He hates it and swears he won't do it again, but he does. And he does more. Slowly it grows until it is a deep, festering cancer in his life. However, on the surface he maintains the same testimony and pious life that comes so easily for him. The contrast between what he says and what he knows to be the truth is stark. Eventually, his secret is exposed and all of his ministry turns to rubble in light of his hypocrisy.

2. A young man responds to the call of God to be a pastor. He discovers within the Church of the Nazarene a mentor who guides him through the required course of study and teaches him about ministry. He studies the doctrine of the church closely and finds that it reflects his own beliefs closely enough that he can sign on to it. He continues in ministry and becomes the pastor of a mid-size church from which another pastor has recently stumbled bruised and bleeding. He is ordained as a Nazarene pastor. However, he discovers that there is less intellectual freedom in the church than he can handle. As he explores his faith, he posts some of his questions to an internet forum and then is struck with fear as to the cost that asking those questions may have for him and his family. Even though, his questions mesh very well with those being asked by other people, even Nazarene ministers, he realizes that they will set off alarms in his local setting and endanger his career. He backs off and tries to live within the confines he is given. However, he longs to be able to live in an open and vulnerable manner. He struggles with the ties that bind him. Every time he asks questions for which other people have "duh" answers, his spirituality is questioned. Why doesn't he know the most obvious answers? Eventually, the pressure builds and his desire to live honestly overcomes his deepest fears of rejection. He jettisons his whole structure of faith and starts over from scratch. The first question is, Is there a God?

You ask about the accountability of these young men for those who are crushed when their ministries come crashing down. In the case of the first young man, it is a valid question. However, in the case of the second, I would look more at the accountability of those who drive young seekers of truth away from the church and even from God by telling them that their questions are an indication of spiritual deficiency. People who have it all figured out are scattered all over our denomination, sure of their answers, muzzling those who dare to challenge conventional wisdom. And it's not only honest pastors that are walking away from the denomination, it's also professors of religion and young people who can't sign on to the "company line" that is so unchallengeable.

I don't know the details that brought Andy to where he is and how closely my second scenario follows his story, but I can assure you that his path is very different than the hidden cancer that prompts your caution. Perhaps one of the biggest differences is that those who are hiding big secrets aren't even close to being vulnerable enough to express uncertainty in their beliefs. I suspect that Ted Haggard never once asked if perhaps evangelicals were being too hard on homosexuals. He knew all the right answers and wasn't afraid to speak them with confidence.

Those who know all the answers are a much greater liability to young believers than those who are willing to ask honest questions and admit they aren't sure of the answers.

Marsha

Belinda Y. Edwards

20th July 2007, 06:45 PM (18:45)

Those who know all the answers are a much greater liability to young believers than those who are willing to ask honest questions and admit they aren't sure of the answers.

Marsha

my only disagreement with your post is the word *young*.

i don't believe God is afraid of anyone asking honest questions and seeking real answers.

It is interesting to me to find how there are different views and opinions regarding 'asking questions'. i have come to understand that a reason there are issues that blow people's minds is directly because there wasn't someone safe around to whom hard questions could be posed. Sometimes the questions get so large that the only answer is to run away. Is this a reason some people are leaving the church, period?

David Pettigrew

20th July 2007, 07:03 PM (19:03)

I wonder if we were to take an anonymous poll among all ordained clergy with the following question on it, what the results would be:

"Do you believe you are entirely sanctified?"

I know for a fact there would be some "no"s, because I know ordained elders (mostly my age and younger) who have told me they don't even believe in entire sanctification as we teach it. And yet, we must profess to it in order to be ordained. It's on the blue form we have to fill out. You can't be ordained without testifying to sanctification.

So, who is more honest - Andy, or the pastors in my example above?

I know you can't always apply logic to conversations such as this one, but it really burns me to think that a pastor who has the guts to be completely honest would be accused of causing a congregation to never trust another pastor again. I've seen pastors do ALOT of things to cause mistrust in their congregations. Intellectual honesty is not one of them.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

20th July 2007, 07:59 PM (19:59)

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 08:35 PM (20:35)

...Eventually, the pressure builds and his desire to live honestly overcomes his deepest fears of rejection. He jettisons his whole structure of faith and starts over from scratch. The first question is, Is there a God?...

Marsha, I am not going to contine the debate because it involves a specific, identifiable person. If we were debating about a hypothetical pastor who surrendered his credentials, I could say what I really think. To do so in a specific instance would seem too harsh.

Leave it to say that I hurt deeply any time a member of the clergy surrenders his credentials (I use "his" because I am unaware of any case in which a woman has surrendered her credentials). Over the years, I have been in positions of responsibility that have caused me to review the circumstances of numerous cases. The sad part is innocent people always get hurt.

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 08:42 PM (20:42)

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 09:51 PM (21:51)

The fact is, however, many times even the things that we believe were past transformational encounters often are more about having some deep sense of personal affirmation then it does about actual transformation. Most of us have seen people weeping in prayer in a struggle, or perhaps at an altar, move away from that encounter apparently stronger in their faith only to drift away again from it later.

Transformation, when it is taking place in our lives is undeniable, you can't have it and then deny the reality of a personal God.

Roland,

I realize that you are Arminian from head to toe, but I have to agree with Jeremy A. that you don't sound like it here. What it looks like you're saying is that once a person has had a transformational encounter with God they will never turn away from it. And if they do turn away from the faith then it is evidence that they never actually had a transformational encounter in the first place. Is that what you're saying?

Also, thanks for the clarification on the "cannon fodder". I'm not privy enough to the personal struggles of ministers I know in real life to fully appreciate how much the odds are stacked against them (there's that whole cross-gender relationship thing that gets in the way in the absence of other barriers), and I don't get enough objective details to see the full picture here.

Marsha

Paul Whitaker

20th July 2007, 10:23 PM (22:23)

Marsha,

My thanks to Roland related directly to his statement:

Regarding your friend Andy, I have to be honest with you and tell you that his blog has kept me awake for a couple of nights thinking. I don't know him or his personality, so I certainly can't judge him...and shouldn't if I could. But a couple of his blog statements are worrying to me. (Hey, if you don't want people to comment on your writing, don't write in a public blog! No?) He stated, "I have come to question the existence of a personal God. My experience in ministry leads me to believe that an intervening, prayer-answering God does not exist...I do not find any proof for the extraordinary claim of a personal god at this point in my journey. " Yet, he has professed to being "called" into the ministry. That statement is extremely bothersome to me as he is moving forward to minister in another congregation.

