Letter from Orville Jenkins Jr.

[John Brickley]

I am wondering if anyone else has read a letter written by Orville Jenkins Jr. and posted on the Reformed Nazarene Blog. While the theological views are pretty much in line with what you would expect to find on that blog (both in what he is saying and the rather rambling attacking way in which he says it), it is the political slant that he brings to the discussion that I find the most troubling. There seems to be an implicit demand on the part of Rev. Jenkins that adherence to a neo conservative view of government be a mark of theological orthodoxy for the Church of the Nazarene (in fact for as much attention as he gives it, one wonders if this is not the central mark of orthodoxy for Rev. Jenkins). A good indication of this are Rev. Jenkins prescribed ways forward for the denomination. Number 3 on that list reads as follows:


3. From the beginning of their establishment, each of our schools of higher learning has been afforded a level of autonomy. But that autonomy must be balanced with accountability, not only from the school administrations, but also from their respective governing boards. Too often these boards have viewed their role as more of a ”rubber stamp” of approval for what the institution is already doing or proposes to do rather than taking time to study, probe, and ask some direct, hard, and sometimes delicate, questions. But no question should be too sensitive or too simple when, as an elected trustee, you are also a spiritual gatekeeper of that institution. Trustees have not only a right, but an obligation to know exactly where the institution stands when it comes to open theism, relativism, post-colonial readings of Scripture, process theology, or anything that promotes homosexuality or Marxism or socialism or big government. For a school is beholden to its governing board of elected trustees, not vice versa.

The whole of the letter can be found here http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/

What I find particularly troubling (especially if Rev. Jenkins is correct) is that 30 other D.S.'s agreed with him.

So what are your impressions of what he said, and what does it say about our future as a denomination?

John

[Shea Zellweger]

who are the 30 other DS?

[John Brickley]

Of course that little tidbit is conveniently omitted. :smilies0723::smilies0150::smilies0717:

[Craig Laughlin]

I think he should be taken up on the idea that "...taking time to study, probe, and ask some direct, hard, and sometimes delicate, questions. But no question should be too sensitive or too simple..." and that this method he proposed for school trustees should be used as a way forward for all of us. Let us have a denomination wide conversation in which anyone gets to ask a question, but all must listen respectfully to the answer. It is only true dialog bathed in Christian charity that will move us forward. Far to many want a monolog rather than a dialog.

I was unaware that our colleges took position on things like Marxism, socialism or big government.

[Charles W Christian]

I think in principle, Jenkins has a point about accountability: no church school (or public institution) is COMPLETELY without reasonable accountability. However, the implications of the list Jenkins shared, as well as the tone, indicate his own possible agenda that may be substituting theology for politics, and this I find quite troubling.

Thanks,
Charles

[Billy Cox]

I was unaware that our colleges took position on things like Marxism, socialism or big government.

Well, rumor has it that not every Nazarene college professor is a conservative Republican. :eek: Isn't that the same as being a pinko commie Marxist?

[Ryan Plott]

I am wondering if anyone else has read a letter written by Orville Jenkins Jr. and posted on the Reformed Nazarene Blog. While the theological views are pretty much in line with what you would expect to find on that blog (both in what he is saying and the rather rambling attacking way in which he says it), it is the political slant that he brings to the discussion that I find the most troubling. There seems to be an implicit demand on the part of Rev. Jenkins that adherence to a neo conservative view of government be a mark of theological orthodoxy for the Church of the Nazarene (in fact for as much attention as he gives it, one wonders if this is not the central mark of orthodoxy for Rev. Jenkins). A good indication of this are Rev. Jenkins prescribed ways forward for the denomination. Number 3 on that list reads as follows:



The whole of the letter can be found here http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/

What I find particularly troubling (especially if Rev. Jenkins is correct) is that 30 other D.S.'s agreed with him.

So what are your impressions of what he said, and what does it say about our future as a denomination?

John

I couldn't find the letter on the site. Was there a title? I used the search option on the site as well with "Orville Jenkins Jr." as the query and found nothing.

I definitely think trustees of Nazarene schools should take their jobs seriously and decide for themselves if they can ethically support the way in which the school is being run.

However,

I think if a trustee acted on their privilege as a gatekeeper and removed a certain topic from the school's academics like "relativism", "homosexuality", or "socialism" then they would be doing a great injustice to the Nazarene educational system. The student will be confronted with that omitted idea sooner or later in our world that has much easier access to informed views of differing opinions due to technological advance. If Nazarene institutions do not educate them at our schools, how will they be able to make an educated contribution to any conversation on any of these topics? Their opinions and thoughts would be dismissed because they could put no content to them. The system would fail those who are paying very large sums for it to provide them with a quality education. In an effort to save the system, the "gatekeeper" trustee would only aid in its failure, IMHO.

[Ryan Plott]

I was unaware that our colleges took position on things like Marxism, socialism or big government.

Olivet does not. They merely give you the tools and info to think through the pros and cons for yourself of these and other topics. The students then arrive at their own conclusions. An illustration of that would be Ben Burch and myself.(Ben, hope you don't mind me using you as an illustration. I'd ask you on Facebook but you're not on right now) We both went through the same classes, had the same profs, and read the same books, all at the same time. At some points our thoughts on issues align completely and at other times they do not. That's just what a good educational system does, equips their students to be able to think and operate for themselves in the real world and lets them fully own their decisions, not bend them to a certain view.

[John Kennedy]

Went to the RefNaz site and was told that the Naz DS letter wasn't there. However I was afforded the opportunity of finding out the truth about NazNet, Tom Oord, Hans Deventer and you name it. Talk about one stop shopping.

[Kevin Rector]

http://nazarenepsalm113.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/district-superintendent-speaks-out-by-manny-silva

[Benjamin Burch]

Olivet does not. They merely give you the tools and info to think through the pros and cons for yourself of these and other topics. The students then arrive at their own conclusions. An illustration of that would be Ben Burch and myself.(Ben, hope you don't mind me using you as an illustration. I'd ask you on Facebook but you're not on right now) We both went through the same classes, had the same profs, and read the same books, all at the same time. At some points our thoughts on issues align completely and at other times they do not. That's just what a good educational system does, equips their students to be able to think and operate for themselves in the real world and lets them fully own their decisions, not bend them to a certain view.

How dare you use me as an illustration in such a way. Me, disagreeing with you? How absurd. I demand that you remove this post immediately and restore my honor and integrity. I hope you can sleep with yourself after posting this nonsense.

[Mike Fraley]

What's interesting is that when I was at Olivet, the general perception was that the trustees held way too much power in terms of accountability. We had rules changed and some rules were altered in the way that they were enforced, and the reason was given was that the trustees insist on things being done a certain way.

I can't say exactly how grounded in reality that was, but I can say that was the perception.

[Ryan Scott]

So the letter is now gone. Any chance someone kept a copy of it so I could read it?

[Kevin Rector]

So the letter is now gone. Any chance someone kept a copy of it so I could read it?

Ryan, look at the link I posted above.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, look at the link I posted above.


Thanks. I think what is most troubling to me in many of these complaints is a complete lack of scripture. I have come believe what I do because of my study of scripture and my attempts to be faithful to the Word of God as its been passed down to me.

I think there is some correction in his letter, for example, the modern conservative world view is just as godless as the modern liberal world view. There are some other clearly biased arguments included. But more important it really just seems like we have a tradition which has accepted too much doctrine on faith with a profound lack of scriptural investigation.

I'd love for us to have some real discussions about scripture and why it is we believe what we do in these areas. There are people, both conservative and liberal, who just don't take scripture seriously and it really produces some quite militant responses on both sides.

I agree with a lot of what is said in this letter, although it also seems to be a small sliver of the totality of the major issues facing the Church of the Nazarene. It's the narrow focus that proves problematic to me.

[John Brickley]

So the letter is now gone. Any chance someone kept a copy of it so I could read it?

It is interesting that the letter was moved right after this thread was begun. One cannot help but wonder if that letter was posted without Rev. Jenkins approval, and I wonder if he is aware that it was not deleted but simply moved to another blog?

[Ryan Scott]

Once something is on the internet, it's there forever.

[Ryan Scott]

The other question I had is the contradiction between his honest and kind statement at the beginning saying he was just one person and could be wrong and then the idea that he sent the letter only to 30 of his colleagues. There's 80 some DSs in the US, some, perhaps, with a different perspective on the matter. If there was really a desire for dialogue and feedback, one would think that perhaps input from all of his peers might be beneficial.

The perception I got from the letter was more of "I might be wrong about this, but if a few people agree with me, I'm going to assume we're right." I just don't think there's any hope for dialogue without a willingness to change. We have to risk something to grow.

I'd love to change my mind about some things - there are a lot of things that don't make complete sense to me and I'd be happy to be exposed to some other ideas that might explain life and scripture better. This just seems like a natural position to take.

[John Brickley]

Olivet does not. They merely give you the tools and info to think through the pros and cons for yourself of these and other topics. The students then arrive at their own conclusions. An illustration of that would be Ben Burch and myself.(Ben, hope you don't mind me using you as an illustration. I'd ask you on Facebook but you're not on right now) We both went through the same classes, had the same profs, and read the same books, all at the same time. At some points our thoughts on issues align completely and at other times they do not. That's just what a good educational system does, equips their students to be able to think and operate for themselves in the real world and lets them fully own their decisions, not bend them to a certain view.

Yes there is a vast difference between education and indoctrination. It seems as if there is a growing segment of our church that simply would rather our students not be educated but rather indoctrinated. This has certainly always been the case in the church, but what concerns me uniquely about the internet age is the rapidity with which information is spread and the way in which blogs, facebook, and other mediums draw in large numbers of lay people that would otherwise be unaware, and who do not fully understand the issues involved. As such the whole issue becomes an intensely emotional one in which the fears of the masses are whipped up to serve the agenda of a smallish group of people who would like to take the church in a fundamentalist direction.

In relation to the boards of trustees holding the colleges accountable I would dare say that that has never been something that they have shrunk from doing. There have at various times throughout our history been witch hunts and house cleaning efforts at our colleges that have been spearheaded by members of the boards of trustees that were motivated by the same kind of rhetoric that Rev. Jenkins is declaring and the same kind of fear and misunderstanding of the educational process. So I would dare say that the problem of the boards of trustees has not been that they have refrained from holding the colleges accountable, if anything it has been quite the opposite.

John

[John Brickley]

Thanks. I think what is most troubling to me in many of these complaints is a complete lack of scripture. I have come believe what I do because of my study of scripture and my attempts to be faithful to the Word of God as its been passed down to me.

I think there is some correction in his letter, for example, the modern conservative world view is just as godless as the modern liberal world view. There are some other clearly biased arguments included. But more important it really just seems like we have a tradition which has accepted too much doctrine on faith with a profound lack of scriptural investigation.

I'd love for us to have some real discussions about scripture and why it is we believe what we do in these areas. There are people, both conservative and liberal, who just don't take scripture seriously and it really produces some quite militant responses on both sides.

I agree with a lot of what is said in this letter, although it also seems to be a small sliver of the totality of the major issues facing the Church of the Nazarene. It's the narrow focus that proves problematic to me.

