Should the Church Change?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Lee (fictional character) notes that his community has two volleyball leagues. One is casual and laid back, winning and losing isn't stressed, etc. It's volleyball for fun. The other league is very competitive. Official refs are used and the games are very serious. It's volleyball for blood.

Lee joins the casual league and enjoys it greatly. After a couple of years his skill level and fitness have both skyrocketed. He becomes dissatisfied with the lack of rule enforcement and when a teammate misses a shot due to some horseplay antics, he gets quite upset.

What should Lee do? Seek to initiate change in his league to make it "better?" Or should he move to the other league?

Assuming that neither league is "right" and the other "wrong," and assuming that both leagues have value and purpose, it would seem to me that Lee should change leagues.

Is this analogous in any way to a denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene? Since it is a volutary association if we are disatisfied, should the church change or should we move on to a different one or even start a new one?



Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Is this analogous in any way to a denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene? Since it is a volutary association if we are disatisfied, should the church change or should we move on to a different one or even start a new one?

Well, the first question might be, will I be able to change the casual team?
Yes => don't change teams
No => second question is, can I live with that team?

Yes => don't change teams
No => change teams or start a new one

[Jamie Wayne]

What "should" someone do?

Maybe it's my honours ethics class, taught by a D.Phil from Oxford, haunting me, but when I hear the word "should", I think of the moral imperative "ought".

What "ought" someone do?

I don't think that your example sets up a moral dilemma, so I really don't think that someone "ought" to do one or the other. Staying and trying to "fix" things is morally permissible, just as leaving is morally permissible.

It depends on the situation, I think, and for some people staying is the "right" thing to do, and for others, staying would be the "wrong" thing to do, but I certainly don't think that, across the board, there is a universal moral imperative one way or the other.

Know thyself, and to thy own self be true, I'd reckon, but don't leave God's will out of the equation, either.

[Ryan Scott]

I like my denomination just the way it is: at odds with me in a number of ways and very slow to change. It keeps me humble to know I'm not in the majority on too many things and slow change is always preferable to quick change or no change at all.

As long as there is still hope for future perfection, both for me and the denomination, I'm happy to be where I am.

[Tami Martin]

In the first analogy, I'm guessing that the first team is the bar league and the second is the church league.

Lee should change teams. He chose not to join the competitive team in the first place and it was those very characteristics (no pressure, lax rules) that drew him - and likely others - to that team.

But if we're talking about church, there might be some more subtle differences. I am attending a doctrine class my pastor is teaching. I don't really need it. He promoted it as "doctrine" but it turns out it's really Nazarene indoctrination. Nothing wrong with that. But not what I signed up for. I'd rather get back to teaching my class.

At the end of the class, though, we (hubby and I) are going to come to a crisis point: join the church or not. So far, it's "not." There are some articles of faith that I can't reconcile with my own doctrine/beliefs. I am content to fellowship with this group and just stay off those topics we don't agree about. But if it's either agree or go, I'll have to go.

[Kevin Bowser]

Is this analogous in any way to a denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene? Since it is a volutary association if we are disatisfied, should the church change or should we move on to a different one or even start a new one?

This a great thread and a great analogy. If you make it analogous to the CotN, then you have to add some additional twists to it.

For instance, if we are talking CotN here, then do we believe that the CotN was like the more competitive volleyball league in the past, but now has become the old men, beer belly, league? If that is the view then there would certainly be more of a push to improve the league or bring it back to its former glory versus change leagues.

[Kevin Bowser]

Is this analogous in any way to a denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene? Since it is a volutary association if we are disatisfied, should the church change or should we move on to a different one or even start a new one?

This a great thread and a great analogy. If you make it analogous to the CotN, then you have to add some additional twists to it.

For instance, if we are talking CotN here, then do we believe that the CotN was like the more competitive volleyball league in the past, but now has become the old men, beer belly, league? If that is the view then there would certainly be more of a push to improve the league or bring it back to its former glory versus change leagues.

[Doug Cousins]

There are 2 entities here that should be asking themselves a question. The player and the team. Both have to work toward an answer. The player as to where he/she can be most effective, and the team as to whether their historical identity is more or less desireable than the diversity among them.

Doug.

[Billy Cox]

The analogy is an apt one for me. There are people who attend many different churches during their lifetime and their critique is that all of the churches were unfriendly. The common denominator of course is the person making the critique.

In my thinking about my local church, I ask myself often whether my discomfort is about the church itself or whether it is my issues. If it is the latter and I leave the church, I simply take the issues with me.

The analogy suggests that I should church-hop until I find a church that thinks I'm great, but that is not a sufficient reason to break fellowship.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I've read all the replies (up to this moment) and want to add a little to the conversation in general and to any single reply.

I've been thinking about the idea I mentioned from Blackaby's latest book that different denominations have been raised up for different reasons. Thus, a diversity of denominations is a good thing rather than a negative thing.

Back to the volleyball league analogy. The problem with a casual league player changing the league from the inside to be more serious is there is no longer a casual league which could be very important to some players or player wannabes.

Suppose the Church of the Nazarene was raised up to promote things like total abstinence with regards to alcohol or to promote the idea of ES as it is currently formulated. Given that we are voluntarily associated with the church it just seems to me like that if we see the need to promote or emphasize something different it would be better to do so in a different setting rather than call the Church of the Nazarene away from its original calling.

Our own leaders (like Sullivan, Hurn, etc) have taught us that the best way to grow a church is to start a new group. The best way to grow a district is to start a new church. The best way to grow the denomination is to start new districts. Is it unreasonable to think that perhaps the best way to grow THEE CHURCH might be through starting new denominations?

Imagine a new denomination that is emergent, teaches open theology, promotes relational holiness, has relaxed "rules" with things alcohol, etc. Otherwise, this new denomination is very Nazarene-like. Isn't it possible that the Church of the Nazarene AND a new denomination could be more effective than a single transformed Church of the Nazarene?

I guess I'm living with the tension of feeling the Church of the Nazarene as it now stands has not outlived its usefulness or misison but I also see a great need for change and something new... Isn't there a way to have both?

Wilson

[Jamie Wayne]

I certainly agree that, in a sense, diversity of denominations is a good thing, but ultimately I'd prefer diversity in denominations.

You mentioned an "emergent" church promoting open theism, etc..., but, of course, not everyone wants open theism. Yet, while I wouldn't be comfortable with an official doctrine of open theism, I would prefer more liturgy in the Nazarene church. Now we're talking about three different "Nazarene" churches, the traditional one, an open theism variety, and one focused on liturgical renewal. I guess I'm wondering where to draw the line. How many new denominations should be added to accommodate differences in peoples views and preferences?

It seems to me that it would be better to have a more open denomination that tolerates a larger variety of differences. Of course, that can have its drawbacks, too, but there is a sense where the benefits outweigh the downsides.

The Anglican church, with it's via media philosophy, allows for a very wide variety of Anglicanisms under its umbrella, from low and high church evangelical to low and high church Charismatic to low and high church Anglo-Catholic. Yet, there is only one Anglican Communion.

I would think that the Nazarene church, being a much smaller denomination, would probably suffer more greatly if there were splits, so I would tend to think that making the one Nazarene church more open is the better way to go.

Interesting topic...

[Roland Hearn]

Aghh Wilson,
What if when he joined the first team it was motivated by a powerful desire to touch people socially, it saw increased involvement as a reflection that it had genuine reason for existence and its casualness was a reflection of a deep set believe in the value of playing as an end? What if over time its purpose was distorted so that the ways it did things became an end in itself. Would it the be right to want it to change back to what it had been or leave because you didn't want it the way it was? I think that may well be a closer analogy to what many people deal with, myself included, in the CON.

[Marsha Lynn]

In my view, as soon as Lee's intensity starts to change, the league of which he is a part likewise starts to change. Instead of 50 people who are playing for fun, there are now 49 people playing for fun and one person serious about winning. The league as a whole is then slightly less casual for having Lee as a member. When he becomes upset, it will dampen the fun on his team and probably bleed over to the opposing team. His more serious spirit will have an impact on the league as a whole over time.

When you apply that to the church, you need to ask if the change that is occurring in one person will be good or bad as it changes the church. For example, if one person begins to express more concern for orphans and widows than the church has in the past, is that bad for the church? Is there a need for churches that are less concerned about widows and orphans? Should that person leave the unconcerned church behind rather than changing it by changing within it? What about the person who develops a concern for the lost souls around the church? Should that person leave the unconcerned church behind and find others who share their concern rather than mess with the ministry of the unconcerned church to its own members?

The tricky part is determining as a growing and changing servant of God when the change that is happening within oneself is inappropriate for the church as a whole. At what point as I revel in relational holiness should I recognize the need for a church which teaches a more transactional view and take myself and my relational views elsewhere?

Marsha

Lee (fictional character) notes that his community has two volleyball leagues. One is casual and laid back, winning and losing isn't stressed, etc. It's volleyball for fun. The other league is very competitive. Official refs are used and the games are very serious. It's volleyball for blood.

Lee joins the casual league and enjoys it greatly. After a couple of years his skill level and fitness have both skyrocketed. He becomes dissatisfied with the lack of rule enforcement and when a teammate misses a shot due to some horseplay antics, he gets quite upset.

What should Lee do? Seek to initiate change in his league to make it "better?" Or should he move to the other league?

Assuming that neither league is "right" and the other "wrong," and assuming that both leagues have value and purpose, it would seem to me that Lee should change leagues.