Maybe my question isn't about Andy, but more about, can one be "called" to a ministry and not believe in a personal, intervening, prayer answering God?

=========================

The year - 1960

The Course Title - Philosophy of Science

Professor - Dr Mel Thomas Rothwell (One of the best - in about any category you choose to talk about.

The Class - 13 Seniors - mostly science/mathematics majors. In McConnell hall - all windows open - hot

The scene - before class is to begin Dr Rothwell enters the classroom, counts heads, takes his seat at a table which was large enough for all of us to sit around.

Dr Rothwell begins the session with prayer.

After the prayer DR Rothwell begins talking but with noticable difficulty. He has tears in his eyes. He has his arms on the table with his fingers intertwined. If you ever had a class from him - you know what I am talking about.

He then tells us that the student missing from this morning's class will not be because of a personal reason - not having anything to do with Dr Rothwell's demeanor.

"Gentlemen, I have received your classmate's semester assignment - a Paper connecting Science, God and our Faith." Dr Rothwell did not read the paper to us. (This was 47 years ago. )(How Can IT Be?)
'
The paper did not speak of his belief in a personal God but rather his rejection of the idea of a personal God.

Dr Rothwell was heartbroken. He had a Pastor's heart. He prayed a lengthy prayer but he prayed for the young man who had written the paper.

Dr Rothwell said a few more words, he assured us of his love for us, he prayed a closing prayer for us, the missing student and dismissed us.

I cannot imagine Dr Rothwell's broken heart were he given the responsibility of responding to the departing Ordained Minister's resignation in SWI.

I imagine there are still those with us today ministers who care about the ministry and the ministers who are also heartbroken at this point.

I am not ordained but I am heartbroken - a chunk has fallen off my cornerstone.

Belinda Y. Edwards

20th July 2007, 10:38 PM (22:38)

This is a good discussion for NazNet. This is a terrible discussion for NazNet. It is good because it is an interesting topic that leads to other interesting topics. It is terrible because it is about a real person whose identity is known.

If we were discussing this as a hypothetical it wouldn't be as interesting but it would be safer. Since it isn't hypothetical, it handcuffs the exchange because we hurt for a person who is hurting and for a congregation that must be going through a great deal of pain right now.

We also have participants who have an emotional stake in the conversation. I learned a long time ago to tread carefully when others are emotionally involved and I am not.

From a hypothetical point of view, my "understanding" runs out of gas when a person who has "honest questions" doesn't just drop out, but moves over to lead a group that questions the existence of a personal God and doubts the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

From a real life point of view, I am deeply saddened that a stake could be driven through the heart of faith and am thankful the God is a merciful and patient God who isn't finished yet.

i appreciate this post, Scott - for i do believe there is a line in holding the office of pastor and asking questions. i think the line is drawn over *what* questions are being asked.

i have questions about the health field, but the questions don't effect my care for the patient nor the list of things i am required to do in my unit. A few weeks ago i interviewed on a unit that required me to question my own personal issues of health in that unit. For a while, i thought i could compromise my questions - just to get a job in that hospital for a variety of reasons. Now, after reading this thread and things that i have encountered since - i know that i could never work in that unit. That is a unit where i do not agree with the required treatments and interventions. That is the raw basic rules for care in that unit.

i agree with the need for a safe place to ask questions - but more thought on the subject (and reading more posts and understanding the nature of this thread more) - there is a personal ethical obligation that if one is a part of any organization, whether it be the clergy, medical, law, professor - one would need to step aside until such questions are answered. i sure wouldn't want a surgeon using a scalpel on me when he was suddenly desiring to use scissors.

i do believe that if someone is pastoring in THIS denomination and doesn't believe in the basic constitutions of this institution - they need to step aside.

At some point - trust needs to reign.

Ryan Scott

20th July 2007, 10:49 PM (22:49)

i do believe that if someone is pastoring in THIS denomination and doesn't believe in the basic constitutions of this institution - they need to step aside.

The only problem is that there are about 900 interpretations of the stated beliefs of this institution.

Marsha Lynn

20th July 2007, 11:20 PM (23:20)

And I do truly believe that most people in my community would disagree with much of what is discussed here on NazNet. It has been a breath of fresh air for me personally to find that I am not just an odd duck, but that there are really people (read: Nazarenes) who believe much the way I do.....AND IT IS OKAY!

Oh, yeah. If some of the things that are discussed here were even hinted at in my local church, the person doing the hinting would need to be prepared to dive for cover. The foreknowledge of God, for example, unlike around here, is not at all a topic of debate locally. Omniscience concerning past, present, and future is a basic belief of the church. Anyone questioning that concept would be seen as proving that they were ignorant of basic theology and should be kept on a short string. It wouldn't matter if they were a layperson, pastor, evangelist, professor, D.S. or G.S. Questioning the omniscience of God concerning the future would be just one step up the slippery slope from questioning the virgin birth and the 7-year Great Tribulation.

One of the other adult SS teachers once made a point of sharing a printed summary of what he and his class had discovered in researching a particular topic. He seemed to know what questions I had on the subject and was sure that his class's discoveries would be helpful to me. I thanked him with a smile and walked away wondering what he was basing his assumptions on concerning my questions. They had asked me for some information which I had provided them, but I was completely and fully confident that I had never even hinted at my thoughts on that particular subject to a single soul in the church (or even on NazNet). That's because I enjoy my own teaching position and would hope to choose a point of contention far more important to me if I were ready to sacrifice my place of ministry on the altar of doctrine.

The ability to keep one's mouth shut is a basic survival skill for being a thinking Christian out in the Nazarene grassroots. I'm still working on that skill. As long as I listen more than I talk and choose the words I do say carefully, I can get along pretty well. After all, the people are great in terms of caring about me and my family. But, doctrinally, NazNet is like an oasis in the desert to me. And books. What would I do without books that put into words and publish in the sight of God and everybody thoughts that I barely even dare to think?

Marsha

Dave McClung

20th July 2007, 11:48 PM (23:48)

The only problem is that there are about 900 interpretations of the stated beliefs of this institution.