I agree whole heartedly Ryan. What was also interesting to me (and troubling) is the incredibly broad brush strokes used to paint the picture of all that is wrong with the church. These over generalizations rarely if ever help in genuine dialogue and understanding. Really how can anyone sit down and talk with him (or others with similar complaints) if they do not know exactly what it is that they find so problematic? In reading that letter beyond overused sound bites, I did not see one specific situation (or person) that he thinks needs to be addressed. And so how will change ever take place if the conversation is always dominated by overly emotional and overly generalized sound bites?

[David Gerber]

Regarding the letters appearance and disappearance:

What if...and this is a really big 'what if'...Ashton Kutcher made sure that Manny got the letter in order to Punk him? I know it sounds far fetched, but it could happen. And now that Tim has posted it on his site, Ashton is getting a two for one deal. Punk'd (http://www.mtv.com/shows/punkd/series.jhtml) is an MTV show. Nothing of this new episode has been posted. I'll keep checking back just in case I am right about this.

[Dennis Bratcher]

In relation to the boards of trustees holding the colleges accountable I would dare say that that has never been something that they have shrunk from doing. There have at various times throughout our history been witch hunts and house cleaning efforts at our colleges that have been spearheaded by members of the boards of trustees that were motivated by the same kind of rhetoric that Rev. Jenkins is declaring and the same kind of fear and misunderstanding of the educational process. So I would dare say that the problem of the boards of trustees has not been that they have refrained from holding the colleges accountable, if anything it has been quite the opposite.

Having spent my entire ministry in Christian education, and having taught at, or for, seven of our educational institutions, I can certainly affirm this. While we have a lot of Trustees (indeed most) that exercise their responsibility admirably, unfortunately some bring personal agendas to the process that govern how they function. And those tend to be the clergy Trustees. I have a large file of letters sent to college presidents, most from DSs or pastors (or their wives!), trying to get various professors fired for doing their job, actually teaching students to think and make their own decisions. And it is not only religion professors that are the subject of those letters, but include science, sociology, and psychology profs, as well as the occasional English prof (imagine having students at a Christian college read Catcher in the Rye!).

I am tempted to try to assign motives to such actions, whether power, insecurity, a sense of self importance, control, peer pressure, fundamentalist ideology, etc. But I can't really do that. I only know that such actions are horribly destructive, not only for students and profs alike, but for the larger community of Faith and the Kingdom of God.

Orville Jenkins, Jr. is a good example of that. He has written such letters and attacked college professors based on his own personal opinions. For one example of the result of his letter writing campaigns, see Did Jesus Have to Die? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdie.html). (This can be documented.)

I am beginning to fear that the very diversity that was the hallmark of the early holiness movement may prove to be the seeds of its own destruction. While that may be a commentary about how holiness theology developed in the AHM, it may be more a commentary about the recalcitrance of human sinfulness. As much as we have decried the Methodists for their liberalization, they seem to have found a way to deal with diversity without collapsing into warring camps intent on killing each other. I am beginning to think that we, indeed, need to become more like the Methodists and less like the Southern Baptists.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Craig Laughlin]

I am beginning to fear that the very diversity that was the hallmark of the early holiness movement may prove to be the seeds of its own destruction.

I too have begun to think that the fracture lines in our denomination may well be our undoing. We seem to have adopted our mode of behavior from pagan politics in which winning is all that matters and truly listening is not even considered. To my way of thinking the church has become very worldly.

The death, or more likely irrelevance, of our denomination (In USA/Canada) would sadden me. However, I think the good news is that just as God once raise up the COTN, God continues to raise up new incarnations of His body with a passion for doing His work and being His people. - Thanks be to God.

[Ryan Scott]

I only know that such actions are horribly destructive, not only for students and profs alike, but for the larger community of Faith and the Kingdom of God.


What I don't understand is why there isn't more dialogue and conversation. Clearly when someone goes on one of these rants they've got a specific person or group of people in mind. Have they gone to ask why they said or wrote what they did? Have they had a lengthy conversation about how they arrived at those positions? I have a hard time believing too many people would just refuse such a discussion. I'd love to have more of them than I do currently.

[John Kennedy]

So, why was the Sojourn Church video/s included with the letter? Was the labyrinth theme highlighted as a non-verbal trigger? Sojourn struck me as an attempt by the church to engage the community. Is that, somehow, a violation of heritage? It would be interesting to see how Bresee (sp?) would have reacted to a ministry like Sojourn.
Maybe this is a good point for me (as a former Nazarene) to strategically duck.

[Hans Deventer]

What I don't understand is why there isn't more dialogue and conversation.

That's not so hard to imagine. The goal is not unity, the goal is not conversation, the goal is victory by whatever means possible because it is about truth, and truth only. The goal is either to have you surrender to their views, or leave the church. It's like 15th century Spain all over, and we are the "Jews" and they are the "Christians".

You don't understand because you think differently, but that's the very problem: your thinking is wrong according to them.

[Benjamin Burch]

What I don't understand is why there isn't more dialogue and conversation. Clearly when someone goes on one of these rants they've got a specific person or group of people in mind. Have they gone to ask why they said or wrote what they did? Have they had a lengthy conversation about how they arrived at those positions? I have a hard time believing too many people would just refuse such a discussion. I'd love to have more of them than I do currently.

I think Hans is right. There is no conversation to be had in the minds of these people. There are "facts" to be told, heard, and heeded. If the other party doesn't agree, they are wrong. No conversation needed.

[Ryan Scott]

I think Hans is right. There is no conversation to be had in the minds of these people. There are "facts" to be told, heard, and heeded. If the other party doesn't agree, they are wrong. No conversation needed.

That doesn't mean we can act the same way.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Sometimes we say things loudly and arrogantly, thinking that in doing so we can make them true.

[Benjamin Burch]

That doesn't mean we can act the same way.

Agreed.

[Dennis Bratcher]

What I don't understand is why there isn't more dialogue and conversation. Clearly when someone goes on one of these rants they've got a specific person or group of people in mind. Have they gone to ask why they said or wrote what they did? Have they had a lengthy conversation about how they arrived at those positions? I have a hard time believing too many people would just refuse such a discussion. I'd love to have more of them than I do currently.

In all of my years of teaching and all the letters of complaint, I have only had three people contact me directly. One of those was my own pastor who heard a rumor and called me to check on it (the rumor was false).

The second was my own DS (now retired), who was responding to a series of rumors (all of which were far from the truth). He never asked me a question about anything because he had already assumed that the rumors were true. He invoked the management principle, "Perception is reality," and then proceeded to lecture me on what to teach and how to teach it, making it clear that I should never raise questions and should only teach things that supported what the church taught (meaning what he believed; I had already signed a statement affirming the Articles of Faith). This was in a restaurant and he was so forceful that a man stopped by the table and said that we must either be lawyers or preachers (great witness for the Gospel!).

The third was a pastor and a Board of Trustees member who wanted a face to face meeting, at the urging of the president. As it turned out, he was more interested in straightening me out than he was in finding out facts or trying to understand anything. His only questions were for me to respond to some of the same rumors, to which I could only say that they were not true. His response to the meeting was to send a scathing letter back to the president. I found out later that he was actually upset because his son had received a bad grade in my class and he had assumed it must be because I was somehow unorthodox or a bad teacher since he had obviously taught him well (the bad grades were because his son had not handed in any work and had failed exams; as it turned out, his son had some serious non-physical problems, of which I was not even aware at the time. Evidently neither was his father.).

I wrote to one pastor (off the educational zone) who had sent a series of complaint letters to the president and offered to drive to Kansas and meet with him. He refused to meet with me, responding that he would be too intimidated to do so since he was not well versed in theology. I guess he could not see the incongruity and irony in that. He continued to write letters.

(BTW: all three examples can be documented; I've learned to preserve the paper trail.)

And so it goes.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Brickley]

In all of my years of teaching and all the letters of complaint, I have only had three people contact me directly. One of those was my own pastor who heard a rumor and called me to check on it (the rumor was false).

The second was my own DS (now retired), who was responding to a series of rumors (all of which were far from the truth). He never asked me a question about anything because he had already assumed that the rumors were true. He invoked the management principle, "Perception is reality," and then proceeded to lecture me on what to teach and how to teach it, making it clear that I should never raise questions and should only teach things that supported what the church taught (meaning what he believed; I had already signed a statement affirming the Articles of Faith). This was in a restaurant and he was so forceful that a man stopped by the table and said that we must either be lawyers or preachers (great witness for the Gospel!).

The third was a pastor and a Board of Trustees member who wanted a face to face meeting, at the urging of the president. As it turned out, he was more interested in straightening me out than he was in finding out facts or trying to understand anything. His only questions were for me to respond to some of the same rumors, to which I could only say that they were not true. His response to the meeting was to send a scathing letter back to the president. I found out later that he was actually upset because his son had received a bad grade in my class and he had assumed it must be because I was somehow unorthodox or a bad teacher since he had obviously taught him well (the bad grades were because his son had not handed in any work and had failed exams; as it turned out, his son had some serious non-physical problems, of which I was not even aware at the time. Evidently neither was his father.).

I wrote to one pastor (off the educational zone) who had sent a series of complaint letters to the president and offered to drive to Kansas and meet with him. He refused to meet with me, responding that he would be too intimidated to do so since he was not well versed in theology. I guess he could not see the incongruity and irony in that. He continued to write letters.

(BTW: all three examples can be documented; I've learned to preserve the paper trail.)

And so it goes.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Yes, it appears that we have learned to be snipers very well in the Church of the Nazarene.

[John Kennedy]

Allow me to make this clarification to my post above about the Sojourn Church video. It was NOT part of the Jenkins' letter. It was on the Psalm 11:3 website and appeared to me, at least, in terms of its placement, to be somewhat in the same context as the letter.

[David Gerber]

That's not so hard to imagine. The goal is not unity, the goal is not conversation, the goal is victory by whatever means possible because it is about truth, and truth only. The goal is either to have you surrender to their views, or leave the church. It's like 15th century Spain all over, and we are the "Jews" and they are the "Christians".
You don't understand because you think differently, but that's the very problem: your thinking is wrong according to them.

My concern is when you referenced 15th Century Spain. I was thinking today that if these folks were in power, many of us would be in grave trouble. If it is truly heresy they are fighting, a quick study of how the church has treated heretics would be a warning shot to us all. Because a heretic has to be dealt with.

If it were only heresy in the Nazarene church, which doesn't make any sense to me, then excommunication would be their first option. If, however, heresy is the kind of heresy that affects the Church Universal, then destruction of the heretic and obliteration of said heresy is the likely option.

Besides, my quick study of heresy tells me that many 'heretics' were simply on the wrong side of the power structure. It is even more disturbing to hear a Nazarene talk about heresy so glibly when Jacob Arminius was accused of heresy. Arminians were, and still are today (it seems), on the wrong side of the power structure.

Finally, IMO popular Christian culture is partly responsible for this situation. Many popular authors are Reformed or Calvinist. Many of the popular radio programs are of the same theological bent. It is no wonder that popular Christian media makes Nazarene theology sound 'heretical' to Nazarenes.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Sometimes we say things loudly and arrogantly, thinking that in doing so we can make them true.

