General Assembly resolution

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, I know this is early, but our resolutions are generally processed through the District Assembly, and since those are held in March, it means the March 2008 DA will be electing delegates and voting on resolutions for the GA. And March 2008 isn't so far away.

Anyway, I've been thinking for quite some time now about the following resolution and I would like to hear your opinion, so that it may be improved.

Resolved, That the Board of General Superintendents appoint an international committee that will propose a statement (to be included in the Manual) to the next General Assembly that clearly defines the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene.

Reason

Ever since the beginning days of our church, we have heard and subscribed to the statement: "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity". It is a wonderful and wise statement, but unfortunately not very specific. In fact, as far as we know, no one ever clearly defined what those essentials exactly are.
It seems that especially in our time with its rapid changes, we could really do with clarity on this issue. It would help churches to stand firm on what is essential, and understand where we can agree to disagree, with love.

[Ryan Scott]

It sounds like a great idea, but I'd hate to be appointed to the committee. It seems like an impossible task.

[Ian Gentles]

I like in Hans, we do need clarity, to run away from such a motion by GA would not for one minet help an already confussed church.

[Hal Paul]

I think it is a great idea. I recall several conversations with a former pastor where we tried to identify what the essentials are, and conversly what the nonessentials are. Even after lookin through the manual several times, we never really identified what the denomination's understanding of the essentials is.

[Hans Deventer]

It sounds like a great idea, but I'd hate to be appointed to the committee. It seems like an impossible task.

Do I need to add the recommendation not to ask Ryan Scott? :rolleyes:

No seriously, I do understand that the question is simple, but the answer is not. Yet I do believe we need it quite badly.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the problem is that answering the question does not come from choosing essentials, it comes from choosing non-essentials, which are sure to rile a lot of people up.

[Hans Deventer]

I think the problem is that answering the question does not come from choosing essentials, it comes from choosing non-essentials, which are sure to rile a lot of people up.

I don't understand that procedure, Ryan. To work in the direction you suggest, one would need a limited list of items that could be considered. Otherwise, deleting non-essentials leads us nowhere. But there is no such list. Also, if the committee proceeded in that direction, it would be doing the very thing that the statement is against, namely, discussing non-essentials!

I agree though that we probably cannot please everyone. But the current situation isn't very helpful either. All over the church there are situations where people get into trouble because some think they put an essential aside, while others think it wasn't an essential. So we are already in a mess. This is not meant to create a new one, this is in order to get out of one we're already in.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess I just see this group going through the manual and deciding which one of these things can somebody do and still be a Nazarene.

I don't know how else they would approach it in any way that would be definitive. I also don't know how it would have any weight outside of removing those particular non-essentials from the manual or using the new list of essentials to replace the agreed statement of belief.

There's enough overlap and contradiction now as it is. The only way this proposed group could be successful would be to streamline what's already there.

That being said, there should still be an effort made to try.

[Eric Frey]

I agree with the felt need for a definition of essentials. However, call me naive if you want, isn't that what the articles of faith should be? I am still confused as to why we need an Agreed Statement of Beliefs. Isn't that what Articles of Faith are?

Agreed Statement of Belief

These are the beliefs Nazarenes hold to be true:

We believe in one God-the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

We believe that man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore, inclined to evil, and that continually.

We believe that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost.

We believe that the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

We believe that believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers.

We believe that our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.


This is our agreed statement of belief. Note the glaring absense of prevenient grace, the church, and the sacraments. Are those issues not part of our agreed beliefs? If not, then why are they articles of faith?

I think what we need is not ANOTHER such statement, but a good theological explanation of what we already have.

[Ian Gentles]

I can see sanctifications wording being eventualy changed, is it essential for Sanctification to be a subsequent experiance to salvation?
I see in other areas ban on Alcohol maybe going, but that may be more difficult, personaly i am for it staying as it is!
Wonder if we will keep the ban on tobaco materials, probably.

I would like to know what others see as essentials and none essentials?

[Eric Frey]

Thanks for asking. Anyone want to try and improve on this?

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Jim Franklin]

I agree, Hans, I believe I can state from my long heritage in the Church of the Nazarene that the early leaders had in mind what they meant by "essentials" and "non-essentials" but over the course of time the "liberty" has become far more liberal than they intended or envisioned. My other question regarding "piety" awhile back was posed from the basis that I am left wondering how "united" we are on the essentials across the denominations. What constitutes a Holy life style? In becoming a converted believer seeking the second grace of Sanctification what features of a life changing experience reveal themselves in the change of life style. So called restrictions of what we do or do not do are for the sake of glorifying God and not just simply dismissed as legalism. My daughter in law of the other denomination is appalled at some of the laxness in apparell and conduct at the Nazarene college she attends.

[Terri Knoll]

from the years of perusing Naznet, I would tend to agree that a line NEEDS to be demarcated as to what IS essential. Sacraments for one thing, I see as essential. I'll just take baptism as one example. If the Manual states we baptize infants, then you NEED to baptize infants even if you see it as a non essential. If you are to be ordained Nazarene, and Nazarene says baptism is essential, you WILL do it, regardless of your belief, or you will NOT be ordained.

that's just one thing that came to mind, but you get my drift. It can be done. Needs to be done.

ps the reason I bring up baptism is in witnessing to neighbors (mainly with my life of love) a neighbor that just had a baby asked me what church I go to. She said I need to get my children baptized (son 9, daughter 8, newborn) and I cringed that I could not tell her to come to my church to have her children baptized. ack!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

the part about infant and young children's baptism in the 2005 manuel is in Paragraph 800.2 on page 250. It speaks of the prevenient grace in Christ for this child, and points to his personal appropriation of the benefits of the atonement, when he reaches the age of moral accountability, and exercizes conscious saving faith in Jesus Christ.

[Dave McClung]

Yes, I know this is early, but our resolutions are generally processed through the District Assembly, and since those are held in March, it means the March 2008 DA will be electing delegates and voting on resolutions for the GA. And March 2008 isn't so far away.

Anyway, I've been thinking for quite some time now about the following resolution and I would like to hear your opinion, so that it may be improved.

Resolved, That the Board of General Superintendents appoint an international committee that will propose a statement (to be included in the Manual) to the next General Assembly that clearly defines the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene.
Reason

Ever since the beginning days of our church, we have heard and subscribed to the statement: "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity". It is a wonderful and wise statement, but unfortunately not very specific. In fact, as far as we know, no one ever clearly defined what those essentials exactly are.

It seems that especially in our time with its rapid changes, we could really do with clarity on this issue. It would help churches to stand firm on what is essential, and understand where we can agree to disagree, with love.

I understand where you are coming from, but would not support such a resolution. Frankly, I don't think it is all bad that we have to live with some ambiguity. I guess I don't see clarity as being an "essential."

If the resolution is adopted it would create additional divisions within the church.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The essentials are mentioned in the last Manuel on page 256 801. Third paragraph through paragraph seven.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I suspect there were some who thought such had been done by identifying "general rules" and "special rules." Ambiguity isn't always unhelpful. Some persons at some points in their spiritual journey need some pretty concrete things. There are some who need them the entire journey. Others need for it to be different. Some apparently feel a compulsion to make sure the other group conforms. There are even some who identify the disparity as a "lack of clarity." The mind-boggling thing is that there is a desire to have all these belong to a common denomination, and to let an over-riding love for God and one another be more important than having their own needs met.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree with the felt need for a definition of essentials. However, call me naive if you want, isn't that what the articles of faith should be? I am still confused as to why we need an Agreed Statement of Beliefs. Isn't that what Articles of Faith are?

You're exactly right, Eric. It's confusing.

This is our agreed statement of belief. Note the glaring absense of prevenient grace, the church, and the sacraments. Are those issues not part of our agreed beliefs? If not, then why are they articles of faith?

I think what we need is not ANOTHER such statement, but a good theological explanation of what we already have.

Exactly.

[Hans Deventer]

There's enough overlap and contradiction now as it is. The only way this proposed group could be successful would be to streamline what's already there.

Great! I would support that. A complete revision and streamlining of the Manual is long overdue anyway. You can't expect a body of rules that is added to and amended every 4 years without some overview, to remain consistent.