Is this analogous in any way to a denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene? Since it is a volutary association if we are disatisfied, should the church change or should we move on to a different one or even start a new one?



Wilson

[Barb Bouldrey]

Oh, no...another thread has twisted and ended up discussing the same old argument about alcohol.

Back to the original post:

Should the church change? YES, in some areas.

Will the church change? Yes, in some areas.

Has the church changed? Yes, in many areas.

When did church change begin? About 34 A.D. when the Jewish Christians wanted to demand that the Gentile Christians be circumcized. Among other issues.

Freedom of religion allows us to go to whatever church we want to and play on whatever team we desire.

If a team player loves his team and sees a need for change there are ways to lovingly pursue change. If the team does not want to change, he can either stay and set the example of what he things a team player should be, or change teams. He should not cause division in the team.

Barb

[Bob Evans]

I can't comment on the vollyball situation because I am not sure it relates directly to what I have to say about the church. I think the message of total consecration and holiness and more relevant today than they ever have been. So if the church has to change it needs to change its method and language because our message is needed.

One of the delights of my life is a Wesleyan church plant about 6 blocks from the mission. Of the 100 people attending 60% are grads of my program. They attend for two reasons.

1. They are treated well and respectfully by the church planting team. Several of them have earned the credibility to be included in the leadership of the church and were district assembly [conferance] delegates.

2. They are challanged regularily to devote their entire life to God and allow the holy spirit to teach them what that means on a daily basis.

So church please change your methods because the wordl is changing but please don't change your message.

[Ryan Scott]

I can't believe such a cool thread got sidetracked by this discussion. I very much echo Brad's statement about safety. Following Christ is a risky, unsafe thing. Ultimately we have faith in God's provision, but we're not promised that we'll feel safe or be safe all the time, in fact it's usually the opposite.

I want to go back and address Wilson's question from the second page. He asked why not form a second nazarene-like denomination. Honestly, I'd be one of those people who would resonate more with the "new" than the old, but there's a lot of reasons I wouldn't want something new.

One is community. I believe that living together and getting long with one another is the ultimate goal of Christian life. This would only divide us. That is not progress, not matter how happy each group is apart from one another.

The other reason is historical/practical. I believe the history of the Church of the Nazarene is valuable. There is much to be learned and much we must constantly keep in mind. Forming a new denomination would have us repeating the growth and development pains that have been hard fought for one hundred years. Besides, I think you'd see the "old" denomination die out pretty fast.

What we're experiencing is the inevitable passing of tradition from one generation to the next. It's tough, but it's always been tough. We've survived it before. We'll survive it again. I'm interested to see what happens with the next generation of leaders. There people in their early 50's will soon be in charge as a large number of high-up leaders will be gone over the next 24-36 months.

[Jamie Wayne]

Following Christ is a risky, unsafe thing.

Amen!

[Mike Wooldridge]

Imagine a new denomination that is emergent, teaches open theology, promotes relational holiness, has relaxed "rules" with things alcohol, etc. Otherwise, this new denomination is very Nazarene-like. Isn't it possible that the Church of the Nazarene AND a new denomination could be more effective than a single transformed Church of the Nazarene?

Sort of like NazLite...less rules...feels great

[David Pettigrew]

In the first analogy, I'm guessing that the first team is the bar league and the second is the church league.



You have to laugh to keep from crying on that statement. I absolutely detest any church sports team for this very reason. "Oh, but it's so effective in bringing in unchurched people." Yeah, until they see the adult Sunday school teacher get in a shouting match, or the associate pastor thrown out of the gym by the ref.

[Bob Carabbio]

Depends on many things. I'm not "Nazarene", of course, but the AoG is experiencing the same "change issues" on of which has been the transition from a hard-core clothesline holiness church to one resembling in most ways the average local Southern Baptist operation. same gosh-awful contemporary music, and the same order of service.

But yet, while we're growing exponentially in areas OUTSIDE the U.S. Where Clothesline rules still are more prevalent, in the U.S. where we've "liberalized". we're essentially static, and have been for over 20 years. We went stagnant when we turned away from the charismatic folks (how DARE THEY try to teach us!!!! We've been the experts since 1900!!!).

And I've personally WATCHED God come in and devastate individual churches before putting them back into a "growth mode". My present one is an example -
2003 = 250 members with an average of 200+ in attendance.
2006 = 40 members with an average attendance of 30 +/-.
NOW = 55 members with an average attendance in the 60+ range.
And a completely different "feel" to the place since the new pastor started.

Of course the example is "all about the individual" and what he wants, and "thinks" he "needs".

But the simple fact is that IF we have Jesus' "yoke" upon us, and are "learning of Him" then if that yoke directs toward another church, then that's best be the direction you head. And if you have NO IDEA what to do, then don't DO anything. Abide in the calling in which you were called.

In the final analysis long term, what happens to the Nazarene, or Assembly of God, or Baptist paradigms/organizations is supremely unimportant since the "Body of Christ", while CONTAINING folks from all of 'em - won't actually BE any of 'em at all.

I still remember when God pulled me OUT of the AoG and stuck me into the United Church of Christ - talk about culture shock - but HE was there too, so no biggie.

Naturally the folks back at the AoG thought I'd backslid - IMAGINE!!! joining a bone liberal operation like that. But I learned some VALUABLE lessons there, so a few years well spent.

[Ryan Scott]

But the simple fact is that IF we have Jesus' "yoke" upon us, and are "learning of Him" then if that yoke directs toward another church, then that's best be the direction you head.


Not that it matters for this particular comment, because it means the same either way, but the use of "yoke" in the New Testament is not the yoke we think of with oxen. It was the way they described a particular set of teachings from a rabbi. Jesus said his yoke was easy because it didn't weigh people down with tons of rules.

Wow, in fact, thinking about Bob's comment with this meaning kind of makes it even more profound to me.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Oh, no...another thread has twisted and ended up discussing the same old argument about alcohol.


Excuse my smile here, but I couldn't help but think that if someone can work the "foreknowledge of God" in here somewhere we would have the makings for the perfect storm.

We already have the "thread that would not die." Maybe we need to call alcohol discussions "the social issue that would not die." :p

[Mike Wooldridge]

I haven't read all the posts but maybe the question should be, "How do we manage change to keep what's really important?" In life the only constant is change. Any organism or organization that doesn't change and adapt to the changing enviornment will die. One thing I'd like to see emphasized for the things that are really important is WHY CotN believes or doesn't believe in ____________ fill in the blank. If you can't give a Biblical or contemporary reason, it's probably not important. For example, speaking in tongues clearly happened in the New Testament when God deemed that gift was necessary. From what I've read of the CotN founders they rejected that gift because it was seen as exterior evidence of sanctification in the Pentecostal movement. Another reason was that they felt it was disruptive to worship services. This is quite different from the "prayer language" God gives some people. If that's your gift, you should feel free to express it without making it a "holier than thou" test of others' experience.
An example of a current issue is the use of tobacco. There's no mention of tobacco in the Bible because it wasn't used, but we are advised not to use it because there is no medical evidence that it has any beneficial effects and lots of evidence of bad effects such as cancer and heart disease.
I brought up drinking alcohol in another thread and sometimes I'm sorry I did. There are things that adults do such as an occasional drink or the sexual relationship with one's spouse that are better left to individuals, and decisions in those areas should be left to those involved. The individuals in turn have the responsibility to understand what's right or wrong for them may not be the same for everyone. Any recommendations from the Church as an organization should be limited to what is Scriptural, i.e., no tobacco use because of its known effects, no alcohol abuse, no fornication or adultery. At the same time the Church should absolutely reach out to people with these problems. I've heard it said that the Church is a hospital, not a museum. I hope that never changes.

[Hans Deventer]

I haven't read all the posts but maybe the question should be, "How do we manage change to keep what's really important?"

Exactly, Mike. That is the one resolution to the GA that I am considering: "define what our essentials are (and by implication, what they are not)"

Hans

[Mike Wooldridge]

I want to change the direction of the thread. That may be like herding cats. :( Anyway, the alcohol issue appears to have hijacked the thread. I don't know, and don't really care, who does or does not drink whatever. The important question for this thread is what changes must the CotN make to fulfill our mission, remember that, in the 21st century. 'Nuff said!

[Hans Deventer]

I want to change the direction of the thread. That may be like herding cats. :( Anyway, the alcohol issue appears to have hijacked the thread. I don't know, and don't really care, who does or does not drink whatever. The important question is what changes must the CotN make to fulfill our mission, remember that, in the 21st century. 'Nuff said!

Good idea. I'll move all the alcohol related stuff to a different thread.

[Hans Deventer]

OK, considers this to be a moderator's post:

This topic is a very worthwhile one to consider. And everyone is free to join in the discussion, but the alcohol issue will not be discussed in this thread anymore. If you want to add anything that hasn't been said (good luck in finding that :basic05), you can add it at http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=13124

[Ryan Scott]

So, what then do we talk about here? Do we pick up other specifics? I think without specifics we just kinda have some people saying "yes" and others saying "no."

[David Pettigrew]

I'll jump in. Whatever changes the church makes won't be truly new, it will just be a rediscovery of our true mission and the best ways to fulfill it.

Should the church change...it's new mission statement? I think so, and here's why.

I think the church had a choice when they came out with the new mission statement - emphasize what makes us Nazarenes, or emphasize what makes us Christians. They went with what makes us Christians. We definitely should be Christian, but I think this was a mistake. As someone else said, this mission statement could be slapped on any Christian denomination.