I don't see a problem with people having different interpretations of the stated beliefs. I doubt that any of us share exactly the same beliefs. That isn't the same thing as holding beliefs that are inconsistent with our stated doctrine.

In another post it was suggested that a person has to lie about their belief in sanctification to be ordained. I can't believe that any member of the clergy accepts lying about important issues as being morally acceptable. If a person has to lie to be ordained, he or she shouldn't accept ordination. To do so commits a fraud on the church.

Roland Hearn

21st July 2007, 12:05 AM (00:05)

Roland,

I realize that you are Arminian from head to toe, but I have to agree with Jeremy A. that you don't sound like it here. What it looks like you're saying is that once a person has had a transformational encounter with God they will never turn away from it. And if they do turn away from the faith then it is evidence that they never actually had a transformational encounter in the first place. Is that what you're saying?

Marsha

No Marsha it obviously isn't. I need to quote the whole paragraph here and ask how you see me saying that:

Transformation, when it is taking place in our lives is undeniable, you can't have it and then deny the reality of a personal God. It is that very comment on your friends part that causes me to believe that it is probably true that his past encounters with God were in the area of affirmation rather than transformation. The word transformation can only mean transformed. If your transformed you aren't what you were. If you are being transformed you are continuing to become something else. Pain, doubt, fear can all mitigate and overwhelm that process. Intimacy provides the correction mechanism whereby in that time we are able to find the context to deal with the situations we struggle with. Genuine transformation leads to genuine intimacy. The two concepts are tightly bound.

What part suggests what you saw in it?

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 12:13 AM (00:13)

Hi, everyone. I want to say, first of all, that it's quite humbling to see so many people discussing my recent decision. Thanks for your concern. Marsha, I appreciate your defense of my character. And Jeremy, my token Lutheran friend, of course I have deep appreciation for you as well.
I also appreciate those of you who have posted responses to blog posts. I hope you'll continue to stop by www.andyb1015.wordpress.com whenever you're able. You add immeasurably to the discussion.
I want to clear something up right up front. I do have a Master of Divinity degree from a conservative, ATS accredited Christian seminary. You won't find the roots of my decision to move to UUism in the soil of the particular seminary I attended.
I've simply always had questions about faith. In Holiness Pentecostalism, it was frequently the case that a message would be given in tongues, followed by a 'translation' into English. I questioned the efficiency of such a delivery method, and the fact that the message was often 'translated' using very poor English, the English of the translator.
My questions have grown larger over time. Being exposed in depth to world religions by a quality liberal arts education at the United Methodist affiliated University of Evansville, I began to see that all of us are looking for the same thing: a reason to exist, meaning for our lives. At the time, I simply pitied those who thought they had found it in some 'godless, heathen religion,' in the words of my youth. Now, I believe that we all find what we're looking for in different ways.
One of you said that I've misled many good people. You, sir, would do well to research the facts. I have taught or preached nothing outside the Church of the Nazarene's doctrine. I focused on things I had in common with Nazarenes, like our belief that we ought to live like Jesus lived and our belief that the Bible's history is always fair game for study. When it became clear that I could no longer preach inside CotN doctrine, I stepped down as I was directed to do by Dr. Jess Middendorf just before my ordination ceremony. He said something like, 'now, if you ever believe anything that is contrary to the Articles of Faith of this denomination, I'll ask you to give this certificate back.' When it became clear that my beliefs would not change, I did give back my credentials and volunteered not to speak anymore (good thing, my DAB decided the same a few nights before without my knowledge).
The people of my former congregation have responded 99 percent positively. They don't agree with me for the most part, of course. Some have chosen to respond by re-stating their love for me and my family, and by letting us know they're praying for us. I appreciate those sentiments. A couple have been very hateful. I expected that.
As well, please know that I don't leave the denomination because I've had relational struggles with anyone. I'm a former journalist, used to dealing with difficult people, and I love the people that I've been privileged to serve alongside. There have been tough personalities, but I'm not always a ray of sunshine myself. If we run from people problems, we'll spend our entire lives running, no matter our profession.
The truth is, as I've read widely and studied the Bible itself, questions and contradictions have presented themselves. The Gospels seem to me not to be remembered history, but religious documents stating the beliefs of the authors. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't then say that 'Jesus is the only way because the Gospel of John says so.' I don't believe that any longer, and I won't stand and lie every Sunday to preserve my job.
I also long deeply to explore other religious traditions. The Buddha, who is said to have lived 500 years before Jesus, taught many of the same things Jesus taught. That fascinates me. I want to learn from both traditions. Life is too mysterious and precious (and brief) for me to pretend I've figured it all out, or that only those who are Christians have any line to truth. That is what the CotN, with its 16 articles of faith which must be believed, seemed to be asking of me.
Jesus is still a powerful force in my life, by the way. I believe the beauty in his life and teachings is that they came from a human being. Truly, there was something of what some call God in him. I am embarrassed to say (only for myself) that while I was at late-night pastors meetings arguing how best to present the notion of entire sanctification, there was a world outside my experience discussing much more important things. Healthcare for seniors, many of whom can't afford their medicine; civil rights for all human beings, regardless of sexual orientation; how best to love our enemies (and that probably includes not killing them), etc.
These things and more are why UUism is attractive to me. First, all religious traditions are respected and, if the church body and minister wish, included in sermons and worship services. In my opinion, it's a little more like the real world than sitting every Sunday with those who agree with us completely. As well, the UUs value social justice. I believe social justice is the highest form of holiness, and do my best to promote it. I didn't find too many people interested in those issues where I am. As well, the UUs value highly what has been termed 'the interdependent web of existence of which we are all a part.' In other words, the earth and animals ought to be included when we think about how to live.
So, in conclusion, a former full-fledged Nazarene with some pesky questions about ultimate things has decided to move on, not because I'm hurting or wounded or can't relate to people, but because I need a place in which I can honestly explore the questions that many of you probably have, too, if you give much thought and study to faith. You've found one way to deal with these issues, I have found quite another. I wish you no harm. In fact, I wish you increased success. You are a great group of people.
I don't want to argue. I know you don't agree with many of the things I've said. I would, however, be glad to clarify anything or to discuss peaceably.
Peace,
Andy

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 12:16 AM (00:16)

I don't see a problem with people having different interpretations of the stated beliefs. I doubt that any of us share exactly the same beliefs. That isn't the same thing as holding beliefs that are inconsistent with our stated doctrine.