Unfortunately, a lot of people tend to listen to self confident loud voices, assuming that things said that way must be true. It never occurs to them to find out if they are true.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Andy Mistak]

Having read the letter, I am absolutely shocked that a DS could be so small-minded and hateful. I know that we want to retain unity in our church - but as for me - my tent is not big enough for this kind of disrespect. If Dr. Jenkins' views prevail in the Church of the Nazarene, I and many of the folks I know will have to figure out which UMC or Episcopal church to join.

[Kevin Rector]

Hey guys, let's not do what we're accusing others of doing. Perhaps someone should contact him directly and try to open a line of dialog rather than talking about him "behind his back".

[Susan Unger]

In all of my years of teaching and all the letters of complaint, I have only had three people contact me directly. One of those was my own pastor who heard a rumor and called me to check on it (the rumor was false).

The second was my own DS (now retired), who was responding to a series of rumors (all of which were far from the truth). He never asked me a question about anything because he had already assumed that the rumors were true. He invoked the management principle, "Perception is reality," and then proceeded to lecture me on what to teach and how to teach it, making it clear that I should never raise questions and should only teach things that supported what the church taught (meaning what he believed; I had already signed a statement affirming the Articles of Faith). This was in a restaurant and he was so forceful that a man stopped by the table and said that we must either be lawyers or preachers (great witness for the Gospel!).

The third was a pastor and a Board of Trustees member who wanted a face to face meeting, at the urging of the president. As it turned out, he was more interested in straightening me out than he was in finding out facts or trying to understand anything. His only questions were for me to respond to some of the same rumors, to which I could only say that they were not true. His response to the meeting was to send a scathing letter back to the president. I found out later that he was actually upset because his son had received a bad grade in my class and he had assumed it must be because I was somehow unorthodox or a bad teacher since he had obviously taught him well (the bad grades were because his son had not handed in any work and had failed exams; as it turned out, his son had some serious non-physical problems, of which I was not even aware at the time. Evidently neither was his father.).

I wrote to one pastor (off the educational zone) who had sent a series of complaint letters to the president and offered to drive to Kansas and meet with him. He refused to meet with me, responding that he would be too intimidated to do so since he was not well versed in theology. I guess he could not see the incongruity and irony in that. He continued to write letters.

(BTW: all three examples can be documented; I've learned to preserve the paper trail.)

And so it goes.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

That is horribly sad.

[Billy Cox]

Once something is on the internet, it's there forever.

Except for 98% of the content from NazNet B.C.

[Billy Cox]

Sometimes we say things loudly and arrogantly, thinking that in doing so we can make them true.

If you had one of those Nazarene names of yore, you also would speak loudly.

[Tim Bourland]

Sometimes we say things loudly and arrogantly, thinking that in doing so we can make them true.

Reminds me that "it's better to have people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[Hans Deventer]

That doesn't mean we can act the same way.

So what do you want? This conversation is a like a broken record. It returns to the same place time and time again. I don't see any use in preaching to the pews, and they are better listeners than our opponents. I've come to hate it when once again people post on NazNet about Manny and whoever is involved in the crusade. It solves nothing, brings no joy, it just generates more traffic on their websites so we are effectively helping their cause.

If it ends up in splitting the CotN, I don't think there is anything we can do about that, since they will stop at nothing.

All we can do, as far as I can see, is ignore. They will one day die, that much I am certain about, and that will be the only thing that stops them short of the Lord returning and straightening them out. But He is so full of mercy that I don't expect that to happen. On second thoughts, that might be the very straightening out they need. Anyway, there's nothing we can do about that but pray for Him to come quickly.

If there is something else to be done that would solve this problem, I'm all ears, but as yet, I can't see it.

[Tim Bourland]

Do any of you pastor on Jenkins' district? If so...staying or leaving? If not...would you consider it?

[Julie Reed]

I'm not sure what this is all about. I'm waiting to read Dr. Jenkins letter, but I'm afraid I don't know what cause you are all talking about. Maybe this website isn't what I thought it was. Would someone please enlighten me?

[Kevin Rector]

So what do you want? This conversation is a like a broken record. It returns to the same place time and time again. I don't see any use in preaching to the pews, and they are better listeners than our opponents. I've come to hate it when once again people post on NazNet about Manny and whoever is involved in the crusade.

This is something entirely different than a layman going on a crusade. This is a District Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene. Just by virtue of his position he deserves to be heard as we have an obligation to listen to our overseers. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with him, I would just argue that this is not the same thing as Manny and his friends.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm not sure what this is all about. I'm waiting to read Dr. Jenkins letter, but I'm afraid I don't know what cause you are all talking about. Maybe this website isn't what I thought it was. Would someone please enlighten me?

Well, here it is:


http://nazarenepsalm113.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/district-superintendent-speaks-out-by-manny-silva

[Susan Unger]

Well, here it is:No, actually, it is gone now too.

[David Pettigrew]

I'm very curious why my name is a tag on every single post on this website, especially since I can't find anything about myself in any of the posts.

[John Kennedy]

No, actually, it is gone now too.0

I just went to the link cited by Kevin above and it was still there.

[John Kennedy]

I'm very curious why my name is a tag on every single post on this website, especially since I can't find anything about myself in any of the posts.

Even paranoids have enemies?

[Hans Deventer]

This is something entirely different than a layman going on a crusade. This is a District Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene. Just by virtue of his position he deserves to be heard as we have an obligation to listen to our overseers. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with him, I would just argue that this is not the same thing as Manny and his friends.

Kevin, you didn't really think that there were only a couple of people like Manny and friends doing this? Of course they have roots in the CotN! Way too many never understood what our church is about, and confused Enlightenment thinking with sound Wesleyan theology. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are (former) GS's who think like that. So to me it's all the same.

And the conversation is useless.

[Shea Zellweger]

No, actually, it is gone now too.

Ah yes... and it's been replaced with a shout out to me:
"On a high note they recently congratulated a person for his 1000 post.
I say kudos for that.
If the person is spending that much time on Naz Net he has less time to lead any congregation astray."

If they only knew just how much time I spend in conversation with other Christians, they might be a little more... concerned.

[Shea Zellweger]

here's as much of it as I could find: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1LlVV3AOv7-E9drmL0nQ_4fpMDymjE_4guQ5B3ZOdHlA&hl=en

[Andy Mistak]

I'm very curious why my name is a tag on every single post on this website, especially since I can't find anything about myself in any of the posts.

I'm jealous, man. I wish I were on the CN's "enemies list".

[Andy Mistak]

I'm not sure what this is all about. I'm waiting to read Dr. Jenkins letter, but I'm afraid I don't know what cause you are all talking about. Maybe this website isn't what I thought it was. Would someone please enlighten me?

Not sure what you're asking here. Which website - Naznet or Manny's site?

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm jealous, man. I wish I were on the CN's "enemies list".

They're very selective. Unless you're a pastor or teacher, they ignore you. I'm the host of the Theology site for goodness sakes and I'm possibly more liberal than Shea. Yet, I've only ever gotten one shout out. I'm very Jealous about Shea. I've tried as hard as I can. I guess they just don't care about me.
:(

[David Gerber]

Ah yes... and it's been replaced with a shout out to me:
"On a high note they recently congratulated a person for his 1000 post.
I say kudos for that.
If the person is spending that much time on Naz Net he has less time to lead any congregation astray."

If they only knew just how much time I spend in conversation with other Christians, they might be a little more... concerned.

Has anyone taken a look at their sites and the sheer volume of their production?

[Hans Deventer]

They will one day die, that much I am certain about, and that will be the only thing that stops them short of the Lord returning and straightening them out.

I understand some folks don't get what I am saying here. Let me explain.

1. Like all of us, people will one day die. That seems like a rather non threatening statement to me and pretty hard to deny.

2. In context, I said I think the only thing that actually will stop them is death. Which, again, befalls us all (of course, unless the Lord returns before that day). Now I may be greatly mistaken here and I'll go on record saying that if they stop their crusade, I'll shout it from the mountain tops that I was totally and utterly mistaken and the whole world may quote me as saying so. Not holding my breath though.

3. Is this a threat? If you're paranoid enough, anything is. But only then. It has of course nothing to do with a threat or anything in that direction.

4. As I wrote before, the only direction to take that could bring any hope, as far as I can see it, is prayer for these people. I've let it go for a while but it seems I need to pick it up again. If the fear has got such a hold on you that even my words seem like a threat, man, you sure are in need of prayer.

[Susan Unger]

0

I just went to the link cited by Kevin above and it was still there.

I just get a notice telling me to go to an email address to receive a copy of the letter.

[Ryan Scott]

So what do you want?

For one, I think we need to stop using the blanket term "they," something I'm regretfully guilty of at times as well. One of the main complaints I have is how broadly complaints are made; I do not want to be guilty of the same thing.

Us/them language is some of the most insidiously hurtful words we can utter because its meant to get "them," but really ends up damaging "us."

I apologize for it.

You're right. Beyond that, what can we do. I suppose I could write an email to Orville Jenkins and ask what or who specifically he's upset about because I haven't seen the same things and I would be interested to know more. I just don't think its a good course of action - especially without a relationship of any kind.

I do think there is a difference between pointing out specific disagreements we might have and publicly disparaging an undefined group of people.

I have some serious issues with the specifics of the letter, but I agree with the general premise. We do need to be careful about the ways in which we teach and the ideas we present. I disagree with his approach to the problem and the narrowness of his objections.

If we're going to be driven out by such threats and verbal violence, it does seem consistent with our positions in other areas of life to take the heat gracefully, do not stop speaking, and continue to seek unity, even if it seems futile.

[Ryan Plott]

What's interesting is that when I was at Olivet, the general perception was that the trustees held way too much power in terms of accountability. We had rules changed and some rules were altered in the way that they were enforced, and the reason was given was that the trustees insist on things being done a certain way.

I can't say exactly how grounded in reality that was, but I can say that was the perception.

I wouldn't argue with that. If the recent Dr. Colling episode at ONU is anything to judge by trustees will still step in and change things if they so choose.

My post about Olivet in response to Craig Laughlin's post was directed toward his comment about CotN institutions taking a position on Marxism, socialism, or big government. My intention in that post was to focus on what Olivet is doing right as an educational institution, not on the trustee's role in the running of the school.

[Ryan Plott]

In relation to the boards of trustees holding the colleges accountable I would dare say that that has never been something that they have shrunk from doing. There have at various times throughout our history been witch hunts and house cleaning efforts at our colleges that have been spearheaded by members of the boards of trustees that were motivated by the same kind of rhetoric that Rev. Jenkins is declaring and the same kind of fear and misunderstanding of the educational process. So I would dare say that the problem of the boards of trustees has not been that they have refrained from holding the colleges accountable, if anything it has been quite the opposite.

John

True, I just wish some soul searching would go on in those trustee meetings about what is and is not appropriate to hold the colleges of the CotN accountable on. Attempting to censor Dr. Colling to appease a few pastor's and lay leaders on the ONU region who do not know the position of the denomination in regards to Scripture was a bad decision, IMO.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Orville Jenkins, Jr. is a good example of that. He has written such letters and attacked college professors based on his own personal opinions. For one example of the result of his letter writing campaigns, see Did Jesus Have to Die? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdie.html). (This can be documented.)