Any group that sacrifices what makes them unique atrophies and dies. We've done away with all the bad things that made us different (legalism), but we've thrown out the baby with the bath water, as Wilson said. Why be a part of something that's no different than anybody else? That's why I think the discussion on sanctification and holiness that is currently going on is SO important. It's thirty years overdue. In trying to be just another good old evangelical denomination (I'm speaking as a North American here), we've shrunk down to insignificance. We're closing more churches than we're starting. We're having to merge districts.

In areas of the world where sanctification is emphasized (Brazil comes to mind) the CotN is exploding. Now, I don't agree with their version of sanctification, but at least it's something different than what the baptists and pentecostals are preaching.

As I've stated before, we need to recapture holiness. There's no other reason for us to be taking up space, time, money, and energy.

I think our mission statement should reflect that we are the people of holiness. Not the "holier than thou we're closer to God than you because we're sanctified and you're not" holiness, but the "Loving God and loving you the way God loves you is the most important thing in the world to us" holiness. Things like drinking alcohol will take care of themselves if we truly make holiness unto the Lord our watchword and song.

In other words, I think the church took a step backwards with it's mission statement.

[Hans Deventer]

Should the church change...it's new mission statement? I think so, and here's why.

I think the church had a choice when they came out with the new mission statement - emphasize what makes us Nazarenes, or emphasize what makes us Christians. They went with what makes us Christians.

David, it's hard to disagree with such a lovely bunny rabbit, but I certainly do. The GS's went for what holiness really meant, instead of paying lip service to merely words. And there is no higher or better definition of holiness in this world than Christlikeness.

If other churches pursue the same, may God bless them! We're not here to be different, we're here to be like Christ. Too bad if that is different, and great if it isn't!

So I am very pleased with our leadership. (Hey, how's that for a rebel like me? :basic05)

[Hans Deventer]

The important question for this thread is what changes must the CotN make to fulfill our mission, remember that, in the 21st century. 'Nuff said!

I have some ideas:


We should become a church that is defined by what we do rather than by what we don't do. That is actually essential for survival, in my view.

We should both explain and live holiness in such a way that makes sense to the 21st century. That means we'll need to deal with the reason people will sin in the first place, rather than try to prevent them to sin by writing down rules and covenants.

We should define our essentials, centre our unity among those, and leave room for the church in different cultures and situations to develop on the non-essentials according to local needs. Our new mission statement is a good start.

[Marsha Lynn]

David, it's hard to disagree with such a lovely bunny rabbit...

Yeah, it's like arguing with all the little boy and girl avatars. You just wanna say, "That's nice, dear. When you get older, maybe I'll tell you why what you just wrote is a bunch of bologna."

:basic05

[Marsha Lynn]

Well, I see that my original response (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=106978#poststop) to Wilson's question (which response had nothing to do with alcohol) got caught in the net when Hans moved the alcohol discussion to a new thread. Does that mean I can go again? :basic05

Leaving Wilson's original analogy behind and simple looking at his question: Should the church change?

The answer is, the church does indeed change. Even if it doesn't change within itself, it changes in reference to the moving culture. Today's bleeding edge, totally relevant church will look quaint and old-fashioned in 50 years if it doesn't change. Today it is totally up-to-date. Tomorrow, it will be out-of-date unless it changes.

Changing is change. Not changing is change because the environment shifts and things look (and are) different in the new environment.

The question is: HOW should the church change when it changes deliberately? I think one aspect of this question has to do with the lifting characteristic of Christianity. Others have quoted John Wesley on this subject. When people are lifted out of sin, they work more diligently and thus become wealthier and more comfortable. Their children are more educated and become leaders in the church. Pretty soon the church expects and nurtures a more wealthy and sophisticated lifestyle. I think one of the most important moves the church needs to constantly and deliberately make has to do with downward mobility. It's easy for middle-class comfortable people to forget their roots and settle for ministry to other middle-class comfortable people. Pretty soon one must be well-educated to teach Sunday School in a church that was once pastored by someone with an 8th-grade education. High school dropouts (the more modern 8th-grade educated person), no longer feel comfortable in the church and have no hope to ever be put in a place of leadership.

That's one of my questions for change in the church. How do we balance a quest for excellence and quality in leadership with a passion for lifting up the poor and oppressed and offering them new opportunities? How do we pursue downward mobility as a church?

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Well, I see that my original response (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=106978#poststop) to Wilson's question (which response had nothing to do with alcohol) got caught in the net when Hans moved the alcohol discussion to a new thread. Does that mean I can go again? :basic05

Go ahead, but I think I found it and it's back now.

[Billy Cox]

I think the church had a choice when they came out with the new mission statement - emphasize what makes us Nazarenes, or emphasize what makes us Christians. They went with what makes us Christians. We definitely should be Christian, but I think this was a mistake. As someone else said, this mission statement could be slapped on any Christian denomination.

I did a double-take when I saw this. The idea that distinctiveness or institutional survival are more important that being Christian strikes me as being just a hair's breadth from idolatry.


Any group that sacrifices what makes them unique atrophies and dies.


And what if a group discovers that their unique contribution was contrary to the spirit of Jesus...as our "contribution" in the last half of the 20th century was to a great extent? Is the group doomed? Can such a group discover a new purpose to exist? Does it have to be unique within the landscape of Christianity?


We're closing more churches than we're starting. We're having to merge districts.


You should know by now that I WILL call you to document statistics.


As I've stated before, we need to recapture holiness. There's no other reason for us to be taking up space, time, money, and energy.


On the contrary, the more that we try to recapture, reformulate, reimagine, rearticulate, reform, revise or regurgitate holiness, the more futile our efforts. The Holy Spirit defies formulas. If we could accept that holiness is a mystery on par with the Trinity and atonement, we would be in a far better place.


Things like drinking alcohol will take care of themselves if we truly make holiness unto the Lord our watchword and song.


Finally, something I can agree with...realizing that the average person under 30 probably doesn't know that you were alluding to a song.

I think that the new mission statement is a remarkable step away from paying lip service to a movement that was dying before many of us were born.

[Barbara Moulton]

I have some ideas:


We should become a church that is defined by what we do rather than by what we don't do. That is actually essential for survival, in my view.

We should both explain and live holiness in such a way that makes sense to the 21st century. That means we'll need to deal with the reason people will sin in the first place, rather than try to prevent them to sin by writing down rules and covenants.

We should define our essentials, centre our unity among those, and leave room for the church in different cultures and situations to develop on the non-essentials according to local needs. Our new mission statement is a good start.



Although I am not a Nazarene, I would like to respond because I do belong to a holiness church which is wrestling with same issues.

Looking at your point #1. That our church should become a church that is defined by what it does, not what it doesn't do. It sounds great but, for the life of me, I can't think of what holiness churches "do" that is so different then many other denominations that it could be pointed to as something that "defines us".

[Hans Deventer]

Looking at your point #1. That our church should become a church that is defined by what it does, not what it doesn't do. It sounds great but, for the life of me, I can't think of what holiness churches "do" that is so different then many other denominations that it could be pointed to as something that "defines us".

Well, may I give an example? In our city, I have heard several times from other Christians, that if you have no where to go because you are divorced or struggling with transsexuality or whatever it may be that people look down upon, "you can always go to the Church of the Nazarene".

Unfortunately, in their minds, that is a negative statement. But in mine, that is a very positive statement. For the same was true of Christ.

Does this help? This defines who we are and it is something we do.

[Barbara Moulton]

Well, may I give an example? In our city, I have heard several times from other Christians, that if you have no where to go because you are divorced or struggling with transsexuality or whatever it may be that people look down upon, "you can always go to the Church of the Nazarene".

Unfortunately, in their minds, that is a negative statement. But in mine, that is a very positive statement. For the same was true of Christ.

Does this help? This defines who we are and it is something we do.

Not sure it helps. Gives me an interesting insight into your country though.

I can think of several denominations in Canada that are more accepting of divorced people than holiness denominations. And if you are looking for a church that would be more receptive towards those working through issues of sexual orientation I don't think it would occur to you that a holiness church would be the place to go. Probably the United or Anglican Churches would be your choice.

[Hans Deventer]

Not sure it helps.

I'm sorry. To me, the "do"-part has to do with showing God's love like Christ did. That would be holiness, in my mind. I thought this was a good example.
It does not mean we don't talk to people and help them with their struggles, but it does mean that the first word is grace, before anything else is said. This is what I had in mind.

[Barbara Moulton]

I'm sorry. To me, the "do"-part has to do with showing God's love like Christ did. That would be holiness, in my mind. I thought this was a good example.
It does not mean we don't talk to people and help them with their struggles, but it does mean that the first word is grace, before anything else is said. This is what I had in mind.

Yes...I see. One of the official "promises" of our little church is to offer a safe place of fellowship and worship for all. We take the idea of making our church safe very seriously....welcoming everyone.

We lift Jesus up...we don't preach against anything.

It's all about grace.

And I would be delighted if the community chose to define our church as the church where people feel safe.

[David Pettigrew]

David originally said:
I think the church had a choice when they came out with the new mission statement - emphasize what makes us Nazarenes, or emphasize what makes us Christians. They went with what makes us Christians. We definitely should be Christian, but I think this was a mistake. As someone else said, this mission statement could be slapped on any Christian denomination.

Billy replied:
I did a double-take when I saw this. The idea that distinctiveness or institutional survival are more important that being Christian strikes me as being just a hair's breadth from idolatry.

David's rebuttal:
I think anyone who has regularly read my thoughts on this board would know that I care nothing for denominational loyalty. Perhaps this is why you did a double take. I hope you didn't injure yourself too badly. To the point: if being a Nazarene means nothing, why be one? Why do we call this board "naznet" instead of "christnet"?