In another post it was suggested that a person has to lie about their belief in sanctification to be ordained. I can't believe that any member of the clergy accepts lying about important issues as being morally acceptable. If a person has to lie to be ordained, he or she shouldn't accept ordination. To do so commits a fraud on the church.

Dave,

There is an interesting conundrum here.

In order to change the articles of faith, a 2/3 majority of the delegates to the general ass'y have to vote for the change and the change must be ratified by the district assemblies, right? (I'm working from memory here and too lazy to look it up, but even if I'm way off base at least a majority of the general ass'y has to vote for the change.) That means that a majority of the leading lay and clergy members of the denomination have to disagree with a current statement before change can occur.

When I look at my own representatives to the Gen'l Ass'y, I realize that we are not sending the most open-minded, forward-thinking members of our district. Rather, we typically send those who play by the rules and know which issues are open to debate and which aren't.

If every member of the clergy who finds a point of disagreement with the articles of faith as they currently read leaves the ministry rather than sticking around until they become eligible to go vote for change at the general ass'y, how exactly does change ever happen? The denomination would die before any change could occur because every time someone started to want change, they would need to realize they were out of step with the current statements and resign from any official position in the church rather than try to change the stated beliefs of the church.

I have actually taken this route as a layperson. After much struggle, I decided that holding an elected office in the church wasn't worth signing the required statement of being spiritually qualified to be on the ballot. Since then, the statement we're required to sign locally has been modified, but in the meantime I discovered that there are multiple other advantages to passing up elected positions and haven't had my name on the ballot for any position in several years.

Marsha

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 12:43 AM (00:43)

Man, am I glad to see you show up to speak for yourself, Andy! And I am relieved that you aren't completely steamed at me for starting what this discussion has become. I think it may be my most successful NazNet thread ever in terms of traffic flow. I didn't anticipate that. As Scott has pointed out, discussions that involve "real life" illustrations are awkward. And I think that's true whether or not the subject is there to defend him/herself. I never intended to start a discussion that revolved around your motives and spiritual status in your absence. I want to publicly apologize for that.

I hope you stick around, not only for this thread, but also for some of the discussions that are perhaps a little less personal. I still appreciate your perspective and honesty and will miss seeing you at district events.

May you find joy and satisfaction in your journey.

Marsha

Cindi Hammons

21st July 2007, 01:00 AM (01:00)

Andy,

Thanks for having the nerve to jump into this fray! I appreciated that. I disagree with much of what you have said (except the social justice issues), but think it is a good thing for you to speak for yourself on this issue. I still stand by my statement that once a person posts in a public blog, it shouldn't come as a surprise when people discuss those postings. I'm glad you have taken it with a good spirit. I don't think anyone here wishes you ill, even though they most likely disagree with much of what you said.

Again, best wishes, and I hope you find what you are searching for. For me, it is a personal God who does intervene in my life.

I should edit this to clarify that I believe I have FOUND a personal God...not that I am searching for One. Man, it's hard to write clearly when one should so obviously be in bed this late in Eastern time! Ha!

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 01:03 AM (01:03)

Steamed? Heck, no. I have appreciated being able to read everyone's thoughts. I'll stick around until I become such a nuisance that people are tired of me. May not be long.

Cindy: I appreciate your response. I suppose a lot of us are or have been looking for a personal God who intervenes in our lives.

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 01:04 AM (01:04)

Sorry, Cindi. I misspelled your name. If I were more Internet savvy, I'd edit it out. As it is, I have to apologize.

Cindi Hammons

21st July 2007, 01:06 AM (01:06)

No biggie. I've dealth with that all my life.

Belinda Y. Edwards

21st July 2007, 01:07 AM (01:07)

Sorry, Cindi. I misspelled your name. If I were more Internet savvy, I'd edit it out. As it is, I have to apologize.

Hi Andy - -

i have a gentle suggestion -

Have you considered volunteering for hospice? There is no doubt in my mind that you would come to see and know that God is very active in our world.

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 01:09 AM (01:09)

I've spent lots of time with hospice patients as a minister, and as the son of a minister. There are truly some very touching moments in hospice, when family comes around those who are passing. There are also some horrifying moments, when people die alone or in dementia. None of these things suggests to me that a miracle-working God is present.

Cindi Hammons

21st July 2007, 01:17 AM (01:17)

Hey Andy,

I really shouldn't be trying to articulate this late...or early depending on one's perspective! However, someone mentioned Hospice, and that got my attention.

I worked as a Hospice social worker for 4 years and I have seen both situations that you have described.

I sat with one lady who was demented, had no family who was interested, and was totally alone...except for me and two other Christian Hospice workers. That little lady died with diginity because we really cared for her. I'll never forget that. We weren't asking God to work a miracle for her. Many times the reality of the human lifespan make it selfish to ask God to lengthen a life. We asked God that she die peacefully and that she not be alone. Both things happened. Coincidence? Sure, maybe...and then again, maybe not.

Death is a mystery to me...even after 4 years in Hospice. I've seen them go well, and I've seen them go badly. However, the majority of those who go well have a believe in a God that cares about them.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything...just sharing my personal experiences in the field.

Okay...I'm really going to try to go to bed now. STOP POSTING INTERESTING RESPONSES!!!!!

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 01:22 AM (01:22)

No Marsha it obviously isn't. I need to quote the whole paragraph here and ask how you see me saying that:

[I]Transformation, when it is taking place in our lives is undeniable, you can't have it and then deny the reality of a personal God.

You state here that a person who has been transformed cannot deny the reality of a personal God. Thus, no one who has been truly transformed is able to turn away from the reality of God. (In Calvinistic terms: Once saved always saved.) Reversing the statement says that if you deny the reality of a personal God, that denial is evidence that transformation has not occurred. (In Calvinistic terms: He didn't backslide; he was simply never saved in the first place.)

I'll take your word for it that you are "obviously" not saying what it looks like you're saying. It's just not quite so obvious on my computer screen as it is on yours. Must be the ether distorting the message.