[Hans Deventer]

I understand where you are coming from, but would not support such a resolution. Frankly, I don't think it is all bad that we have to live with some ambiguity. I guess I don't see clarity as being an "essential."

If the resolution is adopted it would create additional divisions within the church.

Well, then let's drop the essential/non essential idea altogether, because if we cannot define what we are talking about, the statement is meaningless. So I think there is good reason to propose the resolution. If defeated, we can at least dismiss with the idea of essentials. It will give at least some clarity.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess I need to explain some more of the rationale behind the resolution. I see several issues at stake.


We already adopted a resolution to allow for different ways of organizing the local church in 2005. I understand there will be legislation proposed to the 2009 GA to create more room even. I would support that, but the more room we give, the more important it becomes to know what our non-negotionables are. Otherwise we end up in a church that has no unity at all.


I see a church today where there is a lot of strive over numerous issues that are crucial for some but not for others. These discussions are rarely if ever helpful, and usually aren't resolved in a healthy way either. In my view, that is bad. If the church can give clear directions on what is important, and what is a subject people can disagree on, that would (in my view) be most helpful.


We now have a Manual in which there are many statements, rules and regulations. I presume most of us would agree that not everything is of equal "weight". But the problem is, no one can (or will) tell what is and what is not crucial. Again a source of confusion and disagreement.


The church is becoming ever more international. That means that differences will increase, for people and cultures are different. If we focus on those differences, we'll eventually split up. But if we can define a core of what the heart of our faith and the way we want to live holiness is, I believe we will be able to remain an international church and that fact alone would be a great testimony of what God's love can do.


I do understand that in some areas, ambiguity might be a good thing. That would, in my view, mainly be in the area of where we apply God's word. As situations are different, pastoral care needs the room to seek the best solution in a given situation. But it is exactly that room that will only be given if there is trust regarding what the core of our faith is. If I am convinced of my pastor's sincerity and agree with the heart of his/her faith, I can give trust even if I don't understand a decision.

[Hans Deventer]

The essentials are mentioned in the last Manuel on page 256 801. Third paragraph through paragraph seven.

Anne, I can't find what you mean exactly at http://media.premierstudios.com/nazarene/docs/Manual2005_09.pdf, but I presume you mean the things we say "yes" to when we become members? The problem is, however, there is no statement in the Manual that explicitly says this is the case.

The closest the Manual comes to a statement on our essentials would probably be this one:

26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.......

But I'm not so sure every Nazarene would agree only 26.1-8 would be our essentials. I personally have a few things I would like to add as well.

[Ian Gentles]

I agree with problem of us becoming more international. Maybe this is seen most in doctrine of Sanctification where many outside America are confused by, or flatly regect American Holiness teaching. Others, us, often see ourself as Wesleyan, trying to reclaim origenal Weslayan theology as opposed to that formulated in America is late 19th and early 20th century.

[David van Beveren]

Anne, I can't find what you mean exactly at http://media.premierstudios.com/nazarene/docs/Manual2005_09.pdf, but I presume you mean the things we say "yes" to when we become members? The problem is, however, there is no statement in the Manual that explicitly says this is the case.

The closest the Manual comes to a statement on our essentials would probably be this one:
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.......But I'm not so sure every Nazarene would agree only 26.1-8 would be our essentials. I personally have a few things I would like to add as well.
Maybe you also would change the question in the Manual #801?
Because there is put more the the membership than you'll find in #26.

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe you also would change the question in the Manual #801?
Because there is put more the the membership than you'll find in #26.

David, I'd truly love to get my hands on the Manual and work with a group to produce a complete review. Don't think anyone will entrust me with that job, though :basic05

[Ian Gentles]

David, I'd truly love to get my hands on the Manual and work with a group to produce a complete review. Don't think anyone will entrust me with that job, though :basic05


You get my vote Hans, but doubt it that will count? ;)

[Eric Frey]

Hans said:

"The church is becoming ever more international. That means that differences will increase, for people and cultures are different. If we focus on those differences, we'll eventually split up. But if we can define a core of what the heart of our faith and the way we want to live holiness is, I believe we will be able to remain an international church and that fact alone would be a great testimony of what God's love can do."

I agree 100%. I think the issue at stake is this: are we going to be an international church? We used to be an American church that sent people into the world. However, that has changed, and we are glad that it has, but as usual we (Americans) are not willing to give up what is necessary to let our doctrine truly reflect our inernationality.

I would propose a clarification of "essentials" and then move toward regional GS (USA/Canada, Central/South Americ, Eurasia, Australia/Oceana, etc) and part of their responsibility could be to guide their regions in understanding how the essentials are lived out in their cultures.

[Ian Gentles]

Weird though it may seem, even western European countries, for Instance, UK , Netherlands, Germany, are culturaly different, in a way that would affect theology, from good old US of A

[Ryan Scott]

But I'm not so sure every Nazarene would agree only 26.1-8 would be our essentials. I personally have a few things I would like to add as well.


Perhaps that is the issue. We all have things we'd like to add as essentials, but in doing so we create non-essentials for some others, I think. Isn't that what holiness is about, trusting one another to make the right decisions in light of God?

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps that is the issue. We all have things we'd like to add as essentials, but in doing so we create non-essentials for some others, I think. Isn't that what holiness is about, trusting one another to make the right decisions in light of God?

Well, the main thing I would like to add is that there are indeed no other essentials, for THAT is an essential. Hey, I could live with that!

If you'd ask me, if you could add points, what would you add?, I'd love something like our article of faith on the Scriptures, something about baptism not being an essential. Perhaps even something about women preachers. But again, if it were merely par. 26, I'd be happy for at least 99%. :)

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps something about the equality of all people, which would, by implication, cover our emphases on the ordination of women and cultural diversity.

I think we could do well to just get rid of the Covenant of Christian Conduct altogether ad trust each other to follow the guidelines of the Covenant of Christian Character.

Maybe you can write that proposal up, Hans? The only point of the Conduct covenant, as far as I can tell, is that we don't trust each other to live up to the Character Covenant. That seems silly.

[Dave McClung]

Well, then let's drop the essential/non essential idea altogether, because if we cannot define what we are talking about, the statement is meaningless. So I think there is good reason to propose the resolution. If defeated, we can at least dismiss with the idea of essentials. It will give at least some clarity.

Hans, I guess I don't understand where you are coming from. Article IV of the Manual already defines the "essential" beliefs for the Church of the Nazarene:

IV. Agreed Statement of Belief
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.We believe:
26.1. In one God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given
by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith
and Christian living.
26.3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore,
inclined to evil, and that continually.
26.4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally
lost.
26.5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the
whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes
on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and
saved from the dominion of sin.
26.6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent
to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
26.7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth,
and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised,
and the final judgment will take place.

Even on these brief "essentials" our forefathers have allowed a lot of room for discussion. A few years ago, the debate centered around the whether on not man is inclined toward evil "continually."

Most recently, the debate has been around the words "subsequent to regeneration."

Still, the debate on these issues have been more on an intellectual level than a practical one. I have listened to the arguments carefully and have concluded that the arguments are more about grammer than about theology. Most Nazarenes can accept these essentials.

Our forefathers were very careful to limit the beliefs that are to be considered "essential." Those who have attempted to expand the list to make other parts of the Manual "essential" have been unsuccessful in doing so.

Does Article IV of the Manaul mean that the Church of the Nazarene does not consider tithing an "essential?" How about baptism? What about inerrancy of the scripture? How about sanctification being a "crisis experience." Absolutely. That is exactly what Article IV says.

Even the Articles of Faith are "nonessential" to the extent that they define issues more precisely than Article IV. According to the Manual, there is room in our denomination for different opinions on all of those issues and any other that isn't listed in Article IV.

When our forefathers and current church leaders refer to "essentials" they are referring to Article IV of the Manual.

Is it the intention of your resolution that the international committee expand Article IV or to merely reaffirm the Article? It seems to me that if the General Assembly reaffirms Article IV (which it does each time it is left unchanged), then there is no need for such a committee.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I guess I don't understand where you are coming from.