David originally said:
Any group that sacrifices what makes them unique atrophies and dies.

Billy replied:
And what if a group discovers that their unique contribution was contrary to the spirit of Jesus...as our "contribution" in the last half of the 20th century was to a great extent? Is the group doomed? Can such a group discover a new purpose to exist? Does it have to be unique within the landscape of Christianity?

David's rebuttal:
The last half of the 20th century for the Church of the Nazarene was not marked by emphasis on holiness, but by trying to de-emphisize it or apologize for it. In trying to become just another evangelical church, we lost our reason for existing. In trying to be everything we were nothing.

David originally said:
We're closing more churches than we're starting. We're having to merge districts.

Billy's reply:
You should know by now that I WILL call you to document statistics.

David's rebuttal:What, you think we're growing in North America? Very well -

From the 2007 General Board report, under the heading "Areas of Concern":http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/gbreport07/display.aspx

3. Offsetting almost 700 newly-organized churches is the continued
closing and merging of churches. World Mission regions organized 648
churches, closing 100. The U.S.A., while organizing 39 congregations,
closed 59. Canada closed 4 churches and did not report any newlyorganized
congregations.

The proposed merger of districts has been a common subject of discussion on this board. South Texas is one example. Mississippi and Louisiana are sharing a DS. Oklahoma is probably next.

David originally said:
As I've stated before, we need to recapture holiness. There's no other reason for us to be taking up space, time, money, and energy.

Billy replied:
On the contrary, the more that we try to recapture, reformulate, reimagine, rearticulate, reform, revise or regurgitate holiness, the more futile our efforts. The Holy Spirit defies formulas. If we could accept that holiness is a mystery on par with the Trinity and atonement, we would be in a far better place.

David's rebuttal:
Again, I quote a fellow naznetter in reminding us that theology is the head catching up with the heart.


David originally said:
Things like drinking alcohol will take care of themselves if we truly make holiness unto the Lord our watchword and song.

Billy's reply:
Finally, something I can agree with...realizing that the average person under 30 probably doesn't know that you were alluding to a song.)

David's rebuttal:
And in this statement you have proved my point. I would guess that the average, grass-roots, sunday school attender in the CotN in the last forty years, unless they went to seminary, have no idea what makes us distinctive from the baptists (except they're "once saved, always saved"), methodists (except they can drink), or pentecostals (except they speak in tongues).

Billy said:
I think that the new mission statement is a remarkable step away from paying lip service to a movement that was dying before many of us were born.

David's reply:
If you are referring to the american holiness movement of the late 19th century that birthed us, I agree. If you are referring to this beautiful, covanental, relational journey to God, which we have given the name of "holiness", I disagree.

Maybe we are saying the same things in different ways. To me, if the Church of the Nazarene is worth being a member of, it's worth telling people "why us?"

Let me use an analogy from one of my favorite subjects - fast food. Let's say KFC made their mission statement "To make food in the nations." Well, yeah. That's a given. But why should I go to KFC? Because they are "finger lickin' good" (or whatever their slogan is now.)

My point is not that being a Nazarene is more important than being a Christian. My point is that our mission statement is too generic. Being something beats being nothing every time. I'd rather be something and be wrong than nothing and right.

As I have said many times: Holiness is the covered dish we Nazarenes bring to the theological potluck that feeds a hungry world. When the world comes to the table, it doesn't need another generic evangelical casserole. It needs some finger lickin' holiness!

[Brad Mercer]

I have no great need for the Church of the Nazarene to continue to exist if it has no distinctive reason for existence as a separate denomination. I don't see the existence of separate denominations as an inherently good thing. If we're all in agreement, I don't see why we shouldn't all be a part of the same denomination. If we don't have a distinctive purpose I don't see why it wouldn't be just as well to disband as to come up with a new purpose. Why come up with a new purpose if we don't already have one? What's the value in just thinking up a reason for an institution to continue to exist?

If we have a distinct reason to exist, let's remember and clarify what it is. If we don't, we're just an unnecessary division in the body of Christ and we should join, institutionally or organizationally, with some other larger denomination that shares the same reason to exist.

Brad

Maybe we are saying the same things in different ways. To me, if the Church of the Nazarene is worth being a member of, it's worth telling people "why us?"

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems to me that most everyone on Naznet should know that the reason for the existance of the COTN--atfer the salvation of a soul, is to spread scriptural holiness of heart and life preached and lived around the world. Other denominations, as a whole are not preaching a second work of grace--even though some are living a sanctified life. Called unto Holiness is our watch word and song.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't have a lot to add, but that congregations closing argument is a bit skewed. If the US/Canada part of the denomination would take the same approach to starting congregations (essentially, if we can get ten or twelve people together in a house: that's a congregation) we'd be seeing better percentages. I think we'd also keep a lot more of our young leaders.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The COTN HAS NOT LOST their emphasis on holiness. I am well read and informed, and I know that this is not true. Why are we having a PUT DOWN THE COTN thread? If you know of a church that you think you would be happier in---GO TO IT. There will be people to take your place. But, we will be VERY happy, if you choose to remain with us. We DID NOT lose our emphasis on Holiness during the last half of the 20th century....not where I lived and attended church, and in the books and articles that I read. Some preachers may havae not preached it. Many people are working very hard to weaken our teaching of being an actually holiness church, by trying to get us to believe like the world. Like, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours, and we will all get to heaven together"--just about as if they are saying--no matter what we do. That is what I read and hear from some people on Naznet, and other places.

[Billy Cox]

To the point: if being a Nazarene means nothing, why be one? Why do we call this board "naznet" instead of "christnet"?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that being a Nazarene means nothing. The reason that I am a Nazarene is at least partly because I haven't found anything better. I feel connection in the Church of the Nazarene, and that is far more meaningful to me than being able to boast that I am part of the only denomination that "............." (fill in the blank).



The last half of the 20th century for the Church of the Nazarene was not marked by emphasis on holiness, but by trying to de-emphisize it or apologize for it. In trying to become just another evangelical church, we lost our reason for existing. In trying to be everything we were nothing.

I am skeptical of this conclusion, but I'll chew on it some more.


What, you think we're growing in North America?


I had not seen the recent stats about closing churches. In terms of franchises, shutting down the locations that do not add value to your brand is actually a good thing. Churches have closed, but there are far more churches with over 1000 in attendance on any given Sunday than there were 20 years ago.

The statistical picture is enough to give me pause, but I think that the implications are subject to interpretation.

The merger of districts is not necessarily a bad omen either. When I first moved to the Houston district more than 20 years ago, I was immediately struck by how anemic the Nazarene presence was in Houston when compared with the Southeast Oklahoma district from which I moved.


If you are referring to the american holiness movement of the late 19th century that birthed us, I agree. If you are referring to this beautiful, covanental, relational journey to God, which we have given the name of "holiness", I disagree.


Yes, I am referring to the American Holiness Movement. Scriptural holiness predates the holiness movement and will still be the heartbeat of God long after the holiness movement is merely a brief chapter in a church history text.


Maybe we are saying the same things in different ways.

Probably so...we seem to be kindred spirits (in a non-creepy way). I am not convinced that uniqueness is not that important as long as we follow Christ, love justice and do righteousness.

[Hans Deventer]

My point is not that being a Nazarene is more important than being a Christian. My point is that our mission statement is too generic.

Well, how would it be more specific? What is a better statement on holiness than being like Christ? You found someone who is holier?

[Hans Deventer]

The COTN HAS NOT LOST their emphasis on holiness. I am well read and informed, and I know that this is not true. Why are we having a PUT DOWN THE COTN thread? If you know of a church that you think you would be happier in---GO TO IT.

Anne, according to that reasoning that I have heard a little too often now and that is starting to irritate me: if you don't like discussions, don't read NazNet.
Nobody is putting down the CotN, but if you feel we do, don't read! If you know a website you would love better - GO TO IT.

How does it feel when you're being told something like that? I would not feel happy to read it.

Many people are working very hard to weaken our teaching of being an actually holiness church, by trying to get us to believe like the world. Like, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours, and we will all get to heaven together"--just about as if they are saying--no matter what we do. That is what I read and hear from some people on Naznet, and other places.

I hear nothing of the like. What I do hear is how people complain about our mission statement as if there is anything higher to achieve than being like Christ. Don't ask me for my opinion.

Your tagline is "The greatest desire of my heart is to live just as close to Christ as I can, and be His hand extended to others" and that is exactly what holiness is all about and what our mission statement is all about.

As John Wesley said:

'It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this: the heaven of heavens is love. There is nothing higher in religion-there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. And when you are asking others, "Have you received this or that blessing?" if you mean anything but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them upon a false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of Corinthians. You can go no higher than this till you are carried into Abraham's bosom.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hans, I know exactly how you feel, concerning my statements. But, I will continue to stand up for holy living that does not include a sinning religion. Otherwise, there was no reason for the price that was paid for our salvation and sanctificastion. I was of the opinion that I was allowed my opinion, just as others that I do not agree with, and who do not agree with me, have a right to their opinion.

[Ryan Scott]

If everyone who had some small problem with the Church of the Nazarene left the Church of the Nazarene, there would be very few left.

That would have to include most pastors as well, it's simply impossible to run a congregation while still following every single manual provision for local polity.