Just to note: as of July 16, with the permission of the author, this article has been restored to the CRI/Voice website.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Billy Cox]

They're very selective. Unless you're a pastor or teacher, they ignore you. I'm the host of the Theology site for goodness sakes and I'm possibly more liberal than Shea. Yet, I've only ever gotten one shout out. I'm very Jealous about Shea. I've tried as hard as I can. I guess they just don't care about me.
:(

The CN's are trying to use institutional machinery to destroy their targets. It would thus be a waste of time to attack people who aren't 'jacked into the machine.'

It would be like trying to intimidate the homeless by raising property taxes. :)

[Kevin Rector]

For one, I think we need to stop using the blanket term "they," something I'm regretfully guilty of at times as well. One of the main complaints I have is how broadly complaints are made; I do not want to be guilty of the same thing.

Us/them language is some of the most insidiously hurtful words we can utter because its meant to get "them," but really ends up damaging "us.".

I think this is very wise and true. Orville Jenkins Jr. is not one of "them". He's a particular person with particular concerns. I may disagree with some of them, but he is not going around slandering the name of ordained elders, nor is he specifically indicting anyone. That certainly makes him fundamentally different than the CNs.

[Andy Mistak]

I think this is very wise and true. Orville Jenkins Jr. is not one of "them". He's a particular person with particular concerns. I may disagree with some of them, but he is not going around slandering the name of ordained elders, nor is he specifically indicting anyone. That certainly makes him fundamentally different than the CNs.

He's actually indicting anyone from the political, theological, or cultural left.

[Hans Deventer]

For one, I think we need to stop using the blanket term "they," something I'm regretfully guilty of at times as well. One of the main complaints I have is how broadly complaints are made; I do not want to be guilty of the same thing.

My pleasure. You want the names included all the time? Or is "Concerned Nazarenes and former Nazarenes" enough? I'm flexible.


If we're going to be driven out by such threats and verbal violence, it does seem consistent with our positions in other areas of life to take the heat gracefully, do not stop speaking, and continue to seek unity, even if it seems futile.

You are right. So, concluding:

1. Use specific names for people
2. Pray
3. Walk to the stake gracefully ?

I can agree with that.

[Ryan Scott]

My pleasure. You want the names included all the time? Or is "Concerned Nazarenes and former Nazarenes" enough? I'm flexible.



You are right. So, concluding:

1. Use specific names for people
2. Pray
3. Walk to the stake gracefully ?

I can agree with that.

It just seems like when we demonize and generalize people for demonizing and generalizing about people the us and them categories becomes pretty indistinguishable. The specifics might be different, but the practices become the same.

If we're going to address specific issues, we need to do so specifically and with openness.

[Scott Sherwood]

He's actually indicting anyone from the political, theological, or cultural left. of him.

This entire affair grieves me. I'm quite sure I would be considered heretical by the inquisitors on the one side. And I'm pretty sure I'm considered a fundamentalist by the theological progressives on the other.

I am praying that the missional middle will prevail without becoming overly distracted/hindered by either fringe. I think maybe now is a good time for the missional middle to start speaking up and advocating for the Great Commission.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Jenkins two letters can be found at:


http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/aprilletter.html

http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/julyletter.html

Most of this thread is concerned with the July letter, but it references the April letter. Both are quite long.

[Hans Deventer]

It just seems like when we demonize and generalize people for demonizing and generalizing about people the us and them categories becomes pretty indistinguishable. The specifics might be different, but the practices become the same.

If we're going to address specific issues, we need to do so specifically and with openness.

Ryan, I don't want to address anything. All I've been saying that it is no use, but even that statement turned into this discussion with even Manny and Tim writing me! Talk about getting the opposite of what I intended.

Anyway, if some have the faith and hope, go ahead addressing. May God bless you. I'd need more hope and faith than I currently have to join.

[David Pettigrew]

of him.

This entire affair grieves me. I'm quite sure I would be considered heretical by the inquisitors on the one side. And I'm pretty sure I'm considered a fundamentalist by the theological progressives on the other.

I am praying that the missional middle will prevail without becoming overly distracted/hindered by either fringe. I think maybe now is a good time for the missional middle to start speaking up and advocating for the Great Commission.

Scott, I typed out a whole post to this effect, but couldn't say it kindly, so I deleted it. You did so beautifully. May it be so.

[David Pettigrew]

What the previous two generations of concerned leadership seem to be unable to grasp is the current theological struggle arose because of the practical state of the church they handed over to us.

You know why the church is booming in India, China, Africa, and South America? Because the people are mostly poor, powerless, and uneducated - those whom Jesus especially loves. You know why the church is declining in North America? Because we mostly ignore the poor, powerless, and uneducated. We may give them a handout, but we sure don't often make them our "ministry target group" (this is generally reserved for young professionals w/elementary aged children) or elect them to our boards.

Folks, it is time for us to lay down our theological weapons, get up from our padded pews, pray until God shows up, then get out among the least of these. If we did this, we wouldn't have time to be drawn into arguments over the "correct" way to talk to God.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You know why the church is declining in North America? Because we mostly ignore the poor, powerless, and uneducated. We may give them a handout, but we sure don't often make them our "ministry target group" (this is generally reserved for young professionals w/elementary aged children) or elect them to our boards.

Folks, it is time for us to lay down our theological weapons, get up from our padded pews, pray until God shows up, then get out among the least of these. If we did this, we wouldn't have time to be drawn into arguments over the "correct" way to talk to God.

Amen!

[Dennis M. Scott]

So we are faced with the options of spending our energies with religious leaders and thoughts of our day, or proclaiming and demonstrating the good news among the poor, uneducated, forsaken and powerless?

Admitting guilt, I would observe that threads here on naznet tend to choose one of those topics more frequently than the other.

[Shea Zellweger]

What the previous two generations of concerned leadership seem to be unable to grasp is the current theological struggle arose because of the practical state of the church they handed over to us.

You know why the church is booming in India, China, Africa, and South America? Because the people are mostly poor, powerless, and uneducated - those whom Jesus especially loves. You know why the church is declining in North America? Because we mostly ignore the poor, powerless, and uneducated. We may give them a handout, but we sure don't often make them our "ministry target group" (this is generally reserved for young professionals w/elementary aged children) or elect them to our boards.

Folks, it is time for us to lay down our theological weapons, get up from our padded pews, pray until God shows up, then get out among the least of these. If we did this, we wouldn't have time to be drawn into arguments over the "correct" way to talk to God.

I want desperately to agree with this, but... I can't. At least not in the context of this thread.
We absolutely must recapture our dedication to the "power, powerless, and uneducated," and it has even lead some of us to adhere to some of the things Dr. Jenkins' letter opposes (Socialism, Social Justice, certain portions of "emergent" theology). But I don't think that's the real focus of his complaint, I think it's just a list of things he tossed out for good measure in the midst of his main complaint, which is what he sees as a devaluing and distrust of Scripture among the young, educated members of the church (and more specifically the clergy). The problem I see in this letter does relate back to the "good measure" concepts which could be categorically described as "Right Wing," in that Dr. Jenkins appears to have subscribed wholeheartedly to a very specific, conservative fundamentalistic Christian worldview, which has lead to a desire to "defend" that specific version of the faith.

Based on what I read in Scripture, in the history of the church, and the history of our own denomination, I see a pretty common theme of people being fully dedicated to "getting out among the least of these" who still had time to argue heartily over different theological matters. It might move the argument out to the mission field with us, but something tells me this argument isn't likely to go away. The entire witness of Christian History tells me that no matter how committed we are, we will still have strong theological disagreements, and if it's on a matter that is of particular importance and/or weight to us, we'll continue to have these fights- we just might start having them while teaming up on ladle duty at the local soup kitchen...

[David Gerber]

Admitting guilt, I would observe that threads here on naznet tend to choose one of those topics more frequently than the other.

That's so cool that we spend most of our time with the poor, uneducated, forsaken, and powerless...

[David Pettigrew]

I want desperately to agree with this, but... I can't. At least not in the context of this thread.
We absolutely must recapture our dedication to the "power, powerless, and uneducated," and it has even lead some of us to adhere to some of the things Dr. Jenkins' letter opposes (Socialism, Social Justice, certain portions of "emergent" theology). But I don't think that's the real focus of his complaint, I think it's just a list of things he tossed out for good measure in the midst of his main complaint, which is what he sees as a devaluing and distrust of Scripture among the young, educated members of the church (and more specifically the clergy). The problem I see in this letter does relate back to the "good measure" concepts which could be categorically described as "Right Wing," in that Dr. Jenkins appears to have subscribed wholeheartedly to a very specific, conservative fundamentalistic Christian worldview, which has lead to a desire to "defend" that specific version of the faith.

Based on what I read in Scripture, in the history of the church, and the history of our own denomination, I see a pretty common theme of people being fully dedicated to "getting out among the least of these" who still had time to argue heartily over different theological matters. It might move the argument out to the mission field with us, but something tells me this argument isn't likely to go away. The entire witness of Christian History tells me that no matter how committed we are, we will still have strong theological disagreements, and if it's on a matter that is of particular importance and/or weight to us, we'll continue to have these fights- we just might start having them while teaming up on ladle duty at the local soup kitchen...

I'm not really seeing where we disagree here. I'll be happy to argue theology on naznet, but not with old DSs.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm not really seeing where we disagree here. I'll be happy to argue theology on naznet, but not with old DSs.

your final line in the post was "If we did this, we wouldn't have time to be drawn into arguments over the "correct" way to talk to God." As I read that, I got the impression that you were saying that if we were out ministering as we should be, we wouldn't be discussing/debating/going to war over theology. Basically, I was saying that I agree with you about the need for refocusing, I just don't think it would bring about the result described in the sentence I quoted above... at least not as I read it.

[Wayne Paul]

The whole CN in conjunction and the subject letter reminds me too much of what I lived through during my youth which led to split and formation of the Bible Missionary Church. In both cases the CofN was/is being accused with loosing the vision of its' founders and loosing the moral, behavior and spiritual compass. In addition both conflicts tried/try to return to the denomination to a perceived doctrine and code of conduct of the past which never existed, or at the best was regional.

I am afraid that like the 1950s split a generation of youth may again be lost due to the decent, bickering and disrespect displayed by members on both sides of the divide. This type of situation in the Church is much like a divorce. It is the youth that suffers no mater who is "right."

[Rich Schmidt]

here's as much of it as I could find: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1LlVV3AOv7-E9drmL0nQ_4fpMDymjE_4guQ5B3ZOdHlA&hl=en

I have the whole thing in my inbox, if you want the rest. (I'm assuming that's your Google Doc you linked to.)

I'm subscribed to Manny's blog, so whenever there's a new post, I get it in my email. Honestly, I haven't bothered to read the whole thing yet. I saw where it was headed and started skimming.

And, once again, I'm grateful for my own DS.

[Rich Schmidt]

Orville Jenkins, Jr. is a good example of that. He has written such letters and attacked college professors based on his own personal opinions. For one example of the result of his letter writing campaigns, see Did Jesus Have to Die? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdie.html). (This can be documented.)