I'm just glad you finally crawled out of bed so we didn't have to continue to discuss your posts without you. Have you considered syncing your schedule with Kansas City time to better accommodate these discussions? :basic03

Speaking of time, I see it's after midnight here. I could slip back to the library and read the new Harry Potter book guilt-free! Or I could go to bed and dream of Harry Potter and Australia and Unitarians and see what morning brings.

:fun07

Marsha

Roland Hearn

21st July 2007, 02:58 AM (02:58)

You state here that a person who has been transformed cannot deny the reality of a personal God. Thus, no one who has been truly transformed is able to turn away from the reality of God. (In Calvinistic terms: Once saved always saved.) Reversing the statement says that if you deny the reality of a personal God, that denial is evidence that transformation has not occurred. (In Calvinistic terms: He didn't backslide; he was simply never saved in the first place.)
I'll take your word for it that you are "obviously" not saying what it looks like you're saying. It's just not quite so obvious on my computer screen as it is on yours. Must be the ether distorting the message.

Marsha, that is why I quoted the whole paragraph and when you read the whole paragraph I describe what I mean by transformation. Transformation must lead to intimacy. The type of intimacy that Christ leads us to makes his reality undeniable, except where "Pain, doubt, fear mitigate and overwhelm that process."

It is not possible to have it both ways, you cannot claim Andy denies the reality of personal God and that there is no problem at the point of transformation. Either Andy is right in his observation or there is, in fact, a problem with the way we understand transformation and the relationship with that personal God that leaves his deepest needs unmet.

My opening statements in my first post may have been blunt and off putting, and I apologise for that. I was responding to your post about a situation that I thought you saw as a negative one given what you had said earlier about loosing our children. I was talking in a vacuum where you were posting in something wholly other than that.

As I read Andy's replies I recognize that what he is basically saying the same thing. Lots of education, lots of experiences, but nothing of substance that stood out as convincing. My original posts and subsequent posts where in no way, however, intended to speak negatively of Andy. I was trying very hard to suggest the problem is ours. We are the problem. We insist on missing the point - that transformation is the crucial issue. Perhaps, despite all my efforts to the contrary, you think I am suggesting that he has never had an encounter with God and therefore living without integrity. I'm not saying that. I am talking about an entire church structure that moves on ignorant of the danger in which we are in. Duty, responsibility, tradition, and warm fussy experiences are not enough to build a church on. I think we should be deeply troubled by these situations and stop trying to look at the individual caught in a deep struggle as standing as solely responsible.

I think this is the last thing I will say in this thread as my hypothetical posts have ended up becoming way too personal. My attention was to address the church of which I am apart not write in such away as to create pain for an individual that is already hurting.

Hans Deventer

21st July 2007, 03:18 AM (03:18)

The ability to keep one's mouth shut is a basic survival skill for being a thinking Christian out in the Nazarene grassroots.

I've even preached on Open Theism. And at this very moment, the pastor of one of our largest churches has lend "The God Who Risks" and "A New Kind Of Christian" from me.
In our pastor's brain tank, of which I'm a part, we'll be discussing Robert Webber's "Ancient Future Faith", with all the post modern stuff he writes about.

I'm grateful that I need not identify with your situation, Marsha. And perhaps it is of some comfort to you to know that this isn't the case everywhere.

Brad Mercer

21st July 2007, 04:42 AM (04:42)

Andy,

You're welcome at NazNet. I hope you stick around. Many of our regulars here are former Nazarenes who still enjoy keeping tabs on how we're doing as a denomination and just enjoy the fellowship. I hope you become one of those. Yours is an interesting journey and of course the journey isn't over yet. We'd be happy to remain companions or at least friendly observers of that journey. Fortunately, friendship, mutual affection, admiration and sympathy don't require agreement on even important issues.

Love,
Brad

Brad Mercer

21st July 2007, 04:46 AM (04:46)

I've even preached on Open Theism. And at this very moment, the pastor of one of our largest churches has lend "The God Who Risks" and "A New Kind Of Christian" from me.
In our pastor's brain tank, of which I'm a part, we'll be discussing Robert Webber's "Ancient Future Faith", with all the post modern stuff he writes about.

I'm grateful that I need not identify with your situation, Marsha. And perhaps it is of some comfort to you to know that this isn't the case everywhere.

On the Dallas District, our DS frequently expressed fears privately that what we were doing might cause controversy or opposition on the district, but he always allowed us to allay those concerns, and never told us not to do what we were doing. As he saw the results, he became increasingly less fearful that we'd get him in trouble. He always ultimately allowed us to do what we wanted to do. Full, enthusiastic understanding and encouragement would have been better than fearful tolerance, but I appreciated at least the tolerance. We were allowed to prove that we could produce what he wanted to see produced, even by methods of which he was cautious.

Brad

David Pettigrew

21st July 2007, 10:34 AM (10:34)

[quote=David Pettigrew;104805]I...You can't be ordained without testifying to sanctification...
/quote]

Before I respond, I want to make sure I understood you. Are you suggesting that clergy in the Church of the Nazarene should be ordained who don't believe the Articles of Faith?

Are you also suggesting that it is ok for a person to lie about his or her personal relationship with God so that he or she can be ordained?

First of all, I should never have posted in this thread because it's one of those issues I can't leave my emotion out of. As many wiser than me have said, you should never react on this board out of emotion.

Should clergy be ordained who don't agree with the articles of faith? To a degree, no way. If you don't believe in God, the Trinity, etc, you're in the wrong group. But when a denomination is as divided over the true definition of it's core doctrine as the CotN, I don't think that it alone should be a litmus test.

No, Dave, I don't think it's ok to lie. Pointing out the reality of something is not the same as saying you think it's good.

David Pettigrew

21st July 2007, 10:48 AM (10:48)

I'm becoming more aware as this thread develops that not only do I believe in God, but I also believe in Andy.

Marsha

Yes, Amen, let it be so.

Michael B. Ross

21st July 2007, 10:49 AM (10:49)

This thread may be winding down, but I feel compelled to add my thoughts. I have been unable to earlier because of traveling the past couple of days. Here are my reactions after reading all the above posts and many of Andy’s blogs.