Well, I really did try to explain as well as I could. I now understand that even http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=135634#post135634 wasn't clear enough. I have to admit I thought I was a little better in explaining myself, but if I didn't even explain my reasons to you in a proper manner, than I have to work a lot harder, that much is certain. Than you for pointing this out to me.

Article IV of the Manual already defines the "essential" beliefs for the Church of the Nazarene:

Dave, I guess I'm out here in the jungle in many ways, but trust me, not a single person has ever told me that what the Manual defines as "beliefs that as are essential to Christian experience" constitute the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene. Not here in the Netherlands, not here on NazNet, till Anne wrote about it and you have repeated it today.
But if this be the case, and all of the church agrees that these are our only essentials, hey, I'm happy with that and more than willing to say that my resolution isn't needed! As I wrote to Ryan in a previous post.

I have a problem, however, and I am sorry to say so but I don't believe you in this regard. I've seen way too many discussions over issues that clearly are not part of the essentials (defined as merely par. 26) and still created lots of problems, the recent trouble at ONU being merely the latest point in case. If the essentials were so clear, all Dr. Bowling would have had to do was to point towards this Agreed Statement Of Belief and that's it. But it didn't work that way and something tells me we are not clear at all about our essentials.

Mind you, I am talking about "essentials" as defined by Bresee's saying. I'm not even certain if they only pertain to faith statements. Is everything else in the CotN per definition considered a non-essential? Wow!

[Terri Knoll]

thanx doll, I was just using baptism as an example. same could be said about the eucharist. if we decide it needs to be done every Sunday, then it needs to be done every Sunday. personal choices aside.
I could just imagine what would happen if a new priest at the local Catholic church said, out with the eucharist! lol

[Ryan Scott]

So maybe your resolution needs to propose that the General Assembly pass a statement that says "the agreed statement of belief as expressed in the manual are the essentials of Christian faith according to the Church of the Nazarene." That should at least get the ball moving in the direction you want it to go.

I'm just really scared of what the outcome might be.

[Billy Cox]

Hans,

You seem to lean in a post-modernist direction, so this thread baffles me. Drawing lines and 'finding a balance' are futile efforts to attain certainty (control) within every aspect of human existence.

Are you running a fever or something? I thought that a post-modernist sought to erase most lines or at least reduce them to dotted lines.


-Billy

[Ryan Scott]

You seem to lean in a post-modernist direction, so this thread baffles me. Drawing lines and 'finding a balance' are futile efforts to attain certainty (control) within every aspect of human existence.

Are you running a fever or something? I thought that a post-modernist sought to erase most lines or at least reduce them to dotted lines.


I would think that a postmodern thinker within the Church of the Nazarene would like to know what boundaries they can erase and not get kicked out. I'm all for erasing lines and removing boundaries, but if we do it completely there's no point in defining a group such as the Church of the Nazarene in the first place.

[Dave McClung]

Well, I really did try to explain as well as I could. I now understand that even http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=135634#post135634 wasn't clear enough. I have to admit I thought I was a little better in explaining myself, but if I didn't even explain my reasons to you in a proper manner, than I have to work a lot harder, that much is certain. Than you for pointing this out to me.



Dave, I guess I'm out here in the jungle in many ways, but trust me, not a single person has ever told me that what the Manual defines as "beliefs that as are essential to Christian experience" constitute the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene. Not here in the Netherlands, not here on NazNet, till Anne wrote about it and you have repeated it today.
But if this be the case, and all of the church agrees that these are our only essentials, hey, I'm happy with that and more than willing to say that my resolution isn't needed! As I wrote to Ryan in a previous post.

I have a problem, however, and I am sorry to say so but I don't believe you in this regard. I've seen way too many discussions over issues that clearly are not part of the essentials (defined as merely par. 26) and still created lots of problems, the recent trouble at ONU being merely the latest point in case. If the essentials were so clear, all Dr. Bowling would have had to do was to point towards this Agreed Statement Of Belief and that's it. But it didn't work that way and something tells me we are not clear at all about our essentials.

Mind you, I am talking about "essentials" as defined by Bresee's saying. I'm not even certain if they only pertain to faith statements. Is everything else in the CotN per definition considered a non-essential? Wow!


I don't know how Article IV could be clearer. It says that we won't consider anything to be essential to membership in the Church of the Nazarene that isn't listed in Article IV.

If Article IV means anything, it means that the basic requirement for membership is that a person be a Christian. Article IV defines the the "world view" that we believe necessary to be a Christian. This is what Bresee was referring to when he talked about "essentials."

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know how Article IV could be clearer. It says that we won't consider anything to be essential to membership in the Church of the Nazarene that isn't listed in Article IV. It is my understanding that Article IV was drafted specifically in response to Bresee's saying.


I think Hans's point is that few pastors, let along laity, seem to understand that fact. He's encountered people who try to make other parts of the manual essential for membership. The manual provision for accepting new members, for example, requires agreement with the covenant of Christian conduct.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems to me that entire sanctification, if one REALLY is sanctified, would cover a lot of things. We may have a prone toward sin, due to temptations of the prince of the powers of the air. We can draw nigh to God, and be able, through the infilling of the Holy Spirit, to escape giving in to the temptations.
Being Spirit filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with love should lead us to keep the ten commandments, be modest in our dress, loving and kind in our actions and speech, etc.

Being (actually) Spirit filled, not just two trips to the altar, should lead us in our decisions about foods, drinks, drugs, etc. that would harm the temple of God. It would lead us away from temptations such as porn in any form that could injure our senses of propriety. What else is there to add to this?
REAL sanctifcation should dictate to us, by His spirit how we should dress, act, live and whatever.

[Ryan Scott]

REAL sanctifcation should dictate to us, by His spirit how we should dress, act, live and whatever.


I totally agree, but some people throw a fit when my manner of dress, action, life or whatever doesn't match up with theirs. That's the whole reason for those "extra" sections of the manual. I do think it needs to be better delineate between what is "essential" and what is "the opinion of a majority of GA delegates over a period of years."

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Another thing we need to understand is this: These essentials are the things necessary for our salvation. The rules would be more like guidelines for us to go by in our Christian walk, after justification and Sanctification.
They would not be part of the essentials for salvation. It does not mean that we just throw these things away, and act as we please, dress as we please, partAKE OF EVERYTHING WE PLEASE, WHETHER IT BE HARMFUL THINGS THAT ARE PUT INTO US VIA OF THE MOUTH, EYES, EARS, OR BASICALLY BY ANY OF OUR SENSES. THESE THINGS ARE TO FOLLOW THOSE THAT HAVE BELIEVED ON JESUS. THEN GOING ON INTO SANCTIFICTION IS SOMETHING THAT ENABLES US TO LIVE AS WE SHOULD, AND LOVE AS WE SHOULD, AND ACT AS WE SHOULD----- (My little finger hits the cap lock on this laptop.)

[Glenda Harvey]

It seems to me that entire sanctification, if one REALLY is sanctified, would cover a lot of things. We may have a prone toward sin, due to temptations of the prince of the powers of the air. We can draw nigh to God, and be able, through the infilling of the Holy Spirit, to escape giving in to the temptations.
Being Spirit filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with love should lead us to keep the ten commandments, be modest in our dress, loving and kind in our actions and speech, etc.

Being (actually) Spirit filled, not just two trips to the altar, should lead us in our decisions about foods, drinks, drugs, etc. that would harm the temple of God. It would lead us away from temptations such as porn in any form that could injure our senses of propriety. What else is there to add to this?
REAL sanctifcation should dictate to us, by His spirit how we should dress, act, live and whatever.

Anne there is a lot of truth to what you are saying but people have different interpretations as to what is considered modest dress or what is considered sin. What may seem an obvious sin to you, another may not have the same conviction. Others may look at the outward appearance of sin and forget about the love & kindness part. Sanctification should be taught as a condition of the Heart. While I do feel that Christians should avoid certain behaviors I'm not sure that a list of do's and don'ts should be the test of ones sanctification or part of the teaching of what sanctification is or isn't.

[Jim Franklin]

A good resource for shaping your resolution, Hans, would be Dr. Taylor's "The Disciplined Life."