What's the connection between that article and Orville Jenkins, Jr.? I'm not seeing it.

[Rich Schmidt]

Jenkins two letters can be found at:


http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/aprilletter.html

http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/julyletter.html

Most of this thread is concerned with the July letter, but it references the April letter. Both are quite long.

When I first clicked the links, the website wasn't responding. Now it's responding, and I have both letters. Thanks, Paul. :)

[Dennis Bratcher]

[
What's the connection between that article and Orville Jenkins, Jr.? I'm not seeing it.

Thanks for asking.

As I posted in a follow up, we restored the original article to the CRI/Voice site last weekend. When the article was first posted, shortly after Dr. Tashjian had responded in a similar way to a question in Holiness Today, Orville Jenkins, Jr., wrote a strong letter of complaint to the SNU college president (note that Rev. Jenkins is not on the SNU educational zone). After talking to Dr. Tashjian and consulting members of our board, to avoid possible recriminations (of which there is a history at SNU dating back at least to 1960s) and to calm the waters we decided to pull the article.

Dr. Tashjian also presented an expanded version of that article at a Wesleyan Theological Society meeting (The Death of Jesus: Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained? (http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html)). That has remained online the entire time and has received almost no complaint except from predestinarian Southern Baptists.

One of the crucial factors in such situations (and those to which I referred earlier) that tends to get ignored is the qualifications of those who are speaking. Dr. Tashjian has spent most of his ministry in education, including teaching and supervising a school in Jordan. He has pastored, spent eight years as a missionary in Taiwan, and earned a PhD in New Testament studies from a top level school. He is an expert in New Testament Greek, specializes in Jesus studies, and has authored articles and commentaries on the Gospels. That does not make him right. But it gives him some authority to speak from an informed position without being subjected to attacks from a DS with, I suspect, far less qualifications to speak on the topic (the same can be said for J. K. Warrick's attack on Dr. Tashjian and SNU for the same response in HT).

I recall Randy Maddox' comment about preferring to defend his head rather than his heart (as a reason for becoming UMC). Somewhere we need to learn the implications of that statement in the context of a community of Faith. Otherwise there is no community at all, but just individuals fighting for control of a small puddle.


Matt 12:25 . . . Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand."

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Pettigrew]

your final line in the post was "If we did this, we wouldn't have time to be drawn into arguments over the "correct" way to talk to God." As I read that, I got the impression that you were saying that if we were out ministering as we should be, we wouldn't be discussing/debating/going to war over theology. Basically, I was saying that I agree with you about the need for refocusing, I just don't think it would bring about the result described in the sentence I quoted above... at least not as I read it.

Well, it takes two to argue (unless you talk back to the voices in your head). What if we just didn't fight back?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well, it takes two to argue (unless you talk back to the voices in your head). What if we just didn't fight back?

I don't think this is an argument. It's not a playground fight over toys.

I addressed (actually repeated) what I think is at stake in this post (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?1305-Praying-for-those-that-persecute-us&p=19135)another thread.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

Well, it takes two to argue (unless you talk back to the voices in your head). What if we just didn't fight back?

There's a right way and a wrong way to fight back, but I don't think the right way is to say/do nothing. If I believe fundamentalists are gravely mistaken, and their behaviors/actions/theology are not in line with the Church of the Nazarene, but I (and you, and others...) choose not to respond, those who are pushing it on our denomination will continue to do so, and without a response of any kind, others will be taken in. If I/we do not engage them directly, we'll be attacked and ridiculed for being sneaky and undermining. It appears to me that direct engagement is really the only way to respond.

[David Pettigrew]

There's a right way and a wrong way to fight back, but I don't think the right way is to say/do nothing. If I believe fundamentalists are gravely mistaken, and their behaviors/actions/theology are not in line with the Church of the Nazarene, but I (and you, and others...) choose not to respond, those who are pushing it on our denomination will continue to do so, and without a response of any kind, others will be taken in. If I/we do not engage them directly, we'll be attacked and ridiculed for being sneaky and undermining. It appears to me that direct engagement is really the only way to respond.

I'll have to think about this. Part of me feels like if we're going about the mission, there's no need to engage with enemies unless confronted directly. As for those who might only get one side of the story, well, God loves them more than even we do.

The other part of me sees those whose professions are at stake suffering attack, and wants to do everything I can to combat that.

I have no control over whether the average laymen might or might not get to hear my "side" as opposed to something they read on the internet, so I'm unconcerned with this. For me, the only reason to engage in this discussion is for purposes of edification (like here on naznet) and standing up for those facing attack. Responding to this denominational official's email does not fall under those categories to me, as nothing I say would persuade him to think otherwise, and as far as I know he's not going after anyone's job (in this instance.) I have written letters in the past on behalf of colleagues whose jobs were on the line.

I guess I'm saying that responding to the blogs, etc is a waste of time when we could be sowing in the good ground. It also drains our energies for the important battles.

But I am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong and you are right.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

There's a right way and a wrong way to fight back, but I don't think the right way is to say/do nothing. If I believe fundamentalists are gravely mistaken, and their behaviors/actions/theology are not in line with the Church of the Nazarene, but I (and you, and others...) choose not to respond, those who are pushing it on our denomination will continue to do so, and without a response of any kind, others will be taken in. If I/we do not engage them directly, we'll be attacked and ridiculed for being sneaky and undermining. It appears to me that direct engagement is really the only way to respond.

I have to respectfully disagree here, Shea. Let me clarify that my natural response would be the same as yours seems to be here: direct confrontation over edging around an issue or pretending it isn't there. The problem is, in my own experience and in observing my father trying the same method for most of my life, I have found that this response makes me feel better far more often than it proves relationally beneficial. I agree that we do not want to merely lay down and play dead, and I agree that we do not want to be - or even appear to be - sneaky and undermining, but I do not believe that the only alternative is a direct confrontation, nor do I believe that a direct confrontation would do a whole lot of good past allowing us to get our hurt off of our chests.

While the person/group of people in question may not have written anything about me thus far, they have written unkindly about people I love and about positions I hold to be true. However, while I know how much those unkind words may hurt my friends, I also know that my friends are not defined nor controlled by those words, but by God's love. I have seen this to be true time and time again. In addition to this, if I've been taught anything by my friends and my father's friends here on NazNet, it's that everyone, bar none, seeks to be loved and valued. While I may not agree with how well some people are acting this search out in practice, I will not deny that it is there. It seems to me, then, that the question is not "how do we deal with these people who believe and behave differently than us," but rather "how do we love them in a way that seems like love both to us and to them?" I won't pretend to have a good answer to this question, but I think it is best if we frame the question in that way, lest we forget what our goal here is and face yet another split in the church.

If what we, as Nazarenes (Concerned or Emergent seems irrelevant here), are doing is bringing about hurt, disunity, and an us-them attitude, then it simply is not love, and therefore I must conclude that it is not like Christ. If our conversations with others within the Church of the Nazarene bring about so much hurt and anger, then how are we to speak with, or heaven forbid for the Church universal? How can we show Christ to those who don't know Him if we can't even agree on how to show Christ to each other?

[Shea Zellweger]

I have to respectfully disagree here, Shea. Let me clarify that my natural response would be the same as yours seems to be here: direct confrontation over edging around an issue or pretending it isn't there. The problem is, in my own experience and in observing my father trying the same method for most of my life, I have found that this response makes me feel better far more often than it proves relationally beneficial. I agree that we do not want to merely lay down and play dead, and I agree that we do not want to be - or even appear to be - sneaky and undermining, but I do not believe that the only alternative is a direct confrontation, nor do I believe that a direct confrontation would do a whole lot of good past allowing us to get our hurt off of our chests.

While the person/group of people in question may not have written anything about me thus far, they have written unkindly about people I love and about positions I hold to be true. However, while I know how much those unkind words may hurt my friends, I also know that my friends are not defined nor controlled by those words, but by God's love. I have seen this to be true time and time again. In addition to this, if I've been taught anything by my friends and my father's friends here on NazNet, it's that everyone, bar none, seeks to be loved and valued. While I may not agree with how well some people are acting this search out in practice, I will not deny that it is there. It seems to me, then, that the question is not "how do we deal with these people who believe and behave differently than us," but rather "how do we love them in a way that seems like love both to us and to them?" I won't pretend to have a good answer to this question, but I think it is best if we frame the question in that way, lest we forget what our goal here is and face yet another split in the church.

If what we, as Nazarenes (Concerned or Emergent seems irrelevant here), are doing is bringing about hurt, disunity, and an us-them attitude, then it simply is not love, and therefore I must conclude that it is not like Christ. If our conversations with others within the Church of the Nazarene bring about so much hurt and anger, then how are we to speak with, or heaven forbid for the Church universal? How can we show Christ to those who don't know Him if we can't even agree on how to show Christ to each other?

Based on your and Dave's responses here, I think I should clarify some:
I'm not saying I will be going after Orville Jenkins directly in this instance. He did not write the letter to me or to those in my charge, nor did he mention me anywhere in the text of either letter. I don't see anything that says he'll be seeking to get people removed from schools and churches in this instance. This specific email is Dr. Jenkins expressing an opinion, and it's his right to hold that opinion.

Where I think direct interaction (perhaps "confrontation" is not the best word here) is necessary is when we are being called into direct conflict. This could be a one-on-one thing, such as those of us who are pastors having our positions challenged on theological grounds. It could be larger scale, such as last summer when there was a resolution on the table to make our article of faith on Scripture a more fundamentalist one. It could be something brought on by the new media- let's face it, there have been times where one of the top 10 page results on google/bing/etc. when searching for my name was about how heretical I am, and the other 9 were articles about my great uncle. This is a public address, and merits a public response. Do I need to go and hunt down everwhere that a person says something negative about "Emergents"? My goodness no! But if someone's seeking to specifically undermine my ministry, or the values of our churches or universities, then not addressing it in some way does a disservice to those who are being influenced or impacted by the attacks that are happening regularly.

[John Dahl]

You know why the church is booming in India, China, Africa, and South America? Because the people are mostly poor, powerless, and uneducated - those whom Jesus especially loves. You know why the church is declining in North America? Because we mostly ignore the poor, powerless, and uneducated. We may give them a handout, but we sure don't often make them our "ministry target group" (this is generally reserved for young professionals w/elementary aged children) or elect them to our boards.

David,

Did you really mean to say that Jesus "especially" loves one group of people more than another? If so, do you have a scriptural argument to back that statement up and if so, could you share it with me?

[Steve Reece]

Kevin, you didn't really think that there were only a couple of people like Manny and friends doing this? Of course they have roots in the CotN! Way too many never understood what our church is about, and confused Enlightenment thinking with sound Wesleyan theology. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are (former) GS's who think like that. So to me it's all the same.
About this, you are right.


And the conversation is useless.
About this you are wrong.

I was pretty fundamentalist in the 90s. Had I not been in conversation with people more graceful than I, I would today likely find myself right at home with the destructive behavior and doctrine being talked about here. Hans, you were part of that conversation, as was Barbara, Dennis (in person at NTS, what I pain I was early on in his class), and others here on NazNet, CRIVoice, and at NTS for the short time I attended.