Andy and his wife, (she posted her thoughts on Andy’s blog spot this morning) seem to be trying to do what is ethical and what is right for themselves and the church. Maybe an argument could be made that he could have transitioned out of the COTN sooner, but I can’t comment on that. It does seem that he has tried to be open and honest with his congregation.
I have not read anything in Andy’s quest for truth that was not raised by one, or sometimes several, writers of the Scriptures. Are we forgetting David, Job, Habakkuk, Jeremiah etc? And, have not many of us asked those same questions?
Andy is a healthy adolescent in his faith development. Keep in mind that Andy was raised in a faith environment that is notorious for raising undernourished constituents. Maybe he should have raised and partially answered some of his questions before being ordained, but he may have been stunted in his spiritual growth. Regardless, ten year olds have to go through adolescence to become adults, and adolescence is a risky time. Andy is in process, but it is a process necessary for a mature faith. He will find better answers to his questions than what he has been taught. God will guide him.
Many of his questions are valid. I believe in healing, but why is there no verifiable incidence of God re-growing an amputated arm? And, morality? Is it not clear that morality has multiple sources? Is there not a natural law, a universal sense of morality? And, as Andy suggests, morality often has a social value, reinforced by cultures and sub-cultures to maintain order.
I don’t agree with some of Andy’s beliefs. I don’t believe homosexuals should be legally allowed to marry. I probably don’t agree with his rejection of a personal god, but I would need to know more about what he means by “personal.”
I do, however, support his journey and I respect his and his wife’s courage to travel it. It is a journey that many of our heroes of our faith have taken.
What impacted me most about all of this is something Andy wrote in one of his blogs: “I would like to say thank you to the group of ‘Peter’s Switch-ites’ who treated us to dinner and wonderful company this past weekend. We had lots of fun, and will miss you all terribly. We’re going to hold you to that busload of visitors someday.” I suspect his observation would not apply to all of the members, but the church seems to be a congregation I would like to meet. At least some of them showed grace. I hope they fill the van someday and visit Andy in Danville.
Edited to correct name. Sorry, Andy.

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 11:52 AM (11:52)

Roland, thanks for being willing to repeat yourself in an effort to help me understand what you're saying. I think I'm finally beginning to get it.

Perhaps part of the problem has been the continued difference between seeing one's spiritual journey as many accumulated small steps in the same direction versus having a few (two?) momentous steps of great consequence. I think there's transformation in both patterns, but less contrast between any single "before" and "after" point along the way for the former. Either process can be derailed but perhaps the incremental pattern is more susceptible to simply branching off toward a new goal.

Marsha

Mike Wooldridge

21st July 2007, 12:51 PM (12:51)

I haven't posted in this thread because I don't "have a dog in the hunt," that is I know no one involved personally. I do sense a lot of frustration and questioning which seems to be safe to "vent" here. I think that's when all this technology is best, when it brings people together
One of Andy's reasons for "moving on" is his lack of belief in a personal God. The article below confirms my belief that a personal God can be experienced in different ways, all valid..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19851490/site/newsweek/

David Warren

21st July 2007, 01:08 PM (13:08)

Well, I admit this has been an interesting thread to me, from Marsha's views of District Assembly (it was pretty routine at best, and I'd love to start a couple of threads on the validity of district assemblies and the merging of districts, etc.) to what was probably the main topic in the hallways, like it or not, Andy. I come carrying both the personal baggae of having been Andy's Sr. Pastor and the district secretary for S.W.I.D. Doesn't give me a whole lot more insight but I probably know a little more of how things have been handled to date on all sides. Andy's been a Sr. Pastor for over four years and his views have changed in that time, most of us didn't see this coming. As background, will let you know Andy came out of a very fundamental pentecostalism and his eduaction has been with several institutions some Nazarene some not. For Andy I would say he has handled with intergity his struggles with the CotN and while I love him, I believe his battle has moved beyond the theological in the realm of denomination to personnal and his belief in God and even more so his (Andy's) believe in Jesus Christ. He would disagree with my need to, but I pray for his soul, which is a bigger concern to me than wether or not he is a part of the CotN which I love. On the district's side I would say our D.S. has handle the matter very Christianly. While asking Andy to step out of the puplit after Andy let the D.S. know he was going to a Unitarian Church, he made sure that financially, Andy and his family did not suffer in this transition. The choices have been Andy's. There is alot more that could be debated and a lot of questioning that has gone on and will continue I'm sure. I truly believe that God is not afraid of our questions, David in the Psalms was not afraid to ask God anything. There were times however that David realized God was infinite and we are finite. We can be sincere and yet be sincerly wrong. I appreciate the concern and openness of Naznet many times that leads us to say things without all the facts of that we must be careful !

In Christ's grip,
Dave

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 03:21 PM (15:21)

I absolutely agree, Dave, that D.S. Mills has handled this situation extremely well. He is a gracious man, and I appreciate what he's done. He took the high road when some people were calling for me and my family to be out without pay immediately. I still can't understand how a person who would call for such a thing could be called Christian.
In my mind, even though Mills did what he had to do, the fact that I wasn't able to preach my last four sermons shows just how fragile faith is. The church seems to believe faith in God can be permanently damaged pretty easily. In my view, that's just another reason to question what we've always been told.
The burden of proof in any logical discourse is on the one who makes a claim not seen by the other. That being true, the burden of proof in this case is not on the one who does not believe in a personal God, but on the one who does.
I've had many people say they're praying for me to return to their version of orthodoxy. One of you also suggested, among many kind comments, that I am a faith adolescent who will eventually figure out that there is indeed a personal God. I would be glad to consider the evidence that any traditional Christian would present in favor of what they believe, but cannot pretend to shut off my brain simply because a religious text or official suggests I should. There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence before you base your life on something. To suggest that God cannot be asked for evidence of God's existence is outrageous, and makes traditional faith look incredibly dubious.

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 03:43 PM (15:43)

Well, I admit this has been an interesting thread to me, from Marsha's views of District Assembly ...

Hi, Dave. Of course, there were a few reports that shone more brightly than the rest -- such as yours and my own pastor's. :basic05

Actually, if I'm going to have some accountability going here, maybe it's time to confess that I was much less engaged in the assembly this year than usual and missed quite a few of the reports while pursuing a goal of going home with the best laptop to be found in town for the least amount of money. In fact, my pastor was "on deck" to give his report when I came tearing in after one dash to the shopping areas. If I hadn't slipped through that last light on 'pink', I would have missed it. (When you live in Odon, ya gotta squeeze all you can into an outing to the big city.)