[Jamie Wayne]

That's a perfect segue into my next few questions, Ryan:

How would a Nazarene deal with the special rules of the manual, when said person does not necessarily agree with the conclusions of the special rules, most especially because of what could be perceived as weak reasoning and manipulative use of Scripture to justify such rule(s)?

If a person agreed wholeheartedly with the theology of the church, is there any leeway that could be given on the special rules?

Are there pastors in the denomination who do not fully agree with the special rules?

If so, how do they communicate that to their congregation and how might they handle that in bringing in new members?

I suspect that there are pastor's who don't agree with the special rules; in fact, I know so. How do these pastor's deal with the questions that I've raised?

I'd really like answers to these questions, especially from the clergy and other church leaders here at NazNet.

Thanks.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I know exactly how you feel, concerning my statements. But, I will continue to stand up for holy living that does not include a sinning religion. Otherwise, there was no reason for the price that was paid for our salvation and sanctificastion. I was of the opinion that I was allowed my opinion, just as others that I do not agree with, and who do not agree with me, have a right to their opinion.

You do. But I think it helps little if your opinion is that those that don't agree with you, should leave the church.

I think it was during the beginning of our church that there were difficult discussions on the union of the several churches. Some groups really wanted their way on issues. Several times, people suggested to Bresee to "let them go". But he would not, saying "they are our people" (I'm quoting from memory here). What is it that defines "our people"? I believe the CotN needs to define that now more than ever. We need to know where our essentials are, and where the non-essentials. And we certainly need charity in all.

The Church will change or die. If we want to change in the right direction, we need to know what our non-negotiables are. If those will include the curse of our church, legalism, then don't worry: I'll be out before you know it. The law will only kill me.

[Kevin Bowser]

Well, how would it be more specific? What is a better statement on holiness than being like Christ? You found someone who is holier?

I am glad I am not the only one who is a little sarcastic every now and again. :basic05

David can certainly defend himself, but I don't think he was indicating he had found a more worthy specimen.

[Ryan Scott]

The special rules are not requirements for membership, so I would deduce that anyone is free to disagree with them.

In fact one could refer to the debate over the special rules that were added at the most recent general assembly with regards to stem cells. I'm guessing that just because the words got added to the Covenant of Christian Conduct (let's stop calling it the special rules, since the manual has) the dissenters didn't change their opinion.

The same could be said for those on both sides of issues like divorce, dancing, etc that have become more moderate over the years.

Honestly, I think the Covenant of Christian Conduct is doing more harm than good, but I like the idea of having denominational positions that are emphasized, but not required for membership. I think there is freedom there, in theory anyway, the practice seems awfully void of freedom, sadly.

[Kevin Bowser]

If everyone who had some small problem with the Church of the Nazarene left the Church of the Nazarene, there would be very few left.

That would have to include most pastors as well, it's simply impossible to run a congregation while still following every single manual provision for local polity.

Hmmmh, there's an interesting thought... :rolleyes:

[Hans Deventer]

I am glad I am not the only one who is a little sarcastic every now and again. :basic05

Kevin, it wasn't meant sarcastically. It was rather a desperate question, because for the life of me, I cannot figure out what the problem is.

[David Pettigrew]

Well, how would it be more specific? What is a better statement on holiness than being like Christ? You found someone who is holier?

Hans, I think our disagreement on this is very slight. Yes, holiness means being like Jesus. But I don't know any denomination that doesn't want to be like Jesus. Again, I refer to my KFC analogy.

I guess I just feel that if we are a holiness denomination, we should not be afraid to say so.

Why do you think the general church decided to go with the phrase "Christ-like" instead of "holy"? Is it because of the negative connotations of the word? Then we should redefine it! Is it because or the raging discussion going on right now about article X? We should run to it rather than run from it.

It's kind of like when we dropped the word "Pentecostal" from our denomination's name. We were afraid of being associated with those people. So now, those people have defined what it means to live under the power of the Holy Spirit, and we've been left in the dust trying to get folks to the think about the purity of the Holy Spirit.

The truth of the matter is that the official mission statement of the CotN has very little bearing on much of anything at the local level. It's kind of like when they changed "Herald of Holiness" to "Holiness Today" or "General Budget" to "World Evangelism Fund" or "NWMS" to "NMI". Those changes really made all the difference, didn't they? So, I don't know that it's worth debating, but at least I got the discussion off of alcohol!

I'll try to find a picture of one of our early founders of the holiness movement for my avatar so that it's not so hard to disagree with me in the future.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I think our disagreement on this is very slight. Yes, holiness means being like Jesus. But I don't know any denomination that doesn't want to be like Jesus.

I'm not up to date on all their mission statements, but are there that many that have "Christlike" in their statement? I can hardly imagine a Calvinist church would have that. Obviously, from their point of view, we'll never be Christlike till we die.

I guess I just feel that if we are a holiness denomination, we should not be afraid to say so.

I agree.

Why do you think the general church decided to go with the phrase "Christ-like" instead of "holy"? Is it because of the negative connotations of the word?

I don't know but if that is the case, I can imagine they would drop it. Your example of "Pentacostal" is a good one. We cannot redefine the meaning of a word for the whole world, we're just not influential enough to do that. But we do want to communicate to the world! So we need to make do with words that do so.

The truth of the matter is that the official mission statement of the CotN has very little bearing on much of anything at the local level. It's kind of like when they changed "Herald of Holiness" to "Holiness Today" or "General Budget" to "World Evangelism Fund" or "NWMS" to "NMI". Those changes really made all the difference, didn't they? So, I don't know that it's worth debating, but at least I got the discussion off of alcohol!

It was important enough for you to voice your concerns. And I doubt you are the only one. I don't think the statement is at the same level as the examples you mentioned. I agree, they don't matter. But if a local church don't care one bit about the mission statement of the general church, that is something else.


I'll try to find a picture of one of our early founders of the holiness movement for my avatar so that it's not so hard to disagree with me in the future.

Got one for you: J.O. McClurkan! Please don't select Bresee, I have trouble disagreeing with him as well.

[David Pettigrew]

The COTN HAS NOT LOST their emphasis on holiness. I am well read and informed, and I know that this is not true. Why are we having a PUT DOWN THE COTN thread? If you know of a church that you think you would be happier in---GO TO IT. There will be people to take your place. But, we will be VERY happy, if you choose to remain with us. We DID NOT lose our emphasis on Holiness during the last half of the 20th century....not where I lived and attended church, and in the books and articles that I read. Some preachers may havae not preached it. Many people are working very hard to weaken our teaching of being an actually holiness church, by trying to get us to believe like the world. Like, "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours, and we will all get to heaven together"--just about as if they are saying--no matter what we do. That is what I read and hear from some people on Naznet, and other places.

Just what exactly did I say that "put down" the Nazarene church? We're a pretty big denomination. I think the powers that be can handle the fact that their current mission statement doesn't float my boat. Doesn't mean I'm not faithful to the church.

I am a Nazarene. Never been anything else. Don't plan on being anything else.

If I have a problem with the Church of the Nazarene, this is the place for me to share it. Not from the pulpit. Not in a pastor's breakfast. Not on the floor of General Assembly. Here. So, I'm sorry I made you mad, but I'm gonna say what I durn well feel like saying.

[Kevin Bowser]

YWe need to know where our essentials are, and where the non-essentials. And we certainly need charity in all.

Maybe the GS's will appoint "Essentials Partners" at the next GA. :basic07

Oooops. Sarcasm slipped out again.

Han's this has been a very stimulating thread. But everyone comes at it from widely different perspectives and cultural stances. One of the things that I read between the lines is that this change can be defined several ways.


Change to a new and different way of ministry and holy living
Return to how it was done in the past


The problem for many is that we know what Holiness has looked like in the past. We may not have always liked it, but it was defined and it was obvious. We do not know what future "Holiness" looks like. And some of the potential changes that are bandied about are a little scary to some.

The real challenge is rekindling the flame of Holiness from times past while maintaining a cultural relevance today. Rekindling the flame of Holiness gets confused with terms like post-modernism, emergent church, etc. Some of us managed to get saved and sanctified at an old fashioned altar. It may have even been an altar at an [pause for dramatic organ music...] outdoor tabernacle at a camp meeting somewhere.

That worked for me! I was saved more than 35 years ago and sanctified nearly 30 years ago. And I managed to sense God's call and feel the Holy Spirit convict and convince me of my sin in such a Divine way that I believe it can happen again in the very same way. But I also believe it can happen through the emergent church movement and a "changed" CotN.

My prayer is that we don't quench the Spirit in the process.

[Jamie Wayne]

If I have a problem with the Church of the Nazarene, this is the place for me to share it.

I wholeheartedly agree with that!

[Randy McRoberts]

Why are we having a PUT DOWN THE COTN thread? If you know of a church that you think you would be happier in---GO TO IT.

Anne, this is a theology discussion forum. People are discussing theology. If it burns your cork, you ought to go read "God's Revivalist" from God's Bible School instead. "If you think you would be happier."

I'm an old time Nazarene myself. Fifty-five years old and a fourth generation Nazarene on all sides of my family, in fact. (Beat that! A Pharisee of the Pharisees!) But I'm keenly aware that the denomination must either change or perish. And to tell you the truth, I'm ok either way. If it can't change, it needs to perish.

This forum gives me hope for change, though.

[Kevin Bowser]

Kevin, it wasn't meant sarcastically. It was rather a desperate question, because for the life of me, I cannot figure out what the problem is.

Jerry Porter preaches a great sermon about Jesus coming to us dressed in our own culture. That is both good and bad. It is good for me when He is coming TO ME. It is "bad" for me when He is coming TO YOU and He looks different than I think He should.