[Rich Schmidt]

I was pretty fundamentalist in the 90s. Had I not been in conversation with people more graceful than I, I would today likely find myself right at home with the destructive behavior and doctrine being talked about here. Hans, you were part of that conversation, as was Barbara, Dennis (in person at NTS, what I pain I was early on in his class), and others here on NazNet, CRIVoice, and at NTS for the short time I attended.

That's the same reason that I continue to try to have constructive conversations with Manny and others on his blog. Because my story is much the same. I thank God for those (particularly at ONU, then also at NTS) who were gracious with me as I was learning more about the Bible, Christian history, theology, etc. -- learning those things that provide the much-needed context for better understanding what the Bible says, what we believe, where we fit in the broader Christian family, etc.

I also thank God that the web, blogging, Facebook, etc., wasn't around during that period in my life. I shudder to think what I might have shouted from the electronic rooftops...

[Shea Zellweger]

David,

Did you really mean to say that Jesus "especially" loves one group of people more than another? If so, do you have a scriptural argument to back that statement up and if so, could you share it with me?

Would you prefer "special concern" for the poor? The Gospel does seem to show preference to the poor. Jesus in the synagogue said "The spirit of the lord is upon me to... preach good news to the poor," while in regard to the rich young ruler he said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." In the beatitudes of Luke, we read "blessed are you who are poor," yet "woe to you who are rich." In Luke 12, Jesus instructs the disciples to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor. Luke 14 shows us Jesus instructing his host to not invite rich people to his banquets, but the poor, the cripple, etc. The only verses in all of the Gospels where Jesus speaks about the poor and does not show them special favor is the same quote- "you will always have the poor with you," and the context of the verse is a woman lavishing rich gifts upon Jesus. Since he told his disciples that "whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me," and he is no longer with us, even that lavishing of rich gifts upon Jesus now just brings us right back to the poor.

Loves them more? Perhaps not. But I don't think there's any way around the fact that Jesus promoted special treatment for the poor.

[Ryan Plott]

Would you prefer "special concern" for the poor? The Gospel does seem to show preference to the poor. Jesus in the synagogue said "The spirit of the lord is upon me to... preach good news to the poor," while in regard to the rich young ruler he said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." In the beatitudes of Luke, we read "blessed are you who are poor," yet "woe to you who are rich." In Luke 12, Jesus instructs the disciples to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor. Luke 14 shows us Jesus instructing his host to not invite rich people to his banquets, but the poor, the cripple, etc. The only verses in all of the Gospels where Jesus speaks about the poor and does not show them special favor is the same quote- "you will always have the poor with you," and the context of the verse is a woman lavishing rich gifts upon Jesus. Since he told his disciples that "whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me," and he is no longer with us, even that lavishing of rich gifts upon Jesus now just brings us right back to the poor.

Loves them more? Perhaps not. But I don't think there's any way around the fact that Jesus promoted special treatment for the poor.

Right on Shea. NT is also pretty clear that Jesus shows special concern for the church also, but then again the church is supposed to be "poor in spirit" so what I'm saying might be redundant.

[Shea Zellweger]

Right on Shea. NT is also pretty clear that Jesus shows special concern for the church also, but then again the church is supposed to be "poor in spirit" so what I'm saying might be redundant.

Or it could be that special bond of "marriage"- you know, "the church is the bride of Christ" and all that jazz. There is a special favor for those numbered among the children of God, but even among those children there is still an additional concern for those who are less fortunate.

[Hans Deventer]

About this you are wrong.

I don't think so, because I didn't say it is useless to talk to fundamentalists in general, but to these specific people. Steve, even our Lord could not change the mind of some people in His day, who am I to think I could? Some did change when confronted, like Paul, most rather got rid of Him.

But, if there's even a tenth of an inch of room, I'm very willing to engage in discussions for as long as it takes.

[John Brickley]

Just to give you a sense of the willingness to talk and the integrity of the Concerned/Reformed Nazarenes Manny deliberately missquoted me and then proceeded to attempt to speak for me in his latest blog post, then when I sent in a response to correct the error he refused to publish that response (he did fix the spot where he missquoted me but did nothing to change where he completely misrepresented what I was saying). He responded by stating that it is a waste of time to debate with "emergents" (which by the way I have stated repeatedly that I am not). It is certainly easier to shout insults and character assisnations from a distance than it is to have the courage to enter into a real conversation.

On another note Rich has made a concerted good faith effort to build bridges with Manny and establish lines of communication with him, but here is the response to that:


Ok so Rich is nice and polite. That’s great but he is just as mislead as many from naz net.

Check out what Rich says over at naz net
(Posted by Steve Reece
I was pretty fundamentalist in the 90s. Had I not been in conversation with people more graceful than I, I would today likely find myself right at home with the destructive behavior and doctrine being talked about here. Hans, you were part of that conversation, as was Barbara, Dennis (in person at NTS, what I pain I was early on in his class), and others here on NazNet, CRIVoice, and at NTS for the short time I attended.)

Rich then says-
That’s the same reason that I continue to try to have constructive conversations with Manny and others on his blog. Because my story is much the same. I thank God for those (particularly at ONU, then also at NTS) who were gracious with me as I was learning more about the Bible, Christian history, theology, etc. — learning those things that provide the much-needed context for better understanding what the Bible says, what we believe, where we fit in the broader Christian family, etc.end quote

Sorry folks Rich is a nice guy but he is here to deceive.
He is here to convince you that your position is wrong.
These guys are thanking God they unlearned scripture and were deceived.

CRI Voice-Dennis Bratcher-are you kidding me that guy has no clue what scripture teaches and promotes this article-
Bratcher on NazNet: “Dr. Tashjian also presented an expanded version of that article at a Wesleyan Theological Society meeting (The Death of Jesus: Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained?). That has remained online the entire time and has received almost no complaint except from predestinarian Southern Baptists.

One of the crucial factors in such situations (and those to which I referred earlier) that tends to get ignored is the qualifications of those who are speaking. Dr. Tashjian has spent most of his ministry in education, including teaching and supervising a school in Jordan. He has pastored, spent eight years as a missionary in Taiwan, and earned a PhD in New Testament studies from a top level school. He is an expert in New Testament Greek, specializes in Jesus studies, and has authored articles and commentaries on the Gospels. That does not make him right. But it gives him some authority to speak from an informed position without being subjected to attacks from a DS with, I suspect, far less qualifications to speak on the topic (the same can be said for J. K. Warrick’s attack on Dr. Tashjian and SNU for the same response in HT).”
end comment

Dr. Tashjian’s article is straight up heresy but we should believe Dr Tashjian because he is educated?
Tashjian has no idea what God’s Word teaches, his article shows that.
Plus we should not believe JK Warrick because he doesn’t have the education to give a good response?
What?
Don’t fall for this ploy.
The apostles except for Paul were simple men hardly any education at all.
Surely not stupid though because they were taught by Jesus.
Rich may be a nice guy and that’s great.
But don’t believe what he has to say. Look again at his statement on why he is here.
Come on folks wake up.

Don’t fall for this deception.
In my opinion Dennis Bratcher is a false teacher because of what he writes and promotes.
Dennis does not rightly divide the word of God.
Rich may just be deceived but don’t believe him.
Read Rich’s words again.
Read it in context on why he is here.

He may be a nice wolf.
But he is still a wolf.
Tim


The lack of integrity shown and the attacking spirit demonstrated make it extremely difficult if not impossible to have any meaningful conversation with Manny or Tim at all. I think we serve the church best by endevoring to demonstrate a graceful alternative to the kind of cultish legalism shown by these two. For me personally it is frightening where they are going and it is even more frightening how many people are taking them seriously.

[Rich Schmidt]

On another note Rich has made a concerted good faith effort to build bridges with Manny and establish lines of communication with him, but here is the response to that:

Tim Wirth isn't my biggest fan. :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

One cannot have a conversation with Tim. I tried last year on several occasions and they always degraded into ad hominems (and I do fall into such). But there may still be value in discussing the issues, just no value in getting baited into one on one battle with Tim or Manny. These men are rigid in their thinking and out to change everyone to their narrow view of scripture. While I fully believe there is a complete lack of love in the tactics they use, I do consider them brothers in Christ.

[David Pettigrew]

David,

Did you really mean to say that Jesus "especially" loves one group of people more than another? If so, do you have a scriptural argument to back that statement up and if so, could you share it with me?

Yes I did mean to say that. Yes I do have scriptural support. No, I don't believe it would be helpful to share it. Please see my other posts in this thread for my reasoning. God bless!

[Kevin Rector]

This thread began as a discussion of a letter circulated by a District Superintendent. It has degenerated into a thread about Manny and Tim. Manny and Tim have shown themselves to have a caustic spirit in line with the great Inquisition. They are un-credentialed, have no authority in the church, have established themselves as the supreme arbiters of truth and theology, have consistently shown no willingness to generously or graciously engage their opponents and perceived opponents, perpetually exhibit malicious guilt-by-associate, do a lot of name calling, and in Tim's case aren't even Nazarene. I think it is unfruitful to engage them directly and I think we should just disengage.

Orville Jenkins Jr. on the other hand is a District Superintendent. He may be (and most likely is) very much in the minority of District Superintendents and Nazarenes with his views (let's not forget that the proposed changes to make Article 4 more fundamentalist was soundly defeated). But he deserves our respect by virtue of his position and is categorically different than Manny and Tim.

Let's stop talking about Manny and Tim and engage the actual topic of the thread.

[Andy Mistak]

Orville Jenkins Jr. on the other hand is a District Superintendent. He may be (and most likely is) very much in the minority of District Superintendents and Nazarenes with his views (let's not forget that the proposed changes to make Article 4 more fundamentalist was soundly defeated). But he deserves our respect by virtue of his position and is categorically different than Manny and Tim.

Let's stop talking about Manny and Tim and engage the actual topic of the thread.

OK Dr Jenkins has attempted to de-legitimize theological positions to the left of him by inferring that they may lead to political positions to the left of him. He has, in effect made agreement with a conservative political point of view a litmus test for the orhodoxy of theological views and individual christians, and someone who makes a statement like that is not deserving of my respect, regardless of his title or credentials. If I can't be a political progressive in the Church of the Nazarene, and he's saying that I can't, I can't be a part of Church of the Nazarene.

[Ryan Plott]

Or it could be that special bond of "marriage"- you know, "the church is the bride of Christ" and all that jazz. There is a special favor for those numbered among the children of God, but even among those children there is still an additional concern for those who are less fortunate.

Sure. You can see Christ's intentional action all through the NT to set up a community modeled after himself which he calls his bride. I would just say that special favor towards those who are within the church is different in substance than those outside. A husband doesn't love his wife the same as he loves the wife of his next door neighbor(hopefully) and Christ's actions in setting up this community seems to show he has a special concern for those inside it. We love those more who we spend time with, it's just natural. As the worshiping community, the church has the privilege of spending more time in communion with Christ than those outside it.