[Dave McClung]

I think Hans's point is that few pastors, let along laity, seem to understand that fact. He's encountered people who try to make other parts of the manual essential for membership. The manual provision for accepting new members, for example, requires agreement with the covenant of Christian conduct.

Perhaps the issue is understanding what "essential" means. Saying that we have a limited list of "essentials" doesn't mean that other things are not important. For example, suppose we made a list of "Essentials for Human Life." Well, eyes are not essential. Ears are not essential. Arms are not essential. Legs are not essential. Only one lung is essential. Only one kindney is essential. If we started eliminating all of the "nonessential" parts of our body, we could still live, but our life wouldn't be worth much.

One needs to look at the Manual the same way. We define only a few things as essential, but there are a lot of others that are very important. Let's take for instance, baptism. We don't believe that it is "essential" for a person to be baptised to make it to heaven, but we believe that every Christian should be. Is that a contridiction? I don't think so.

[Ryan Scott]

I agree, I just think Hans is trying to formulate some definitive statement to help people understand that fact.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Even a sinner knows how to ascertain what looks sexual and alluring to the opposite sex. How much more, should a Christian realize ways that would be drawing the sexual attention of the opposite sex. They would have to be simple minded to not know that. Where as, a woman who before hand dressed alluringly on purpose, something about the Christ dwelling within, would also tell her that dress style needed to be changed--or in him, the dress style needed to be changed.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE FOR ANY WOMAN TO SHOW LOTS OF HER BREAST IN FRONT OF OTHERS. No excuse left to name. No excuse for a man to wear tight clothes in certain places, and nonchalantly move his hands occasionally in a way to draw attention to a certain part of his body. NO EXCUSE, no matter what their background is, unless they are VERY young and naive, and possibly drug up by the hair of their head.
People protest because they want to be that way. I feel that a man may accept his wife's dress style because it looks good to him, BUT, he needs to think again. If it looks good to him, it looks good to other men, also. Think on that. But he should not turn around and try tomake her goe to such extremes in the opposite direction, that it would be an embarassment to her.
Dwayne would allow me to go places in ways that I would not dress in public, and would not realize what he was doing. He sees me with the eyes of love. I truly believe that.

[Ian Gentles]

It seems to me that entire sanctification, if one REALLY is sanctified, would cover a lot of things. We may have a prone toward sin, due to temptations of the prince of the powers of the air. We can draw nigh to God, and be able, through the infilling of the Holy Spirit, to escape giving in to the temptations.
Being Spirit filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with love should lead us to keep the ten commandments, be modest in our dress, loving and kind in our actions and speech, etc.

Being (actually) Spirit filled, not just two trips to the altar, should lead us in our decisions about foods, drinks, drugs, etc. that would harm the temple of God. It would lead us away from temptations such as porn in any form that could injure our senses of propriety. What else is there to add to this?
REAL sanctifcation should dictate to us, by His spirit how we should dress, act, live and whatever.

Ann i think Manual is a legal document of sorts thats to give guidlines, and help to all members. I think this is different from Holy Spirit baptism. I have to stick with Hans here, clarification of essentials would be a help.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The essentials are for what is essential for our salvation--Right? But, it is also essential in the outward things that I have mentioned. Salvation should bring a change in our actions---SURELY!

[Glenda Harvey]

Even a sinner knows how to ascertain what looks sexual and alluring to the opposite sex. How much more, should a Christian realize ways that would be drawing the sexual attention of the opposite sex. They would have to be simple minded to not know that. Where as, a woman who before hand dressed alluringly on purpose, something about the Christ dwelling within, would also tell her that dress style needed to be changed--or in him, the dress style needed to be changed.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE FOR ANY WOMAN TO SHOW LOTS OF HER BREAST IN FRONT OF OTHERS. No excuse left to name. No excuse for a man to wear tight clothes in certain places, and nonchalantly move his hands occasionally in a way to draw attention to a certain part of his body. NO EXCUSE, no matter what their background is, unless they are VERY young and naive, and possibly drug up by the hair of their head.
People protest because they want to be that way. I feel that a man may accept his wife's dress style because it looks good to him, BUT, he needs to think again. If it looks good to him, it looks good to other men, also. Think on that. But he should not turn around and try tomake her goe to such extremes in the opposite direction, that it would be an embarassment to her.
Dwayne would allow me to go places in ways that I would not dress in public, and would not realize what he was doing. He sees me with the eyes of love. I truly believe that.

Anne I think what I am trying to say is that you are right that if a person is walking in the Spirit and living a Spirit filled life then they will become aware of what is not pleasing to God and what keeps them from living in Holiness. However we need to be careful that we as individuals don't become legalistic and dictatorial to others as to what their behavior should be. We need to let the Holy Spirit do His work while we just love that person and be an example and a mentor without being judgemental.

[Ian Gentles]

The essentials are for what is essential for our salvation--Right? But, it is also essential in the outward things that I have mentioned. Salvation should bring a change in our actions---SURELY!

Yes, but those changes will differ with every individual, its not a uniformed thing.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

From what I read on Naznet, many people seem to have no idea of the real meaning of holiness. If a person is truly sanctified, they will not be throwing a fit over holiness people thinking that we should dress modestly. I have not said a thing that anyone should squeak about. I do not claimed to have arrived, but maybe I was taught the wrong way about what holy living is.
I am not advocating long sleeves, dresses to one's ankles and turtle neck type dresses.
Before I had been on Naznet one month, people turned from me because I had holy living standards. People have a right to do as they please. I am aware of that. But, I thought I was on a holiness type forum, where people would believe in sensible modesty, a Christlike spirit, and clean living. We sound much like the world, at times, with people holding on to their little pet peeves, wanting to live like self wants to live, and still profess a life of being separated unto God and his holiness.
Any monitor that pleases is welcome to delete all of this.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

You seem to lean in a post-modernist direction, so this thread baffles me. Drawing lines and 'finding a balance' are futile efforts to attain certainty (control) within every aspect of human existence.

Are you running a fever or something? I thought that a post-modernist sought to erase most lines or at least reduce them to dotted lines.

I think I'm ok. Yes, I seem to lean in a post modernist direction, but that does not mean that my faith has no content and everything is only relative. I'm not trying to attain control either. I AM seeking, much like Webber describes in his Ancient Future Faith, the core of what that faith is, and since I'm a part of the CotN, also the core what it means to be a Nazarene.
It is exactly because I believe we need to give one another much more room than we have been doing up till now, that we need to know where the non negotionables are. Not merely in confession, but also in what it means to be a Nazarene.

At the Global Theology Conference in The Netherlands this year, Dr. Corliss McGee said she always sought to define what was essential to her, thus allowing her to give room on the non essential issues. That rang a bell with me. Exactly because I don't like the control approach, I would want us to be clear on this.

[Hans Deventer]

A good resource for shaping your resolution, Hans, would be Dr. Taylor's "The Disciplined Life."

I don't have the book, Jim. Perhaps it's online somewhere?

[Hans Deventer]

One needs to look at the Manual the same way. We define only a few things as essential, but there are a lot of others that are very important. Let's take for instance, baptism. We don't believe that it is "essential" for a person to be baptised to make it to heaven, but we believe that every Christian should be. Is that a contridiction? I don't think so.


Dave, you've convinced me. I won't submit the resolution. If I'm not even able to explain to you what I mean, the resolution is a failure no matter what I would want to achieve. :basic04

Ryan, thanks for showing I haven't failed completely.

[Ian Gentles]

From what I read on Naznet, many people seem to have no idea of the real meaning of holiness. If a person is truly sanctified, they will not be throwing a fit over holiness people thinking that we should dress modestly. I have not said a thing that anyone should squeak about. I do not claimed to have arrived, but maybe I was taught the wrong way about what holy living is.
I am not advocating long sleeves, dresses to one's ankles and turtle neck type dresses.
Before I had been on Naznet one month, people turned from me because I had holy living standards. People have a right to do as they please. I am aware of that. But, I thought I was on a holiness type forum, where people would believe in sensible modesty, a Christlike spirit, and clean living. We sound much like the world, at times, with people holding on to their little pet peeves, wanting to live like self wants to live, and still profess a life of being separated unto God and his holiness.
Any monitor that pleases is welcome to delete all of this.