This issue is dividing (not the best word to use here, but I am at work typing feverishly) down demographic lines. Age and geography (both global and within the U.S.) are major contributing factors to this discussion.

[Chris Patton]

The special rules are not requirements for membership, so I would deduce that anyone is free to disagree with them.

The ritual for membership explicitly states that one will follow the covenant of Christian Conduct. Also there are methods of discipline for those who are members but do not follow said covenant. This seems to make it a requirement. Back to Jamie's question. How closely is this followed?

[Ryan Scott]

The ritual for membership explicitly states that one will follow the covenant of Christian Conduct. Also there are methods of discipline for those who are members but do not follow said covenant. This seems to make it a requirement. Back to Jamie's question. How closely is this followed?


The manual does not require adherence to the Covenant of Christian Conduct. I know many pastors who leave that phrase out of the membership ritual (if they use the manual language at all).

But thanks for bringing that up. I had forgotten about the membership language.

[Barbara Moulton]

The ritual for membership explicitly states that one will follow the covenant of Christian Conduct. Also there are methods of discipline for those who are members but do not follow said covenant. This seems to make it a requirement. Back to Jamie's question. How closely is this followed?

You have articulated something I have been really confused about. When I was a Nazarene (seven years ago) it was pretty clear that the covenant of Christian Conduct WERE requirements for membership.

Some people on NazNet assert they still are. Some say they are not.

[Jamie Wayne]

The manual does not require adherence to the Covenant of Christian Conduct. I know many pastors who leave that phrase out of the membership ritual (if they use the manual language at all).

Ryan,

Is the thinking in leaving out that part of of the membership ritual that it is inconsistent with the Manual, then?

How does that play out when some Nazarenes "vow" to adhere to the Covenant and others don't?

Jamie

[Ryan Scott]

You have articulated something I have been really confused about. When I was a Nazarene (seven years ago) it was pretty clear that the covenant of Christian Conduct WERE requirements for membership.

Some people on NazNet assert they still are. Some say they are not.


It's a tricky issue. The Preamble to the denomination's constitution does not mention the Covenant of Christian Conduct as part of the governing elements of the denomination.

Manual Paragraph 26 outlines the Agreed Statement of Belief with explicit language that "belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient [for membership]."

Manual Paragraph 27 outlines the Covenant of Christian Character with the explicit instructions that they are a requirement for uniting with the Church of the Nazarene.

All of the above are included in the official Constitution of the denomination.

Part III is the Covenant of Christian Conduct (beginning with paragraph 33). 33.1 affirms that the ten commandments should be followed in all cases for all people. 33.2 begins the explanation of the formerly called "special rules." It says "the historic ethical standards of the church are expressed in part in the following items. They should be followed carefully and conscientiously as guides and helps to holy living. Those who violate the conscience of the church do so at their own peril and to the hurt of the witness of the church."

Language like "in part," and "should" are certainly strong, but not on the level of the previous elements of belief.

The Covenant of Christian Conduct is included in the recommended membership ritual, but that's not officially the sole applicable ritual. Most pastors I have encountered, if they do use these rituals, edit and amend the language some.

[Jamie Wayne]

Ryan,

How would you handle a situation where someone seeking membership admits violatling the "special rules"?

How would you handle a situation where someone who is a member admits to violating the "special rules"?

How would you handle a situation where a Nazarene pastor admits to violating the "special rules"?

Jamie

[Ryan Scott]

Well none of those are yet my job to worry about, so I gladly don't. Are you speaking for instance of someone coming and saying, "hey, I want to be a Nazarene, but...?"

[Jamie Wayne]

Well none of those are yet my job to worry about, so I gladly don't.

Surely you're up for a thought experiment, though. :)

Are you speaking for instance of someone coming and saying, "hey, I want to be a Nazarene, but...?"

That'll work.

[Ryan Scott]

If it's someone coming to me who is thoroughly convinced of the Articles of Faith and very much in line with the Covenant of Christian Character, affirming the Agreed Statement of Belief, then I'd talk through their doubt about whatever issue they are struggling with. Action after that point would probably depend on which "rule" they had problems with (the Church of the Nazarene is thoroughly human after all).

[Randy McRoberts]

As a practical matter, I know lots of members who do not subscribe to all of the rules, and many who do not even hold to all of the articles of faith. They have joined us out of convenience or something other than deeply held beliefs. After all, we are not really much of a confessional group.

By the way, I know what it means to justify such aberrations. When I joined the Gideons organization, I struggled with signing a statement of faith that mentioned a "literal hell of fire". I don't believe in such a place, but I justified it by saying that what I do believe in is even worse than that. Also by the way, I'm not a member of the Gideons anymore.

Also, there is little in the way of accountability for pastors and the decisions they make about membership. I've been a member of at least eleven different CotNs in my life, and I've not known any that followed the governance as specified in the Manual. When I've had any influence and have mentioned such things, I've always been laughed off. Practically, the pastors do things the way they want to do things. My sense is that finances have more to do with acceptance as a member than do beliefs and practices.

Probably it should be another thread, but my pet peeve with the church is that it is to clergy-centric. That is one thing that will NEVER change, due to the makeup of the bodies that make such changes.

[Ryan Scott]

Probably it should be another thread, but my pet peeve with the church is that it is to clergy-centric. That is one thing that will NEVER change, due to the makeup of the bodies that make such changes.


I think it's like the old saying about democracy: it's the worst form of government besides all the others.

On the one hand, there are a number of resolutions and issues I wish the laity would handle without the presence of clergy to gum it up. Yet, on the other hand, there are times I wish all the people voting had a certainly level of theological training (of course this disqualifies a number of pastors too).

Ultimately we have what we have and the denomination is made up of individual congregations and, whether they know it or not, the laity control individual congregations entirely.

[Ryan Scott]

Surely you're up for a thought experiment, though.


I did answer you, but I'd rather have a specific situation than one so vague.

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe the GS's will appoint "Essentials Partners" at the next GA. :basic07

Seriously, I would love for them to do just that.

The real challenge is rekindling the flame of Holiness from times past while maintaining a cultural relevance today.

Exactly!!!

I was saved more than 35 years ago and sanctified nearly 30 years ago. And I managed to sense God's call and feel the Holy Spirit convict and convince me of my sin in such a Divine way that I believe it can happen again in the very same way. But I also believe it can happen through the emergent church movement and a "changed" CotN.

In fact, as long as these things happen, I don't really care a lot what the CotN looks like in the first place!

My prayer is that we don't quench the Spirit in the process.

Amen!

[Hans Deventer]

Jerry Porter preaches a great sermon about Jesus coming to us dressed in our own culture. That is both good and bad. It is good for me when He is coming TO ME. It is "bad" for me when He is coming TO YOU and He looks different than I think He should.\

I wonder, if He comes, won't He look differently than all of us think He should? Not trying to take away Jerry's point though.

[Jamie Wayne]

As to "quenching" the Holy Spirit...I'd like to see a more open policy on speaking in tongues, too.

[Ryan Scott]

As to "quenching" the Holy Spirit...I'd like to see a more open policy on speaking in tongues, too.


That won't happen in either of our lifetimes. It's too touchy a subject. Quite honestly, a Pastor has a better chance of surviving in this denomination right now saying they don't believe in sanctification than saying they believe in tongues.

[Randy McRoberts]

I'd like to see a more open policy on speaking in tongues, too.

You done stepped on a landmine, there.

[Jamie Wayne]

I've done stepped on many land mines during my stay at NazNet; what's one more?

If the focus is on not "quenching" the Spirit, and not on Nazarene distinctiveness, how can we reasonably avoid the subject of glossolalia?

My personal view is that speaking in tongues is an evidence, but not the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't feel completely comfortable in a church where such a manifestation of the Holy Spirit were strictly forbidden. I reckon that's yet another reason why I'll probably never become a Nazarene - I come from too much of a Charismatic background to put such limits on the Holy Spirit.

KABOOOOOM. :gen07

[Glenda Harvey]

I agree with you that it is a gift of the Spirit but not essential and not THE gift. I have seen tongues abused too much in my younger days to belong to a Church where tongues are promoted in an aggressive fashion as happened frequently in the 70's. There are a few Nazarenes who speak in tongues and there are various opinions regarding tongues but tongues has never been and most likely will never be part of a Nazarene Church Service.

[Jamie Wayne]

I agree with you , Glenda. I've seen abuses, too, and would never endorse a policy of aggressively promoting speaking in tongues.

[Kevin Bowser]

Probably it should be another thread, but my pet peeve with the church is that it is to clergy-centric. That is one thing that will NEVER change, due to the makeup of the bodies that make such changes.

Haven't you heard? The church is a lay driven movement. See the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Lay-Driven-Church-Melvin-J-Steinbron/dp/1597520217

I blogged (http://kjkebblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/holiness-manifesto-is-there-crisis-in.html) about this topic in April of last year.

One of the things I said in that post is pasted below:

This area of dialog has most often been the exclusive territory of the clergy. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a pastor say that the church is a lay driven movement. Unfortunately that is usually followed by a call to come work this Saturday to repaint the nursery or mow the lawn.

It is an all too rare thing that a pastor will engage a layman in a quality dialog around the issue of holiness. Now maybe that is because not enough of us laymen have been interested in Holiness. Nevertheless that is a shame because Holiness is both somewhat academic and experiential.

Hopefully it is not so academic that only a few can understand it. The last time we had that in church history a guy vandalized the front door of a church with a hammer, nails and pieces of paper and started a reformation!