[Tim Bourland]

Orville Jenkins Jr. on the other hand is a District Superintendent. He may be (and most likely is) very much in the minority of District Superintendents and Nazarenes with his views (let's not forget that the proposed changes to make Article 4 more fundamentalist was soundly defeated). But he deserves our respect by virtue of his position and is categorically different than Manny and Tim.

It seems to me that he may have been rebuffed by those to whom he reports so he's resorted to a letter writing campaign. Respect not only comes by position, but by practice.

[Craig Laughlin]

Sure. You can see Christ's intentional action all through the NT to set up a community modeled after himself which he calls his bride. I would just say that special favor towards those who are within the church is different in substance than those outside. A husband doesn't love his wife the same as he loves the wife of his next door neighbor(hopefully) and Christ's actions in setting up this community seems to show he has a special concern for those inside it. We love those more who we spend time with, it's just natural. As the worshiping community, the church has the privilege of spending more time in communion with Christ than those outside it.

I think conceiving of God's love as a quantifiable thing which one group can have more or less of is problematic at best. I think God loves both those inside and outside, those with lots of extra and those with not enough. However I would venture that his love is expressed based on the loved one's needs. Because each group has different needs the expression of the love looks different. The analogy I prefer is the parental one. (Biblically - Father/Son) I love both of my children the same but because they are different it is expressed differently. One of the ways my son and I show love is via Paintball. (Nothing says I love you like a welt) My daughter on the other hand needs to receive love differently. To extend the analogy, if one of them were gravely ill I would express love in ways that would involve a lot of time and attention. From the outside it might look like I love that child more but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. It would just be that the ill child needed to receive my love in a different way.

- Way off track from the thread but thanks for making me think about this.

[Rich Schmidt]

It seems to me that he may have been rebuffed by those to whom he reports so he's resorted to a letter writing campaign. Respect not only comes by position, but by practice.

Hmm... It doesn't sound like he's been rebuffed, according to his July letter (the main letter under discussion here).


I am grateful for the response from the board of general superintendents to my initial letter. They, too, identify with many of the concerns I and others share, have asked a number of people to partner with them in discussion about the needs, and even have some initiatives presently underway. In a reply to them I have submitted some suggestions for their consideration...

[Kevin Rector]

It seems to me that he may have been rebuffed by those to whom he reports so he's resorted to a letter writing campaign. Respect not only comes by position, but by practice.

While my purely anecdotal observation is that those who engage in a letter writing campaign are often on the margins and feel threatened and often don't have the support of their superiors, it should be noted that your observation is really just conjecture.


OK Dr Jenkins has attempted to de-legitimize theological positions to the left of him by inferring that they may lead to political positions to the left of him. He has, in effect made agreement with a conservative political point of view a litmus test for the orthodoxy of theological views and individual Christians, and someone who makes a statement like that is not deserving of my respect, regardless of his title or credentials. If I can't be a political progressive in the Church of the Nazarene, and he's saying that I can't, I can't be a part of Church of the Nazarene.

I don't have to agree with those placed in authority in the church in order to be able to respect them. I don't agree 100% with everything my DS says, but I certainly respect him immensely. You must keep in mind that Dr. Jenkins is an authority and his office deserves respect, but unless you are on his district he has zero say in whether or not you get to be a Nazarene (I suppose he could file a formal complaint but that would be exceedingly unlikely and it would be even less unlikely to be successful). His position dictates that we give him a serious listen, it does not dictate that we agree with him, nor does it dictate that we do not actively work to counteract his position where it is mistaken.

[Craig Laughlin]

His position dictates that we give him a serious listen, it does not dictate that we agree with him, nor does it dictate that we do not actively work to counteract his position where it is mistaken.

I think this is right on the money. I welcome Dr. Jenkins to the discussion because unlike CN's he can be held accountable for both the substance and style of his communications. I believe that a respectful, careful dialog on the issues will move the conversation in the direction I hold but even if it does not at least the church can have a discussion that is Christ honoring or rebuff those in authority that choose destructive worldly ways of engaging their brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am not concerned about him writing letters to other DS's. I think DS's should communicate with one another and with the clergy as well as the lay people of the church. The fact that he did this in written form, which he knows can and probably will be made public is greatly superior in my opinion to quiet conversations and arm twisting in back rooms and hallways.

From my perspective, this is where we cut the CN's out of the conversation because they practice a sub-Christian form of dialog and conflict resolution. Their position is now publicly represented by an accountable official in our denomination. He is the face of the issue. Hurray, let the dialog begin and let all honor one another as brother's and sisters in Christ.

[Rich Schmidt]

Some quick observations, having just read through both the April letter (http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/aprilletter.html) and the July letter (http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/julyletter.html). (Thanks again, Paul, for the links!) These aren't my only observations or thoughts on the matter, but I don't have much time!

April letter:

1. He's received 5 or 6 letters in 2010 from pastors on his district expressing concerns about where we're going as a denomination, specifically related to emergent church issues.

2. The House Studio is a hush-hush project? Then why have I heard so much about it the past two years?

3. Three pastors on his district have expressed reservations about sending their children to Nazarene colleges.

I think it's important to remember that Rev. Jenkins is responding in part to concerns expressed by the pastors on his district. I don't know how large his district is, but he has had several of them express significant concern.


July letter:

His view seems to be that we Nazarenes are (or should be) to the right of / more conservative than "mainline evangelical Christianity" (as epitomized by the Catalyst West conference). I was always taught that we Nazarenes are "evangelical but not fundamentalist," which would actually make us slightly to the left of / more liberal than most of what is today considered an increasingly fundamentalist American evangelicalism. Theologically speaking, anyway. Perhaps this illustrates a tension between the "Wesleyan" and "holiness" parts of our Wesleyan-holiness identity.

He really seems to confuse theological liberalism with political/social liberalism.

It's interesting that he concludes by referring to Acts 15:8-9 ("God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.") I think some emergent/liberal-leaning Nazarenes would hope that Rev. Jenkins would recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives and accept them as brothers and fellow Nazarenes, just as the Jerusalem church accepted the Gentile converts.

(BTW, I keep referring to him as "brother Jenkins" partly because I don't know what other title to use. Is he Dr. Jenkins? Or perhaps I should use Rev. Jenkins?)

Edited: I changed "brother Jenkins" to "Rev. Jenkins" after someone let me know in a Private Message that "brother Jenkins" might come across in a way I wasn't intending.

[Bob Hunter]

This thread began as a discussion of a letter circulated by a District Superintendent. It has degenerated into a thread about Manny and Tim. Manny and Tim have shown themselves to have a caustic spirit in line with the great Inquisition. They are un-credentialed, have no authority in the church, have established themselves as the supreme arbiters of truth and theology, have consistently shown no willingness to generously or graciously engage their opponents and perceived opponents, perpetually exhibit malicious guilt-by-associate, do a lot of name calling, and in Tim's case aren't even Nazarene. I think it is unfruitful to engage them directly and I think we should just disengage.

Orville Jenkins Jr. on the other hand is a District Superintendent. He may be (and most likely is) very much in the minority of District Superintendents and Nazarenes with his views (let's not forget that the proposed changes to make Article 4 more fundamentalist was soundly defeated). But he deserves our respect by virtue of his position and is categorically different than Manny and Tim.

Let's stop talking about Manny and Tim and engage the actual topic of the thread.

Kevin,

As one who has taken his share of bruises from Tim & Manny, I totally agree. It is tempting to respond, but I am refraining from doing so and I am encouraging others to disengage completely. I know Rich has a great heart and sincerely desires constructive dialog, but it is not possible. Jesus talked about dusting our feet off, exercising the sacrament of failure. Lets face it, we have tried to engage Tim & Manny in a constructive way and we have failed. (I personally take responsibility for some of the failure...I said things in ways that didn't always help the dialog) I don't know anyone who has succeeded though, do you? So what makes us think that the 264th time (or attempt) is going to be any different? I just think it is time to give it up, and stun them with our silence.

[James Diggs]

This thread began as a discussion of a letter circulated by a District Superintendent. It has degenerated into a thread about....

Orville Jenkins Jr. on the other hand is a District Superintendent. He may be (and most likely is) very much in the minority of District Superintendents and Nazarenes with his views (let's not forget that the proposed changes to make Article 4 more fundamentalist was soundly defeated). But he deserves our respect by virtue of his position and is categorically different ....



I don't have to agree with those placed in authority in the church in order to be able to respect them. I don't agree 100% with everything my DS says, but I certainly respect him immensely. You must keep in mind that Dr. Jenkins is an authority and his office deserves respect, but unless you are on his district he has zero say in whether or not you get to be a Nazarene (I suppose he could file a formal complaint but that would be exceedingly unlikely and it would be even less unlikely to be successful). His position dictates that we give him a serious listen, it does not dictate that we agree with him, nor does it dictate that we do not actively work to counteract his position where it is mistaken.

I received an email forwarded to me in April called "What Say You?" from Orville Jenkins, Jr. It was addressed to 30 DS's whom Jenkins refers to as "trusted friends". Obviously someone in this group he sent the email to leaked the email to others. Regardless, I appeared to have received a copy of the email that Jenkins refers to have followed up with at the link provided in this thread.

I have not read through the whole thread, frankly I was avoiding it because I thought it was about others I am tired of talking about, but Kevin points out this isn't what the topic was about. But it does seem the source of the letter as public domain does come from HERE (http://nazarenepsalm113.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/district-superintendent-speaks-out-by-manny-silva/).

My question is was this letter meant for the public? It is clear that the original email that it was following up was not meant for the public. I never mentioned them in public or passed them on because of this.

It appears now that the letter has been removed, and a lot of posturing is being done where it was posted self righteously "defending" Orville Jenkins Jr from criticism- but did they have permission to post a private email (likely not originally addressed to them) to begin with?

If not- shame on them for using a private email to advance their agenda.

But also, if it was not meant for the public what should our responsibility be in how we respond?

Kevin brings up a good point that the authority of Jenkins' office deserves respect, and he also deserves respect for being a human being.

I am not standing in judgment of the thread; I am not qualified, have failed too often in the past myself, and don't have all the information. I haven't read the letter in question (it appears to be gone) and I have no idea about whether it was intended for the public or not. I also am not sure now that it is public what the right response is.

I am just trying to tread carefully out of respect, especially if that respect has been already violated by the ones who posted what may have been a private email not meant for them. If so, despite finding someone they believe to sympathies with them about their fears they may have betrayed him by using the letter. This would again show that they do not know the difference between being "right" (as in having all the "right" answers) and the righteousness that God calls us all to in the way we are to love him and our neighbors.

I just want to make sure that our conversation moves us toward righteousness rather than just arguing for the "right" position or answers too.

[James Diggs]

Some quick observations, having just read through both the April letter (http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/aprilletter.html) and the July letter (http://www.ashworthavenueneighbors.com/julyletter.html). Thanks again, Paul, for the links!)

Yes thanks for the links. The April letter is the same that I had gotten, but it did not seem to be for the public. But, it looks like the July Letter is "To Whom It May Concern" so perhaps it was intended to for anyone in the public.

So I guess we can disregard that aspect of the concern I expressed in my last post. It can even be deleted.

[Ryan Scott]

My question is was this letter meant for the public? It is clear that the original email that it was following up was not meant for the public. I never mentioned them in public or passed them on because of this.