Anne i have complained myself on this board in past about scantily dressed young ladies in church services, rather off putting for any male however pure his thoughts.

[Ian Gentles]

You explained it ok to me Hans, and i am thick ;)

[Roland Hearn]

From what I read on Naznet, many people seem to have no idea of the real meaning of holiness. If a person is truly sanctified, they will not be throwing a fit over holiness people thinking that we should dress modestly. I have not said a thing that anyone should squeak about. I do not claimed to have arrived, but maybe I was taught the wrong way about what holy living is.
I am not advocating long sleeves, dresses to one's ankles and turtle neck type dresses.
Before I had been on Naznet one month, people turned from me because I had holy living standards. People have a right to do as they please. I am aware of that. But, I thought I was on a holiness type forum, where people would believe in sensible modesty, a Christlike spirit, and clean living. We sound much like the world, at times, with people holding on to their little pet peeves, wanting to live like self wants to live, and still profess a life of being separated unto God and his holiness.
Any monitor that pleases is welcome to delete all of this.

Anne this is a very difficult area to navigate successfully. It would seem self evident that a person committed to holiness would agree with your understanding of modesty. The problem is that this issue in many ways blurs a true understanding of holiness. If all holiness is is confirming to a dress code then most golf clubs are holier than most churches. Many times people are not arguing for a less stringent stand upon clothing but a more meaningful measure for holiness. The church is full of people that know how to cut a person in half verbally for not wearing the right clothes but have very little understanding of how to love someone else. Holiness is love long before it is clothing. The issue of modesty will take care of itself when people's lives are transformed but when modesty becomes the issue there is a lot less transformation and therefore a lot more young people wearing the wrong clothes but fairly confident they want not one iota of the religion of the people that are condemning them. Clothing cannot be one of the essentials of our faith.

[Ian Gentles]

So true about Golf Clubs Dress Codes, here they call it, "Smart Casual" whatever that means LOL

[Gina Stevenson]

We believe that the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

Along with mentioning articles of faith, which includes the above, someone mentioned "prevenient grace" being excluded therefrom. Since we do read in Scripture about no one being able to come to God lest the Spirit draw him(her), maybe the above could be amended just a wee bit to include this stated-in-the-scriptures essential piece of the puzzle, something like:

We believe that the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, having been drawn by His Holy Spirit, is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

************

As for the sacraments mentioned, we'll leave those items to others. ;)

[Glenda Harvey]

From what I read on Naznet, many people seem to have no idea of the real meaning of holiness. If a person is truly sanctified, they will not be throwing a fit over holiness people thinking that we should dress modestly. I have not said a thing that anyone should squeak about. I do not claimed to have arrived, but maybe I was taught the wrong way about what holy living is.
I am not advocating long sleeves, dresses to one's ankles and turtle neck type dresses.
Before I had been on Naznet one month, people turned from me because I had holy living standards. People have a right to do as they please. I am aware of that. But, I thought I was on a holiness type forum, where people would believe in sensible modesty, a Christlike spirit, and clean living. We sound much like the world, at times, with people holding on to their little pet peeves, wanting to live like self wants to live, and still profess a life of being separated unto God and his holiness.
Any monitor that pleases is welcome to delete all of this.

Anne,

I believe that Christians should dress modestly, I just believe we need to be careful when it comes to judging or dictating what modest dress is. In my mothers generation Nazarenes couldn't wear jewlery or make up, and women didn't wear pants. When I was growing up in the 60's women still did not wear pants to Church. We need to let the Holy Spirit work in peoples lives and be example without critisizing others or telling them what Holiness should look like. I'm not saying that this is what you were doing, I agree with much of what you say, I am just trying to be a voice of caution.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well, as I have said, I have not arrived and I am not perfect in my head, but after 45 years of being a minister's wife, and over 60 years of being a Christian and close to 50 years of being sanctified, I am in very bad shape, if I do not have enough judgement and knowledge to be "wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."
Many of you may have been mentors and counselors to people over the years, as I have been, and we all know that a young Christian may need some guidance, and ask questions about such things as I have mentioned.
I have not judged any particular person. I have just added my two cents worth of what real holiness living is. If a person is sincere, the Holy Spirit will guide them. But, anyone has the right to mention the fact that many people do "halt between between two opinions?"
I was raised the way you said some Nazrenes were raised, Glenda. But I wear long pants on Wednesday night, and sometimes dress slacks on Sunday night. Last Sunday, for the first time, I wore dress slacks to church on Sunday morning in Arkansas, as the other ladies do.
I was raised to not wear makeup, but do wear it lightly, and wear necklaces that blend in with my clothes.

[Ian Gentles]

Along with mentioning articles of faith, which includes the above, someone mentioned "prevenient grace" being excluded therefrom. Since we do read in Scripture about no one being able to come to God lest the Spirit draw him(her), maybe the above could be amended just a wee bit to include this stated-in-the-scriptures essential piece of the puzzle, something like:

We believe that the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, having been drawn by His Holy Spirit, is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

************

As for the sacraments mentioned, we'll leave those items to others. ;)


MMmmmmm know what you mean, but getting near to Calvanism again, doubt GA would pass that one lol

[Billy Cox]

At the Global Theology Conference in The Netherlands this year, Dr. Corliss McGee said she always sought to define what was essential to her, thus allowing her to give room on the non essential issues. That rang a bell with me. Exactly because I don't like the control approach, I would want us to be clear on this.

It was exactly this that threw me for a loop. The quest to add things to the Manual runs counter to the freedom suggested by the essentials vs. nonessentials philosophy.

[Ian Gentles]

Is asking for better explanation of essentials adding to the Manual? For sure Manual in many places has many hoops for us to supposidly jump through, but guess all denominations do that.
However, we do need a clear Manual one we can full adhere to. Many other denominations have forgotten their roots, i mean today how many Anglican clergy give two hoots about the forty nine articles, much to the the spiritual disintigration withing the Anglican Communion. So as we fight a battle for the soul of our beloved church we need that all be very clear what we are and where we are, and why!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The essentials are what is necessary for salvation, but the next step is sanctification.
That part is having a pure heart of love. But, people also need to understand, what some of the outward things will be if they are to live pure and holy in this world at this present time. They may need some mentoring, according to what their position or training or background has been in the past. That is where I was trying state that I do have enough experience to understand these things, and how to deal with people.

[Ryan Scott]

The essentials are what is necessary for salvation, but the next step is sanctification.
That part is having a pure heart of love. But, people also need to understand, what some of the outward things will be if they are to live pure and holy in this world at this present time. They may need some mentoring, according to what their position or training or background has been in the past. That is where I was trying state that I do have enough experience to understand these things, and how to deal with people.


But it should be the Holy Spirit telling them how to live and act in these matters not the manual and not any of us.

[Ian Gentles]

Although i see your point Ann, and agree about modesty to some degree, i can see how we can be but harmfull it talking to a lady about her dress sense? I would be afraid any embarresment and offenced cause would send them running from the church. Also who decide what is modes or imodest? If Holy Spirit can convict us of our sin in bringing us to salvation, i would trust Him do do whatever else is neccesary.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

One more time, and I will stop. Maybe some of you have not been a minister's wife for 45 years. I remember in Dwayne's first pastorate, making up my mind to just let the Holy Spirit lead people. Well, surely many of you know that many will still come to us, and honestly want guidance and help from us as a mentors, and want us to discuss things with them. I have not said that I went around trying to run anyone's life, pointing my finger at them, embarrassing them, dechristianizing them, or any of the other things you could come up with. I made a statement, and will not step back from it. If someone's modesty is different in a lustful, and alluring way to the oposite sex, they are in bad need of help spiritually. There sometimes needs to be an old mother or father in Israel that may have to help them realize how they are dressing. In MOST cases they know and still continue to dress that way and profess holiness. You all know everything I have said. I do not intend to argue, but will not back down. I have watched the backward turn of church people for many years. If their spirit bears witness with my spirit, that they and I are children of God, and brothers and sister's in Christ--gREAT. I try to stay close enough to God to know that. Otherwise, I will still love them, and pray for them, or whatever I can do. Why are you making such a big to do over people keeping their nakedness covered? Why are most people afraid to post on controversial issues such as gays, modesty, alcohol, tobacco, etc? It has made me a person that is not liked on Naznet, but the Bible has told us how we would be treated, and it does not matter what others think, so far as my backing down, or standing up for pure clean holy living, that does not make mockery on the name of the one who died for us. He said, "Be ye holy, as I am Holy." Come ye out from among them---We may be friendly, loving, help feed, cloth or shelter them, but not part of them. I will not compromise, but ido believe in being flexible.