I almost tripped you up once just to say hi as you came dashing past on a mission, but I didn't move fast enough and you swept on without notice. Dave & I were talking to a retired pastor at the time and I complained about you ignoring me. He consoled me with the suggestion that you probably don't remember me. It was so comforting to be assured that it wasn't that you were too busy to see me, or, as I suggested in jest, too rude, but that I wasn't the type of person you would likely remember from one meeting to the next. Some people just have a gift for reminding others that they really aren't anyone special. :rolleyes:

So you weren't at the post-assembly gathering at Dinky's last evening, were you? I saw Bill & Lillian and Bill Reed and Michael B. & Diana Ross from NazNet, along with Becky's Odon aunt and uncle. That place is crazy!

Thanks for jumping in here. Instead of spending your energy doing away with district ass'y, though, I vote for clarifying the whole budget thing. We're still confused here. Of course, it doesn't help that my husband and I were out actually buying the laptop when it was discussed. I missed my big opportunity to address the assembly and get these issues all cleared up. (Or maybe I would need to be an actual delegate in order to do that rather than sitting back with the rest of the invisible people.)

:fav16

Marsha

David Warren

21st July 2007, 03:56 PM (15:56)

Marsha,

I humbly apologize for walking by without saying hi. Please forgive! :basic04
Although I will ask if your husband noted that I did say hi to him. It must have been during one of those shopping sessions for I saw you no where around.
Now to the important question. :basic05 Did you find a laptop ?

Hans Deventer

21st July 2007, 04:40 PM (16:40)

The church seems to believe faith in God can be permanently damaged pretty easily. In my view, that's just another reason to question what we've always been told.
The burden of proof in any logical discourse is on the one who makes a claim not seen by the other. That being true, the burden of proof in this case is not on the one who does not believe in a personal God, but on the one who does.

Actually, these two issues have a lot in common. God cannot be proven, but He can reveal Himself. There is both a human and a divine element in that, obviously.
Now if what Roland calls this transforming meeting has not taken place, the church is very careful in proclaiming at least the right message. As it should.
And there have been enough heresies through time to warrant such care.

But the real problem is that too few have had this transforming encounter with God. And that is where we lack as a community of faith, for we play a role there as well.

Not in trying to provide logical proofs. We can't and we shouldn't even try.

Paul Whitaker

21st July 2007, 04:52 PM (16:52)

I have not read anything in this thread that explains the position that Jesus has. Is He in the picture anymore after God can't be personal?

No personal God, how can Jesus be important?

The book by Charles Templeton , "My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith" seems to speak to what is happening to your life.

I am not a theolog - my CP tells you what I have been and I am still trying to figure out what I am.

Billy Cox

21st July 2007, 05:02 PM (17:02)

[quote=David Pettigrew;104805]I...You can't be ordained without testifying to sanctification...
/quote]

Before I respond, I want to make sure I understood you. Are you suggesting that clergy in the Church of the Nazarene should be ordained who don't believe the Articles of Faith?

Are you also suggesting that it is ok for a person to lie about his or her personal relationship with God so that he or she can be ordained?

I don't think that anybody 'lies' when they profess to being entirely sanctified and in full harmony with the Articles of Faith. However, I would daresay that at an ordination service, one person's "yes I am entirely sanctified" could mean something far different than what the person next in line means when saying "yes I am entirely sanctified".

Can we look at that difference and say that one of them is lying?

Michael B. Ross

21st July 2007, 05:17 PM (17:17)

Andy, I guess you are referring to me, since I am the one who used the term adolescence.

First, I want to apologize for referring to you as Adam. I am not real sharp sometimes (okay, most times), but I should have double checked your name.

Second, my use of adolescence was a compliment. I did not say immature. Faith is a process, and you are growing. Adolescents grow. I believe you are maneuvering ethically and kindly through what Kohlberg calls the stage of angst. Most never enter it. It is too risky. In fact, every thing I wrote was supportive of you.

Third, I did not say you will figure out there is a personal god. I didn't say you would figure out anything. I did say if you continue growing you, and any of us, will discover better answers to faith questions than possibly we have been taught.

I don't know where your journey will end, but you have no choice but to take it. I am glad your wife walks with you, and I am certain God will guide us all.

I absolutely agree, Dave, that D.S. Mills has handled this situation extremely well. He is a gracious man, and I appreciate what he's done. He took the high road when some people were calling for me and my family to be out without pay immediately. I still can't understand how a person who would call for such a thing could be called Christian.
In my mind, even though Mills did what he had to do, the fact that

I wasn't able to preach my last four sermons shows just how fragile faith is. The church seems to believe faith in God can be permanently damaged pretty easily. In my view, that's just another reason to question what we've always been told.
The burden of proof in any logical discourse is on the one who makes a claim not seen by the other. That being true, the burden of proof in this case is not on the one who does not believe in a personal God, but on the one who does.
I've had many people say they're praying for me to return to their version of orthodoxy. One of you also suggested, among many kind comments, that I am a faith adolescent who will eventually figure out that there is indeed a personal God. I would be glad to consider the evidence that any traditional Christian would present in favor of what they believe, but cannot pretend to shut off my brain simply because a religious text or official suggests I should. There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence before you base your life on something. To suggest that God cannot be asked for evidence of God's existence is outrageous, and makes traditional faith look incredibly dubious.

Marsha Lynn

21st July 2007, 05:38 PM (17:38)

I humbly apologize for walking by without saying hi. Please forgive!

It's all right. You may have had a few things on your mind. I did get to interact with several members of your delegation as well as your son. I'm glad his mishap on the road was no worse than it was.

Now to the important question. :basic05 Did you find a laptop?

Yes, I did. We brought home a Gateway from Circuit City -- 2 GB of memory; 160 GB of hard drive, Intel Core Duo Processor -- for less than $700 if I can get those pesky rebates mailed in. Now I just need some time to make the move from my Dell and figure out Vista. In three days of ownership, I've made hardly any progress on that front. The ol' Dell has still been working away with its "body integrity" problems while the Gateway waits in the wings.