I've been a little worried about this as well. Has anyone contacted him to see if it was intended for public viewing? If not, perhaps we should remove it and links to it from this site. It seems only fair. I certainly have a different vocabulary when speaking in private than I might use in public and would not want to be inadvertently on the other end of this situation.

[James Diggs]

I've been a little worried about this as well. Has anyone contacted him to see if it was intended for public viewing? If not, perhaps we should remove it and links to it from this site. It seems only fair. I certainly have a different vocabulary when speaking in private than I might use in public and would not want to be inadvertently on the other end of this situation.

Tim just emailed me to tell me they had permission from Orville himself to post the letters.

Thank you Tim :)

[Ryan Plott]

I think conceiving of God's love as a quantifiable thing which one group can have more or less of is problematic at best. I think God loves both those inside and outside, those with lots of extra and those with not enough. However I would venture that his love is expressed based on the loved one's needs. Because each group has different needs the expression of the love looks different. The analogy I prefer is the parental one. (Biblically - Father/Son) I love both of my children the same but because they are different it is expressed differently. One of the ways my son and I show love is via Paintball. (Nothing says I love you like a welt) My daughter on the other hand needs to receive love differently. To extend the analogy, if one of them were gravely ill I would express love in ways that would involve a lot of time and attention. From the outside it might look like I love that child more but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. It would just be that the ill child needed to receive my love in a different way.

- Way off track from the thread but thanks for making me think about this.

I definitely don't have a problem with saying God loves everyone or loves them in His own unique way. Thanks for the post Craig.

[Ryan Scott]

Tim just emailed me to tell me they had permission from Orville himself to post the letters.

Thank you Tim

Would it be appropriate for one of the moderators to go back and separate out the posts specifically addressing these letters?

[Rich Schmidt]

Would it be appropriate for one of the moderators to go back and separate out the posts specifically addressing these letters?

I'm not sure why they should (or if it would even be possible). But that's just my personal opinion. Sometimes when threads get pulled apart, we're left with bits that don't make sense because the context is lost.

As for the letters themselves, the second/July letter is clearly meant for public consumption. The first/April one isn't so clear... but it seems to have been pretty widely disseminated already at this point.

[Hans Deventer]

Would it be appropriate for one of the moderators to go back and separate out the posts specifically addressing these letters?

I don't know but it definitely is appropriate not to presume that a moderator reads each and every post, and therefore ask this kind of questions through PM.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know but it definitely is appropriate not to presume that a moderator reads each and every post, and therefore ask this kind of questions through PM.

I wasn't. I was hoping to get input from some other posters before making a request, but thanks for the reminder. I will be certain to use that route if the situation presents itself.

[Billy Cox]

Would it be appropriate for one of the moderators to go back and separate out the posts specifically addressing these letters?

Why would that be necessary? Maybe Jenkins is simply jonesing to be the Joseph Biden of the Nazarene world. He's well on his way.

[Dan Ross]

They're very selective. Unless you're a pastor or teacher, they ignore you. I'm the host of the Theology site for goodness sakes and I'm possibly more liberal than Shea. Yet, I've only ever gotten one shout out. I'm very Jealous about Shea. I've tried as hard as I can. I guess they just don't care about me.
:(

Perhaps they read their Bibles and find stuff. You know, like the explanation of liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.". Ecclesiastes 10:2

Go to: http://hisriches.com/hisriches/blog/responding-to-a-fool/ for a discussion of fools.

What if ... the most prolific contributors of the "theology" site were the spitting images of what they claim their oppositions, the Concerned Nazarenes, are? Close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat. uncharitable ... you know, all the things they've been called. Just thinkin'.

[Cam Pence]

Perhaps they read their Bibles and find stuff. You know, like the explanation of liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.". Ecclesiastes 10:2

Go to: http://hisriches.com/hisriches/blog/responding-to-a-fool/ for a discussion of fools.

What if ... the most prolific contributors of the "theology" site were the spitting images of what they claim their oppositions, the Concerned Nazarenes, are? Close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat. uncharitable ... you know, all the things they've been called. Just thinkin'.

Dan,
First of all, kudos to you for getting me to look at a post this old. This is probably the longest I have seen a post go domant and be brought to life again. (although, I have only been on Naznet for a little over two years.) I would say that every Christian (and human being for that matter) has it in them to be close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat, uncharitable,ect. no matter if they consider themselves to be concerned, conservative, liberal, modern, post modern, emergent, progressive, ect. and I agree with the gist of what you are saying that it is no good when this happens on either side of the fence. Since being uncharitable was mentioned, let me bring up the fact that I just finished reading, not too long ago, A Charitable Discourse by Dan Boone. Since you did not ask for a book report, I won't give you one, but one of the biggest things I took away from the book was a great sense of hope. Dr. Boone, like yourself, addresses the problem of Christians being all those things you described, but still pushes for a Body of Christ where one side is willing to talk to the other side before hitting the "heretic" button and the other side is willing to extend the same courtesy before hitting the "idiot fundamentalist" button. The book gave me hope of more Holy conversations. So I agree that it is discouraging when Christians are close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat, and uncharitable to each other, but I believe that with God's Holy Spirit at work in and through us we can learn to exchange those things for a humble spirit and treat one another like brothers and sisters, even if we disagree.

[Todd Erickson]

Perhaps they read their Bibles and find stuff. You know, like the explanation of liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.". Ecclesiastes 10:2

Go to: http://hisriches.com/hisriches/blog/responding-to-a-fool/ for a discussion of fools.

What if ... the most prolific contributors of the "theology" site were the spitting images of what they claim their oppositions, the Concerned Nazarenes, are? Close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat. uncharitable ... you know, all the things they've been called. Just thinkin'.

1. Ben isn't a moderator anymore at this point, and hasn't been for a while. Responding to the post at this late date...displays an overall disconnect with the Naznet community, and perhaps an overall wish to strike out at a member. Troubling.

2. Why couldn't this have been done as a PM, instead of as a late response to a thread that's been dead for two months? What, precisely, is being achieved here?

[Doug Ward]

I am wondering if anyone else has read a letter written by Orville Jenkins Jr. and posted on the Reformed Nazarene Blog. While the theological views are pretty much in line with what you would expect to find on that blog (both in what he is saying and the rather rambling attacking way in which he says it), it is the political slant that he brings to the discussion that I find the most troubling. There seems to be an implicit demand on the part of Rev. Jenkins that adherence to a neo conservative view of government be a mark of theological orthodoxy for the Church of the Nazarene (in fact for as much attention as he gives it, one wonders if this is not the central mark of orthodoxy for Rev. Jenkins). A good indication of this are Rev. Jenkins prescribed ways forward for the denomination. Number 3 on that list reads as follows:



The whole of the letter can be found here http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/

What I find particularly troubling (especially if Rev. Jenkins is correct) is that 30 other D.S.'s agreed with him.

So what are your impressions of what he said, and what does it say about our future as a denomination?

John

Can't believe I missed this thread earlier. This poorly-reasoned and shallow screed is not helpful, to say the least. Let me add that Rev. Jenkins has been taken to task for some of his points and he has been unwilling to discuss his letter. His response has been, "well, I can see dialogue will not help, therefore I will not carry on a conversation."

[Doug Ward]

Yes thanks for the links. The April letter is the same that I had gotten, but it did not seem to be for the public. But, it looks like the July Letter is "To Whom It May Concern" so perhaps it was intended to for anyone in the public.

So I guess we can disregard that aspect of the concern I expressed in my last post. It can even be deleted.

Perhaps most bothersome is that the July letter was sent out by some at headquarters to undermine pastors at the local church. This is unwelcome behavior.

[Dan Ross]

1. Ben isn't a moderator anymore at this point, and hasn't been for a while. Responding to the post at this late date...displays an overall disconnect with the Naznet community, and perhaps an overall wish to strike out at a member. Troubling.

2. Why couldn't this have been done as a PM, instead of as a late response to a thread that's been dead for two months? What, precisely, is being achieved here?

Ordinarily, I would not respond to a thread so old and dead. However, those letters are on one of my websites. Someone reading this thread read those letters on my website this week and I followed them back here.

I have been off NazNet for a couple of months and have no idea who's here and who's gone. Your thought that I might have "an overall wish to strike out at a member. Troubling." sounds a little paranoid to me. I can recognize paranoia when I feel it ... er, I mean see it.

I got those emails directly from Orville Jenkins. I also have a newer couple of papers published by him I got from an old missionary named Earl Mosteller. Wanna see 'em? I can scan them and post them on my web site.

By the way, I mentioned "Emergent Church" in an email to Orvile Jenkins requesting information about a prayer meeting he and a bunch of District Superintendents were involved in and he told me the prayer meeting was not about the Emergent Church, but was for the future of the denomination.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Perhaps they read their Bibles and find stuff. You know, like the explanation of liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.". Ecclesiastes 10:2

Go to: http://hisriches.com/hisriches/blog/responding-to-a-fool/ for a discussion of fools.

What if ... the most prolific contributors of the "theology" site were the spitting images of what they claim their oppositions, the Concerned Nazarenes, are? Close minded, vicious, unyielding, blind as a bat. uncharitable ... you know, all the things they've been called. Just thinkin'.

Maybe you got that backwards. Or maybe conservatives and liberals hearts incline to the right and the neo-fundi extremists incline to the left?

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps most bothersome is that the July letter was sent out by some at headquarters to undermine pastors at the local church. This is unwelcome behavior.

I don't understand. How would the July letter undermine local pastors?

[Billy Cox]

Can't believe I missed this thread earlier. This poorly-reasoned and shallow screed is not helpful, to say the least. Let me add that Rev. Jenkins has been taken to task for some of his points and he has been unwilling to discuss his letter. His response has been, "well, I can see dialogue will not help, therefore I will not carry on a conversation."

'Taken to task' implies that someone with authority over a DS did the 'taking'. I sincerely doubt that such an action would be a matter of public knowledge. Now laypeople, pastors or even DS peers could disagree with Jenkins, and that would simply be a matter of voicing non-binding objections, not taking him to task.

[Doug Ward]

I don't understand. How would the July letter undermine local pastors?

Someone complains that their pastor is "emergent" without knowing what that means, or any evidence. Then a prominent person at headquarters emails a copy of that letter with the sentiment that many share your concern. So here is the pastor of the local church lumped in with all of these shadowy, sinister forces trying to seize control of the church. This local pastor - who is quite libertarian, is all of the sudden a globalist, anti-capitalist, marxist liberal, forcing his emergent philosophy on the church.

[Bill Morrison]

Someone complains that their pastor is "emergent" without knowing what that means, or any evidence. Then a prominent person at headquarters emails a copy of that letter with the sentiment that many share your concern. So here is the pastor of the local church lumped in with all of these shadowy, sinister forces trying to seize control of the church. This local pastor - who is quite libertarian, is all of the sudden a globalist, anti-capitalist, marxist liberal, forcing his emergent philosophy on the church.


Well then, they ought to move him/her out of that church and on into a teaching position at one of our Nazarene Universities!:smile:

BILL

[Todd Erickson]

Ya gotta fear somebody.