[Ian Gentles]

Oh dear Ann you are more than liked on NazNet you are loved trust my word.

[Billy Cox]

But it should be the Holy Spirit telling them how to live and act in these matters not the manual and not any of us.

Yeah but the Holy Spirit might tell me a different way to live than he tells you...and that could lead to postmodernism. :eek:

[Ian Gentles]

Yeah but the Holy Spirit might tell me a different way to live than he tells you...and that could lead to postmodernism. :eek:

ROF that is actualy quite funy ;)

[Hans Deventer]

But it should be the Holy Spirit telling them how to live and act in these matters not the manual and not any of us.

But Ryan, surely you know we do a far better job than the Holy Spirit? Next thing, you want us to believe He can actually cleanse our hearts from sin!

[Ian Gentles]

ROFLOL Hans, oh we do see to take over the Holy Spirits job an awfull lot of the time.

[Ryan Scott]

But Ryan, surely you know we do a far better job than the Holy Spirit? Next thing, you want us to believe He can actually cleanse our hearts from sin!


Let's not go that far. I mean we aren't that crazy.

[Hans Deventer]

Let's not go that far. I mean we aren't that crazy.

Ryan, seriously, it is the one thing I never understood. How could it ever have been that a church that so strongly believes in the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, could have become so legalistic? Our ethical rules deny our theology.

Now if they were merely advises, trying to help people, now that would have been a different case. For surely we were never meant to be holy on our own.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, seriously, it is the one thing I never understood. How could it ever have been that a church that so strongly believes in the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, could have become so legalistic? Our ethical rules deny our theology.


Not to point fingers, but since we're discussing denominational history on another thread, you can see a direct correlation between the rise of legalism and the admission of the (I forget the official name) Laymen's Association from the Northern Plains (Montana and the Dakotas) into the Church of the Nazarene. This group was extremely legalistic and not as committed to the early Nazarene understanding of sanctification. They were also starkly anti-intellectual and vilified the city.

You can see a turn towards legalism and exclusivity, as well as a shift from urban to rural focus after this merger. Not to completely denigrate them, their leader spurred some of the largest growth in foreign missions in the history of the denomination, but they had the opposite impact on the state of the denomination in the US.

[Ian Gentles]

Are we narrowly legalistic? In any discusion on sanctification or article x it often seems so as folks try to fit in their experiance with what church holds, not a healthy thing i beleive. Lets be free and discover holiness as Wesley did!

[Hans Deventer]

Are we narrowly legalistic?

We have been. The CotN has only too often exchanged the experience of entire sanctification with legalism, and now that we are finally dropping legalism, we start to wonder how to recapture the experience. For legalism only brought death. However, we understand the words and forms of the 19th century Holiness Movement no longer fit, and we aren't clear yet on the new wineskins, so to speak. Which isn't helped by the tremendous paradigm shift our culture is experiencing in many ways.

So we can't go back, we need to go forward, but all we really have is God Himself and the hope and confidence that He is still very willing to fill people's heart with love and cleanse them from all sin.
But we need more. We need living examples of what that would look like in the 21st century because ours has become a time in which people aren't convinced so much by theories, but by experience, by examples. In some way, of course, the experience is the same as in the 1st century. The core certainly is. But expressions will differ. Which, BTW, is one more reason why I believe we need to be totally clear on the core.

[Ian Gentles]

We have been. The CotN has only too often exchanged the experience of entire sanctification with legalism, and now that we are finally dropping legalism, we start to wonder how to recapture the experience. For legalism only brought death. However, we understand the words and forms of the 19th century Holiness Movement no longer fit, and we aren't clear yet on the new wineskins, so to speak. Which isn't helped by the tremendous paradigm shift our culture is experiencing in many ways.

So we can't go back, we need to go forward, but all we really have is God Himself and the hope and confidence that He is still very willing to fill people's heart with love and cleanse them from all sin.
But we need more. We need living examples of what that would look like in the 21st century because ours has become a time in which people aren't convinced so much by theories, but by experience, by examples. In some way, of course, the experience is the same as in the 1st century. The core certainly is. But expressions will differ. Which, BTW, is one more reason why I believe we need to be totally clear on the core.

No we cant go back, i do remeber the old days, oh yes much good, but much negitivity as well. But i feel the future is bright, enabling us, in our day, to rediscover holines as Wesley did in his day. I think we are at a very exciting point in denominations history that will only be to all our benifit.

[Ryan Scott]

We have been. The CotN has only too often exchanged the experience of entire sanctification with legalism, and now that we are finally dropping legalism, we start to wonder how to recapture the experience. For legalism only brought death. However, we understand the words and forms of the 19th century Holiness Movement no longer fit, and we aren't clear yet on the new wineskins, so to speak. Which isn't helped by the tremendous paradigm shift our culture is experiencing in many ways.

So we can't go back, we need to go forward, but all we really have is God Himself and the hope and confidence that He is still very willing to fill people's heart with love and cleanse them from all sin.
But we need more. We need living examples of what that would look like in the 21st century because ours has become a time in which people aren't convinced so much by theories, but by experience, by examples. In some way, of course, the experience is the same as in the 1st century. The core certainly is. But expressions will differ. Which, BTW, is one more reason why I believe we need to be totally clear on the core.



You should save that speech for the next GA, Hans.

[Ian Gentles]

As we get into 21st centuary we have to cast off the old cloths and put on new ones that fit our modern age. No this isnt suggesting modernism, but a fresh beginning, a going back to the Bible and to Wesley, almost to start all over again in creating a holiness church for this new centuary. I beleive ever denomination, esp ours, needs to reinvent itself for ever new age. Sadly in UK many churches hold on to old ways, and are dieing with no apeal to outsiders, so no fresh blood comes in :(

[Ian Gentles]

A curch that lives in the past, is a church that has buried itself in ages gone.

[Hans Deventer]

"My" resolution has been discussed with my DS and some possible GA delegates and the reasoning has been changed quite drastically.

Resolved,
That the Board of General Superintendents appoint an international committee that will propose a statement (to be included in the Manual) to the next General Assembly that clearly defines the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene.
Reasons
There are several changes going on in the world and in our church, that would require clarity on our essentials. We know Dr. Phineas Bresee loved to quote the statement: “In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity". However, what exactly are these essentials that define our church? That is not so clear, as any discussion with a fellow Nazarene will soon teach you. Why is that?
Our church, by the grace of God, is rapidly expanding over the entire world, but also in very different cultural groups in places where we have been present for a long time. Both as an international church, or as districts and local churches, we are far less homogeneous than we used to be.
Especially in the Western world, the paradigm shift of postmodern thinking is challenging longstanding beliefs. It is crucial for us to know where we can and probably must change, and where we cannot and should not.
There will be legislation presented to this General Assembly that will allow for changes in Manual regulations to be made at a lower level than the General Assembly. Again the question is, what issues define who we are and should therefore not be changed, but if needed, by the General Assembly alone?

[Eric Frey]

You have my vote Hans!

[Billy Cox]

"My" resolution has been discussed with my DS and some possible GA delegates and the reasoning has been changed quite drastically.

Resolved,
That the Board of General Superintendents appoint an international committee that will propose a statement (to be included in the Manual) to the next General Assembly that clearly defines the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene.
Reasons
There are several changes going on in the world and in our church, that would require clarity on our essentials. We know Dr. Phineas Bresee loved to quote the statement: “In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity". However, what exactly are these essentials that define our church? That is not so clear, as any discussion with a fellow Nazarene will soon teach you. Why is that?
Our church, by the grace of God, is rapidly expanding over the entire world, but also in very different cultural groups in places where we have been present for a long time. Both as an international church, or as districts and local churches, we are far less homogeneous than we used to be.
Especially in the Western world, the paradigm shift of postmodern thinking is challenging longstanding beliefs. It is crucial for us to know where we can and probably must change, and where we cannot and should not.
There will be legislation presented to this General Assembly that will allow for changes in Manual regulations to be made at a lower level than the General Assembly. Again the question is, what issues define who we are and should therefore not be changed, but if needed, by the General Assembly alone?