Perhaps that is what we need again...

[Kevin Bowser]

Ultimately we have what we have and the denomination is made up of individual congregations and, whether they know it or not, the laity control individual congregations entirely.

On what planet are those churches located? :basic05

[Ryan Scott]

On what planet are those churches located?


They all are, at least within manual polity. However, the congregation where the laymen don't involved the clergy in the running of the congregation probably won't last long. That doesn't mean it can't go too far the other way, either, though.

[Chris Patton]

Back on topic for a moment. How aggressive ought the church pursue and promote the Covenant of Christian Conduct? Is this left up to pastors/people? If there is a disagreement within a church how is the decision made? Is it, practically and ethically speaking a more open stance or a closed one?

[Barbara Moulton]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post :-)

If I have a concern about my denomination, if I see major things that I believe need to change then there are different choices before me.

1. Perhaps I need to give serious consideration to whether this is the place where I am supposed to be. I am not talking about someone else saying, "Love it or leave it.”. I'm talking about a deep searching before God. Is my desire for a change His way of creating a holy dissatisfaction because He wants me someplace else?

I know that many of you think that Nazarene fellowship and culture is unique and wonderful but I can assure you, The Salvation Army could give you a run for your money :). There were just as many people there who could proudly point to a third, fourth generation heritage. I had grandparents on both sides, parents and aunts and uncles who were officers. A brother in training to be an officer. I loved so much about the Army. So, when I began to notice more and more that I didn't fit in, when my husband expressed his feeling that we no longer fit in…when we saw major changes that we believed needed to be made….we agonized in prayer over whether God wanted us to stay and try to change the denomination or leave. After a lot of prayer, we made the heart wrenching decision but we truly believed that it was best for us and best for the Army.

I’m not saying that everybody who wants change should leave. I’m just saying that we need to give consideration to this as part of our process.

If we decide to stay then we can make different decisions.

2. We can decide to simply live in the denomination, even though there are things we would like to see changed. Choose to sacrifice our desires to denominational unity. I’m not talking about simply resigning ourselves to the way things are. I’m talking about a spiritual surrender of my own desires with the prayer that if I am not alone in my feelings, God will help me to find a constructive way to connect with others and begin a work within the denomination. Carl knew before I did that we were supposed to leave the Army. But he prayed and waited patiently for me to arrive at the same decision. Sometimes we need to simply wait on God and wait for others.

3. We can decide to start advocating for change. As an outsider looking in at the Nazarene Church, I can see that this is where some of you are. When we feel strongly about a subject, we tend to gravitate towards people who feel the same. But we can’t take the agreement we find in that group and extrapolate that the majority of others in the denomination feel the same way too. That isn't always the case.

So if we believe that God wants this change and we have seen that many people in a denomination want to change what we do? I believe we need to pursue change in a godly manner.

The Holy Spirit is a spirit of unity. Change in a denomination isn’t going to happen through adversarial language. Not without many, many people being hurt.

We need to begin by making connections with those who differ.
We need to have a clear sense that we are operating by God’s agenda, not ours.

I started thinking this way because of Jamie’s post about tongues. In truth, I know of no church which was not “tongues speaking” that remained in unity when someone came in with the goal to bring “tongues” into the worshipping body. Hurt and confusion. Is God in that?

Should the church change? Yes. But only change that is part of God's plan and accomplished in His timing is ultimately going to happen in unity and love. And that's the only kind of change I want to be part of.

[Ryan Scott]

Even within the Covenant of Christian Conduct itself, paragraph 33.3 says:

"In listing practices to be avoided we recognize that no catalog, however inclusive, can hope to encompass all forms of evil throughout the world. Therefore it is imperative that our people earnestly seek the aid of the Spirit in cultivating a sensitivity to evil that transcends the mere letter of the law; remembering the admonition: "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)


I think this is the standard operating procedure in the Church of the Nazarene. If you believe someone is living by this standard, there is some leeway (in some places) on the specifics that follow.

[Kevin Bowser]

They all are, at least within manual polity. However, the congregation where the laymen don't involved the clergy in the running of the congregation probably won't last long. That doesn't mean it can't go too far the other way, either, though.

Throughout my lifetime (47 years and counting...) my experience in many churches has been a whole lot more of pastors running the entire show. I have not had any experience where the laity ran the show. I have been in a few where the laity thought they did, when in reality they were just the mouthpiece for a domineering pastor, but that's another thread for later.

I am not for either side actually "running the entire show." Rather, I think each should run with their strengths. But where the rubber meets the road it is generally the pastor who exerts the controlling influence over even those things where they are not gifted in any way, shape, or form.

I would not even think of telling my pastor how to construct a sermon or exegete a particular passage (although I have experience in that area). However, I bet you dollars to donuts that that same pastor would want to go over a contract that I negotiated for the use of the church building by some Boy Scout Troop or renegotiate the terms of a commercial mortgage even though he or she has no experience whatsoever in contract negotiations.

Why do you suppose that is?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well, there may be some pastors that run the church. but many do not. When we have work days, it is planned and voted on by the board, announced from the pulpit, and put in the bulletin. The board members in our church, and those that Dwayne has pastored, make a motion, which someone seconds. Then the pastors ask for a vote, and the majority wins. But, if he made a suggestion, they would discuss the pros and cons, and sometimes table it until later, or vote on it right then. Dwayne was always respected, and is not the personality to try to "rail road" things to get his way.

[Kevin Bowser]

Well, there may be some pastors that run the church. but many do not. When we have work days, it is planned and voted on by the board, announced from the pulpit, and put in the bulletin.

I really am not talking about work days at the church. I am just relaying my experience.

The board members in our church, and those that Dwayne has pastored, make a motion, which someone seconds. Then the pastors ask for a vote, and the majority wins. But, if he made a suggestion, they would discuss the pros and cons, and sometimes table it until later, or vote on it right then. Dwayne was always respected, and is not the personality to try to "rail road" things to get his way.

And I am sure that is how the official minutes from the board meeting read. I will just tell you that is not always exactly how it happens. And I have seen many great ideas go down in flames due to the discussion of the pros and cons where the only con was the pastor. And funny enough, when the vote was taken, the majority magically supported the pastor.

Anne, I am not trying to pastor-bash. I am just tired of the rose colored glasses through which we view some pastors. I am very thankful for pastors like Dwayne. Perhaps I would not be so cynical today if I had not had so many pastors that did not live up to even basic business standards of propriety, much less Biblical standards of Holiness and ministerial integrity.

I don't like the overall negativity of the tone of my posts. So, I think it is time for me to bow out of this discussion and wait for something a little less painful. :gen01

[Ian Gentles]

In many cases sadly integrity is missing,

[David Pettigrew]

Well, how would it be more specific? What is a better statement on holiness than being like Christ? You found someone who is holier?

My local church's mission statement is "We are a faith community seeking holiness." It was "We are a faith community seeking holiness, righteousness, and justice", but I shortened it to "holiness" b/c I think that covers it all.

[Hans Deventer]

My local church's mission statement is "We are a faith community seeking holiness." It was "We are a faith community seeking holiness, righteousness, and justice", but I shortened it to "holiness" b/c I think that covers it all.

OK, and how would that be any different from "We are a faith community seeking Christlikeness"?

Actually, I think I can answer my own question. Let me try and let's check the dictionary. I used this one:
holiness. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved August 09, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holiness

ho·ly
adj. ho·li·er, ho·li·est

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.
3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.
5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.
6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.
7. Informal Used as an intensive: raised holy hell over the mischief their children did.

Would you agree that #1, #3 and #4 are closest to the meaning of holiness here?

Now, do these ideas convey what your church wants to say?

[Randy McRoberts]

My local church's mission statement is "We are a faith community seeking holiness." It was "We are a faith community seeking holiness, righteousness, and justice", but I shortened it to "holiness" b/c I think that covers it all.

I find it interesting that you, as the pastor, did the changing and the thinking. If it is the church's mission statement, shouldn't it be the church doing the thinking and changing? Especially if you are a community seeking something.

[David Pettigrew]

I'll be honest and say I don't know. You're probably as right as I am.

Being holy certainly involves being like Jesus. This may open a whole new can of worms, but I almost see being holy as being like the Father, who sent us Jesus out of His love. God the Father demanded holiness of the Jews. Jesus made it possible to fulfill this demand, which the law failed to do.

I think "holiness" means something different to the church and to the world than "Christ-like". I like the shock value of the word - it causes a stir. "These people actually claim to be holy? How can that be?".

Again, I think this is way down on the list of things to worry about.

OK, and how would that be any different from "We are a faith community seeking Christlikeness"?

Actually, I think I can answer my own question. Let me try and let's check the dictionary. I used this one:
holiness. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved August 09, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holiness

ho·ly
adj. ho·li·er, ho·li·est

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.
3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.
5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.
6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.
7. Informal Used as an intensive: raised holy hell over the mischief their children did.

Would you agree that #1, #3 and #4 are closest to the meaning of holiness here?

Now, do these ideas convey what your church wants to say?

[Gary Swartzlander]

My local church's mission statement is "We are a faith community seeking holiness." It was "We are a faith community seeking holiness, righteousness, and justice", but I shortened it to "holiness" b/c I think that covers it all.

What should a mission statement express?

I kind of see your statement as more of a statement of values, and for that I think it's great.

How does it express a mission of reaching outside of the community (I read "community" in this context to mean the church body) and bringing people in?

Our mission statement for our church is "To Make More and Better Disciples"
It expresses a desire to reach the unchurched and bring them into a growing environment.