Marsha

Charles W Christian

21st July 2007, 06:36 PM (18:36)

Andy Burnette

21st July 2007, 10:17 PM (22:17)

OK, Michael. I'm more than a little on the defensive right now, and I assumed I knew what you were implying. You're right. And thanks for all the kind words.
Andy

Hans Deventer

22nd July 2007, 09:14 AM (09:14)

Following this discussion I had to think of how this quote by Robbert Webber applies (in my view, of course)
In modernity, evangelical Christians have been committed to the use of verbal and analytical forms of communication to reach their generation. Faith has been explained as a system of thought characterized by inner coherence and logic. The Bible has been analyzed, theology systematized, and spirituality legalized.
The shift of postmodern communications to the power of symbolic communication is a call to return to the classical period when the church was an embodied experience of God expressed in life-changing rituals of immersed participation. (Robert E. Webber - Ancient Future Faith, p 24)

It actually applies to a lot of the discussions we have and have had here.

Dave McClung

23rd July 2007, 06:09 PM (18:09)

[quote=Dave McClung;104827]

First of all, I should never have posted in this thread because it's one of those issues I can't leave my emotion out of. As many wiser than me have said, you should never react on this board out of emotion.

Should clergy be ordained who don't agree with the articles of faith? To a degree, no way. If you don't believe in God, the Trinity, etc, you're in the wrong group. But when a denomination is as divided over the true definition of it's core doctrine as the CotN, I don't think that it alone should be a litmus test.

No, Dave, I don't think it's ok to lie. Pointing out the reality of something is not the same as saying you think it's good.

As a layman, my respect for the clergy is diminished when I read members of the clergy suggest that a significant number of members of the clergy don't actually meet the requirements. Having just suffered through the experience of participating in the ordination of a child molester, I would like to think it was a fluke. Your posts cause me to wonder.

David Pettigrew

23rd July 2007, 06:28 PM (18:28)

[quote=David Pettigrew;104964]

As a layman, my respect for the clergy is diminished when I read members of the clergy suggest that a significant number of members of the clergy don't actually meet the requirements. Having just suffered through the experience of participating in the ordination of a child molester, I would like to think it was a fluke. Your posts cause me to wonder.

All professions contain their share of dishonest people. The clergy is no exception.

I think what happened with your pastor is as bad as it can get. I cannot imagine the impact it has had/will have on your church, your community, his family, and on and on.

I'm not sure what you read in my posts that you interpreted as a sweeping, epidemic indictment of Nazarene pastors. My posts weren't meant to shake your faith in the clergy. I was angry, Dave, because I felt you were being very hard on Andy, by accusing him of burning bridges and leading others astray. As I stated, I shouldn't have posted, and I regret that I did. I apologize.

I may be wrong, but I think often we're more careful with the feelings of the pastor who loses his credentials over sexual or financial issues than the pastor who strays doctrinally. Shouldn't we offer Andy grace?

I don't think there's an epidemic of Nazarene pastors who don't believe in sanctification. And, for the record, I believe in sanctification.

I ask you to forgive me for reacting out of anger towards you.

Charles W Christian

23rd July 2007, 06:57 PM (18:57)

[quote=David Pettigrew;104964]

As a layman, my respect for the clergy is diminished when I read members of the clergy suggest that a significant number of members of the clergy don't actually meet the requirements. Having just suffered through the experience of participating in the ordination of a child molester, I would like to think it was a fluke. Your posts cause me to wonder.

Hey, Dave -
There are always those who "slip through the cracks" and no system of ordination can catch every potential problem. In the case you mention, we had a guy who was in harmony with the doctrines of the Church and could articulate them quite well (he has two master's degrees, after all), yet there were other, secret issues that were lurking, sadly.

We do examine "character issues" as best we can, and this is usually done by a) observing the candidate, b) getting words from those in ministry with him/her who observes him/her through the process (like a mentor), and c) look at the way he/she answers some pretty tough questions about family, priorities, doctrine, etc. I would venture to say that there are few procedures in any profession as rigorous as the kind of interview that clergy and their families go through; however, sometimes people make unhealthy choices, doctrinally and personally.

All this to say that I don't hear anyone saying that basic requirements are not met; however, there are doctrinal differences that come up, even in district-authorized boards. We should always be in dialogue about these kinds of things, and Naznet is a blessing in that regard, as are you....

In Christ,
Charles

Dave McClung

23rd July 2007, 07:42 PM (19:42)

I apologize for reacting so strongly. I was reacting to this sentence:

"And yet, we must profess to it in order to be ordained. "

With reluctance I have come to the conclusion that too many of those who are in the clergy figured out the code words they have to use to get by the Credentials Boards and said what they thought the board wanted to hear. Then when they preach to us laymen, they preach messages that are not consistent with Nazarene doctrine.

I have also concluded that too many clergy have hidden private personal conduct that is inconsitent with being recognized as clergy. On the average, we have a pastor a week surrender their credentials because they have been caught in sexual misconduct. It would have been a lot better for them and for the church if they had withdrawn their names prior to ordination.

What would I do about the problem?

1. I would require members of the clergy to take a refresher in ethics at least once a year. In the course, I would emphasize the importance of being honest about their private, personal conduct.

2. I would encourage the clergy to come up with an explicit code of ethics -- most other professions have one.

3. I would include in the code of ethics the requirement that members of the clergy report to the ds or the credentials board other members of the clergy who are in violation of the code of ethics. (Obviously, they wouldn't do so without first confronting the person in question.)

4. I would devise a plan/program that would allow a member of the clergy who has a problem to address the problem without surrendering credentials. Obviously, the program couldn't apply to criminal conduct, but it would allow a person who is struggling to seek help. For example, confidential surveys show that porn is a big problem among the clergy. Under the current rules, a pastor who acknoledges a problem with porn is obligated to surrender credentials. Wouldn't it be better if there was an option to confidentially seek help while a person's ministry is salvagable?

Of course, I realize that the Bible is a Code of Ethics, but what I am taking about is a series of rulings concerning conduct. As a member of the bar, I am subject to the Code of Ethics for attorneys. It deals with all kinds of questions about what is propoer and isn't for an attorney. When an attorney has a question about the proper action, he or she can ask for an ethical ruling. As far as I know, there is no such code for clergy. Not having a Code of Ethics means that conduct is judged by "sin" or "not sin." A Code of Ethics addresses conduct without addressing the intent of the person acting. It would allow the clergy to address issues of conduct without having to judges one's motives.