As a rank and file Nazarene, I find reasons #2 and #3 to be most compelling. I suspect that even within a high-control environment like the Church of Scientology, there is diversity of opinion about 'essentials, so #1 doesn't hold much weight for me personally.

[Ryan Scott]

My only fear is that too many things will be labeled "essential." I hope they choose a good mix of perspectives for the committee.

[Eric Frey]

Is your fear that they will label too many things as essential, or that they will label things you don't find essential as such?

[Scott Sherwood]

I haven't read every post of this thread completely, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. I need to be at church in a few minutes and don't want to forget to come back.

Regarding doctrine, the agreed statement of belief give us something close.

Regarding ethics, the covenant of Christian Character (formerly general rules) says "It is required." The Covenant of Christian Conduct (formerly special rules) says "they should be followed." The difference in language sends a pretty clear, albeit subtle, message regarding essential and non-essential.

The CCCharacter is explicitly Biblical at every point naming behaviors specifically where the Bible is specific and generally where the Bible is general. The CCConduct is the churches attempt to apply Biblical principles to contemporary issues not specifically addressed by Scriptures and therefore is presented with less absolute language.

At least that's what I'd argue if I was a canon lawyer.

If we had canon lawyers.

which we don't.

Maybe I'll write a resolution too. :)

[Ryan Scott]

Is your fear that they will label too many things as essential, or that they will label things you don't find essential as such?


Practically, I'm afraid of the first (you know how committees go) and personally, I'm afraid of the second. The Church of the Nazarene is a huge part of my identity and I'd hate to be left on the wrong side. In fact, I'd rather live with the ambiguity than risk alienation.

[Hans Deventer]

Practically, I'm afraid of the first (you know how committees go) and personally, I'm afraid of the second. The Church of the Nazarene is a huge part of my identity and I'd hate to be left on the wrong side. In fact, I'd rather live with the ambiguity than risk alienation.

That means, your identity is ambiguity?

[Eric Frey]

I think Ryan means (I don't usually speak for others, except that I think we are both somewhat fearful of the same thing) that as long a things are somewhat ambiguous, there is more room for a diversity of opinions. That is what makes it possible for many of us to stay in the family that we love and that formed and shaped us. If a group declared certain understandings of doctrines 'essential' then it has the potential of pushing some of us out.

An example might be the Infant Baptism issue. There are many who feel that Infant Baptism is a valid sacrament and therefore ought to be indorsed and encouraged by getting rid of dedication as an option. There are many who feel that Infant Baptism is not a valid sacrament and thus ought not be allowed.

Now, I think this issue is essential. I think the church needs to define what it believes regarding Infant Baptism. Either it is a sacrament or it is not. If it is, then it alone should be practiced; if it is not then it should not be allowed. So if I believe it is not a valid sacrament and the church decides it is, then where does that leave me?

That, I think is Ryans fear. I think we need to define the essentials, but I fear (and I think this is what Ryan fears too) that in making these decisions, it may put some of us in a position where we may need to leave our family. None of us want that, but even that, IMHO, is no reason to not address the question.

[Billy Cox]

I think Ryan means (I don't usually speak for others, except that I think we are both somewhat fearful of the same thing) that as long a things are somewhat ambiguous, there is more room for a diversity of opinions. That is what makes it possible for many of us to stay in the family that we love and that formed and shaped us. If a group declared certain understandings of doctrines 'essential' then it has the potential of pushing some of us out.

An example might be the Infant Baptism issue. There are many who feel that Infant Baptism is a valid sacrament and therefore ought to be indorsed and encouraged by getting rid of dedication as an option. There are many who feel that Infant Baptism is not a valid sacrament and thus ought not be allowed.

Now, I think this issue is essential. I think the church needs to define what it believes regarding Infant Baptism. Either it is a sacrament or it is not. If it is, then it alone should be practiced; if it is not then it should not be allowed. So if I believe it is not a valid sacrament and the church decides it is, then where does that leave me?

That, I think is Ryans fear. I think we need to define the essentials, but I fear (and I think this is what Ryan fears too) that in making these decisions, it may put some of us in a position where we may need to leave our family. None of us want that, but even that, IMHO, is no reason to not address the question.

The church has thusfar decided that a particular stance on infant baptism is NOT essential and I tend to agree that it is not an issue worth breaking fellowship over.

[Hans Deventer]

That, I think is Ryans fear. I think we need to define the essentials, but I fear (and I think this is what Ryan fears too) that in making these decisions, it may put some of us in a position where we may need to leave our family. None of us want that, but even that, IMHO, is no reason to not address the question.

I understand. But I don't presume that designating some things as assential is the same as changing them. So it would not include a change in an Article of Faith, but rather state what part of the Manual is essential and what is not.

And the reason is because of the problem on the other side of the spectrum. Because if we are so ambiguous about our essentials, anyone can stand up that this specific issue I care about so much is essential and hence, since you don't agree with me, you don't belong to this church! And this is not a theoretical example, unfortunately. But I don't want individuals to have that freedom! And I want to offer room for any change that needs to be made in the church to be able to express itself in the 21st century, in the context of post modernism and whatever changes we may have to go through, without holding on to things that are not essential!

So in stead of pushing people out, I see it as a way of keeping them in, because it allows room to think and let think on what now is clearly a non-essential, in stead of being butchered for not believing in a 6x24h creation or some such. Or adhering to Open Theism. The list is endless.

[Scott Sherwood]

This thread has been bouncing around the back of my mind ever since I read Hans' initial post (Kudos to Hans).

I wonder if God allowed there to be a great degree of ambiguity in Scripture, because intellectual and ethical certainty were not what He was after.

I think we would do well to be extremely clear and specific where Scripture is clear and specific and allow ambiguity where Scripture does. If God thinks it is important that we nail down one way of thinking or one way of operating on some issue, He may have addressed it as such in Scripture. I suspect there are plenty of issues about which God was very clear toward which I (and we Nazarenes) continually struggle to pay sufficient attention.

I suspect that Hans suspects his proposal would force us to formally declare many issues as non-essential and thus remove them from our quadrennial fight card. That's why I think I like his proposal.

[Eric Frey]

Hans, please don't read my reply as critical of your proposal. As I said, I am 100% in favor of what you are suggesting. You have my vote.

[Hans Deventer]

I suspect that Hans suspects his proposal would force us to formally declare many issues as non-essential and thus remove them from our quadrennial fight card. That's why I think I like his proposal.

Exactly. It's not meant to kick the "heretics" out of the church, on the contrary, it's meant to keep those in line who cry "heretic" way too early. It's time we truly learn to give room in the non-essentials. And I believe we can only do so if we're clear on the essentials.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, please don't read my reply as critical of your proposal. As I said, I am 100% in favor of what you are suggesting. You have my vote.

Eric, you've written very reasonable things. Call them critical if you like, but any remark that is reasonable, is appreciated. If a proposal can't stand critical evaluation, it isn't worth much. So thanks!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

May I voice my opinion, not to criticize, just to post my thoughts. I don't remember off hand what people think of as essentials.

But: It seems to me that we don't need to voice an opinion about babtizing or dedicating babies. It seems people should be able to make this decision on their own, and it might be influened by the background they were raised in. It does not seem pertinant to our
salvation, how this is done, anymore than pouring, sprinkling, or immersion in babtism--which is often influenced by a person's background and raising, also.
How could thse things cause problems within a family? They may, but Dwayne and I feel the way I have stated them.

Movies should be mentioned to give strict guidelines, about the type of things watched. The comercials only, at times are terrible.

We have always been against dancing for a couple of reasons: One being, if you should end up in someones arms, in an intimate way, that is not your spouse...also the type of dancing it i. I took square dancing in an elite all girls school, with a tall athletic partner. Then, we need to consider, the type of place (atmosphere) in the place we attend--bad, drinking, lot of things going on unChristlike.
Now, I was not trying to just stay on essentials.