[David Pettigrew]

I find it interesting that you, as the pastor, did the changing and the thinking. If it is the church's mission statement, shouldn't it be the church doing the thinking and changing? Especially if you are a community seeking something.

Yeah, probably.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Kevin, don't be discouraged. I know exactly what you are talking about. My husband was one of the few pastors at one church that they did not run off. Once, after we were in another town, the DS ask Dwayne what he thought should be done about that church, and Dwayne told him to not send them another pastor. But, he did, and they still do. We left there in February of 1983, and they did not want us to leave. Now, they have a young couple with a baby, that we have not met yet. But, we only live about nine miles from them, so maybe if he wants a shoulder to cry on, we can be there, without actually putting the church down. They wanted Dwayne to be their pastor after they ran the last pastor off. That man was a prince in the pulpit, and I was recently told by the last living charter member's daughter that he had a temper. Dwayne is retired from the pastorate, but is still quite busy.
We have also been aware of pastors that ran the church....period.

[Hans Deventer]

I'll be honest and say I don't know. You're probably as right as I am.

Yes.

Being holy certainly involves being like Jesus. This may open a whole new can of worms, but I almost see being holy as being like the Father, who sent us Jesus out of His love. God the Father demanded holiness of the Jews. Jesus made it possible to fulfill this demand, which the law failed to do.

Hmm, don't we all believe "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." (John 14)

I really like how you talk about "the Father, who sent us Jesus out of His love" in stead of Jesus reconciling us with some angry deity.

I agree with much of what you say, only, I don't see so much difference between the love of Jesus and the love of the Father. I would have written:
"Being holy certainly is being like Jesus".

For Jesus showed the love of the Father to perfection. I have no concept of a greater love.


I think "holiness" means something different to the church and to the world than "Christ-like".

I agree. And I fear, "holiness" is merely a negative word for the world. This is probably my main objection.

I like the shock value of the word - it causes a stir. "These people actually claim to be holy? How can that be?"

I understand but don't you think that people would also say, "These people actually claim to be like Christ? How can that be?"

Perhaps it is all very much a matter of feelings that come with certain words.

[David Pettigrew]

What should a mission statement express?

I kind of see your statement as more of a statement of values, and for that I think it's great.

How does it express a mission of reaching outside of the community (I read "community" in this context to mean the church body) and bringing people in?

Our mission statement for our church is "To Make More and Better Disciples"
It expresses a desire to reach the unchurched and bring them into a growing environment.

Please see our website and click on the "message from the pastor".

http://www.den-naz.com

The mission part for us is the "seeking", rather than the "making". I don't know anyone in the world who wants to be made into anything. I don't know anyone in the church that wants to be made to do anything. It's just not a word I like to use. I think people in our community are already seeking, they just don't know what it is they are looking for. We want to connect with them.

[David Pettigrew]

I agree. And I fear, "holiness" is merely a negative word for the world. This is probably my main objection.

I understand this. I think now I can see where you are coming from.

[Hans Deventer]

I understand this. I think now I can see where you are coming from.

Thank you for a good discussion, David. I couldn't really imagine we would not be able to understand one another, but sometimes words get in the way....

[Ryan Scott]

I agree. And I fear, "holiness" is merely a negative word for the world. This is probably my main objection.


Yeah, I noticed David mentioned it as a more shocking word than "Christ-like." I certainly think this is try, at times, for people versed in Christian culture, but probably not for people outside of Christian culture.


When people ask about my religion, I don't tell them I'm a Christian because it's old hat and frankly it doesn't mean much in this world anymore. I usually say I'm committed to following the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus Christ. That's a shocking statement for people; it's certainly more vivid.

[Hans Deventer]

I usually say I'm committed to following the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus Christ.

That is a beautiful statement.

[Ryan Scott]

That is a beautiful statement.

Of course, growing up, if someone had said that to me, I would have thought they were some hippie radical with no real religious foundation. Oh well.

[Marsha Lynn]

I find it interesting that you, as the pastor, did the changing and the thinking. If it is the church's mission statement, shouldn't it be the church doing the thinking and changing? Especially if you are a community seeking something.

Yes, it should. Have you ever tried actually forming a vision statement in committee?

Indiana public libraries are required to have a mission statement and a long-term plan. When I became director at the local (tiny) library, it took me a couple of years to encounter this requirement. When I brought it to the board, their response was that we already had such a plan. I hadn't run across it. Someone finally dug it out for me. It was three paragraphs long and talked about a couple of building projects. There was no mission statement.

I read a book on long-range planning, collected demographics, and tried to get the board interested. They couldn't handle a blank sheet of paper and weren't interested in forming a planning committee.

I came up with several major areas of concern and took those broad categories to the board. No luck.

I came up with a list of possible goals in each area and took the list to the board to hone down and turn into a plan. They looked at the first goal and started talking about how to reach it before the next meeting.

I sat down with my outline, my demographics, and started envisioning the future. And I wrote a plan. The board thought it was wonderful with only minor modification and adopted it. I am now responsible for implementing it because they will never think about it again. They are volunteers willing to give up one evening a month to meet together and to take on extra projects from time to time. But they have no experience with or interest in deliberately creating the future.

A year or two later, I told the board that I had no skills for preventing the building from falling down around us and that we needed a building committee to take responsibility for overseeing the library structure. The committee was formed and has been very helpful in an area where I am low in skills. The goals they collect during an annual tour of the building and grounds are part of the current long-term plan.

When you're working with volunteers, there's a fine balance between empowering them to do what they haven't done before and making sure the tasks required of them don't outweigh the intangible benefits of serving. For me, the balance seems to work best when I do what I can and invite them to step in where my resources are inadequate. If I visualize the future and break that vision down into tangible goals, they are usually quite willing to tackle individual projects.

It's not the ideal solution, but if it gets us to the same place, perhaps it's not a terrible solution.

Marsha

[Tami Martin]

This has been an interesting topic to follow. But I keep coming back to the title: Should the church change?

If a living thing does not grow, it dies. There's no real middle ground. The church is the living body of Christ. We either grow or we die.

So the question is not should we change, but HOW will we change. The bottom line is we have changed and that continually. Anyone who wants things to remain forever static should take their little building and preserve it under glass. A real living body changes. It grows. Sometimes things change in ways that are not good and that must be addressed. But that does not mean that change is in itself bad.

We are so backwards in that we resist and resist and resist change, then adopt the changes anyways 30 years after the culture around us has moved on (think lapel and tie widths and hem lengths). Why don't we tackle things head on? Not wait to see what direction the culture is going but move forward ourselves? Look for where God is leading us and go there?

[Ian Gentles]

This has been an interesting topic to follow. But I keep coming back to the title: Should the church change?

If a living thing does not grow, it dies. There's no real middle ground. The church is the living body of Christ. We either grow or we die.

So the question is not should we change, but HOW will we change. The bottom line is we have changed and that continually. Anyone who wants things to remain forever static should take their little building and preserve it under glass. A real living body changes. It grows. Sometimes things change in ways that are not good and that must be addressed. But that does not mean that change is in itself bad.

We are so backwards in that we resist and resist and resist change, then adopt the changes anyways 30 years after the culture around us has moved on (think lapel and tie widths and hem lengths). Why don't we tackle things head on? Not wait to see what direction the culture is going but move forward ourselves? Look for where God is leading us and go there?

I get so disheartened going to speak in churches of many denominations that have small congregations and dusty old churches.

[Tami Martin]

Are you saying that all churches should have large congregations?

The old dusty buildings I can see a problem with: clean 'em! But small? I prefer small congregations myself.

[Ian Gentles]

Are you saying that all churches should have large congregations?

The old dusty buildings I can see a problem with: clean 'em! But small? I prefer small congregations myself.

Let me put it this way, there is a feeling of hoplessness a decay about whole situations.

[Ryan Scott]

It's not necessarily the size of the congregation, but the future of the congregation. A dusty old sanctuary where the youngest worshiper is 57 might not have the same outlook as a dusty old sanctuary with worshipers young and old.

At the same time, I'm not sure either one is necessarily a bad thing, just so long as the older congregation understands that they won't be around forever and continues to live out Christian community. Congregations don't have to last forever, just so long as they're serving a purpose.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

My prayers for myself are to be more like Christ--and not more holy. On this board, I discuss holiness, but that is not the way I pray, most of the time.

[Ian Gentles]

My prayers for myself are to be more like Christ--and not more holy. On this board, I discuss holiness, but that is not the way I pray, most of the time.


I know you do Ann!

[Chris Baker]

It's not necessarily the size of the congregation, but the future of the congregation.
Very well said. The church I attend now is very close to Asbury Theological Seminary (which I just graduated from) and there are a number of students that attend our church, as well as others who attend from the community. While our church isn't big, we have taken on the role of inviting students in, training them up, and sending/commissioning them back out again. If our church was to be judged by number, it would not be the best outcome. On the other hand, our church has a great future as a body of believers who sees our future in training and commissioning students here at the Seminary. In the process of that, we reach out to the community, both seminary and non-seminary.

Thank God for giving a future and great outlook to big churches and small churches alike.

[Ian Gentles]

Very well said. The church I attend now is very close to Asbury Theological Seminary (which I just graduated from) and there are a number of students that attend our church, as well as others who attend from the community. While our church isn't big, we have taken on the role of inviting students in, training them up, and sending/commissioning them back out again. If our church was to be judged by number, it would not be the best outcome. On the other hand, our church has a great future as a body of believers who sees our future in training and commissioning students here at the Se