I remember when we use to have a membership committee to decide whether or not someone could join the church--not me and Dwayne--a church I attended as a child.
Then I remember the decision that was posted in the Miami (I think) papers in 1972, when the change was made about divorcees. They could join if the divorce had happened while they were in sin. Let's see. Help me Hans. Hadn't we already been allowing membership, due to adultery.
Right now I cannot think of anything else, and I know I discussed things that might not be a part of what you wanted discussed.

Maybe, someone else will mention something else, that is on their mind. But, do we really need these things mentioned? What are some things that needs to be mentioned or pinpointed at GA?
I hope we will be able (physically for me) to attend.
I did not spellcheck.

[Kevin Rector]

Exactly. It's not meant to kick the "heretics" out of the church, on the contrary, it's meant to keep those in line who cry "heretic" way too early. It's time we truly learn to give room in the non-essentials. And I believe we can only do so if we're clear on the essentials.


It might be easier to amend the current manual to make it more internally consistent. Since most of the legalism in our denomination revolves around an unclear interpretation of the Covenant of Christian Conduct we can get away from concerns of people making essential or required that which is not essential or required by clarifying the manual.

Here's a three part resolution I would offer:

1. Amend paragraph 107.1 by removing the words "the requirements of" and replace the word "and" with a comma so that it reads: "When persons desire to unite with the church, the pastor shall explain to them the privileges and responsibilities of membership in the church, the Articles of Faith, the Covenant of Christian Character, the Covenant of Christian Conduct, and the purpose and mission of the Church of the Nazarene."

Purpose: The Covenant of Christian Conduct is intended as a guide to holy living it is not intended to be rules who's following is required for membership. Furthermore, per paragraph 26 membership is based on regeneration not on denominational specific guidelines. The word change removes ambiguity on the nature of the Covenant of Christian Conduct and it's relationship to membership in the Church of the Nazarene.

2. Amend paragraph 505.1 to remove the words, "or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church,".

Purpose: Neither the Covenant of Christian Character nor the Covenant of Christian Conduct are a juridical code to be enforced, as such no provision should be made for a minister being disciplined for "...laxity in the enforcement..." of said covenants.

3. Amend paragraph 801 to remove both occurrences of the words, "and the Covenant of Christian Conduct"

Purpose: The Covenant of Christian Conduct is intended as a guide to holy living it is not intended to be rules who's following is required for membership. Furthermore, per paragraph 26 membership is based on regeneration not on denominational specific guidelines. The word change removes ambiguity on the nature of the Covenant of Christian Conduct and it's relationship to membership in the Church of the Nazarene.

[Ryan Scott]

I understand. But I don't presume that designating some things as assential is the same as changing them. So it would not include a change in an Article of Faith, but rather state what part of the Manual is essential and what is not.

And the reason is because of the problem on the other side of the spectrum. Because if we are so ambiguous about our essentials, anyone can stand up that this specific issue I care about so much is essential and hence, since you don't agree with me, you don't belong to this church! And this is not a theoretical example, unfortunately. But I don't want individuals to have that freedom! And I want to offer room for any change that needs to be made in the church to be able to express itself in the 21st century, in the context of post modernism and whatever changes we may have to go through, without holding on to things that are not essential!

So in stead of pushing people out, I see it as a way of keeping them in, because it allows room to think and let think on what now is clearly a non-essential, in stead of being butchered for not believing in a 6x24h creation or some such. Or adhering to Open Theism. The list is endless.


I agree very much with this (and although I agree with the principle of Eric's post, I don't think infant baptism is something we can decide one way or another on at this point), however, you seem to have more faith in the GA than I do. You're proposing this resolution with the hope that we will develop a core of essentials and a clear area of guidelines. My fear is that the GA, which tends to be pretty conservative, will just make the whole thing essential.

That's a fear for me, not because I live contrary to the Covenant of Christian Conduct, but because I don't think anything in it should be essential. In my limited experience, it seems more likely there will be more essentials than less.

Regardless, I applaud your optimistic hope.

[Hans Deventer]

You're proposing this resolution with the hope that we will develop a core of essentials and a clear area of guidelines.

Yes.

My fear is that the GA, which tends to be pretty conservative, will just make the whole thing essential.

I understand but I don't think so. And the reason is that already before this next GA, there will be resolutions from the International Church Committee to make certain parts of the Manual amendable at a lower level than the GA. Now I haven't seen any resolution from that Committee rejected yet.
And anything that can me altered at a lower level than the GA, logically can't be essential.

[Dee Smith]

HUH?????

This entire thread baffles the ever-lovin' daylights out of me.

What are you people talking about? I don't get why any of this matters.

I grew up Nazarene. My entire family is Nazarene and has been since that fateful day in Pilot Point, TX - my great grandparents were there and were charter members.

(Sidebar: I don't think it would be necessary to address the role of women in the church. In my experience, the Nazarene church is one of the better denominations regarding the role of women in the church. My great grandmother was a Nazarene evangelist back in the early 1900s. I think that was mighty progressive - she couldn't vote in a US Presidential election, but she could preach with some fiery force, and men and women would listen! Go figure.)

I don't attend a Nazarene church now, but my life is steeped in Nazarenedom, which is why I joined this board, out of curiosity and a desire to re-connect w/my Naz roots. My husband is Catholic. We now attend a Lutheran church, which is a pleasant middle ground for us.

We baptized both of our children as infants. I didn't really care one way or the other, but I know my husband's family was a bit concerned, so we did it. It was lovely, and I don't regret it. No big deal either way - I don't think God loves my boys any less or any more because of their baptism.

I guess what I'm trying to communicate with the board is this: Does any of this extraneous brou-ha-ha really matter? I mean, REALLY? Think about it - the basic tenets of your faith are pretty simple - you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. You believe that Jesus saved mankind through this death on the cross, that salvation is a gift, and really, all one has to do is accept that gift. You believe that man's life on earth is lived best with a viable relationship with God, through Christ Jesus. Really, everything else should just follow suit - if one is living a Christ centered life, it sort of seems like the rest of the debate, the pros/cons, the dos/don'ts, are just man-made fluff. If one has a real relationship with Jesus, shouldn't Jesus dictate the dos/don'ts, the ins and outs of the daily grind?

That's my take on it. If it is too simplistic for the board, so be it. My head is spinning from reading these posts. You lost me with the first one, Hans. Essentials versus non-essentials? Why does any of it matter?

[Hans Deventer]

Dee, generally, when I don't have a clue what a thread is about (and it happens), I try to inquire and get more information before I make my judgements. I don't really understand how you seem to be doing both at the same time.

As to essentials versus non-essentials, it mattered to Phineas Bresee. If that fact is irrelevant to you, don't worry about this resolution. It will be equally irrelevant. I've learned that I can improve on the rationale for the resolution, but not to the extent that everyone will understand it.

[Kevin Rector]

Hans, what did you think of my resolution? I was worried that it would get buried at the end of a mostly dead thread, and I think that it has since it garnered no comment from anyone.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, what did you think of my resolution? I was worried that it would get buried at the end of a mostly dead thread, and I think that it has since it garnered no comment from anyone.

Well, you focussed on the Covenant of Christian Conduct and I'm not sure that is where the issue is. So I saved your message to reflect on it. Perhaps we can discuss it in a week or two?

[Dennis M. Scott]

As for essentials, I wonder if we could shake it down to something like, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."?

[Ian Gentles]

I think we all need clarity on essentials, I mean what are they? One's interpretion differs from another's!

[Hans Deventer]

As for essentials, I wonder if we could shake it down to something like, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."?

Sounds Biblical to me! Would make it easy to receive Jews as members too :basic05

[Dee Smith]

Dee, generally, when I don't have a clue what a thread is about (and it happens), I try to inquire and get more information before I make my judgements. I don't really understand how you seem to be doing both at the same time.

As to essentials versus non-essentials, it mattered to Phineas Bresee. If that fact is irrelevant to you, don't worry about this resolution. It will be equally irrelevant. I've learned that I can improve on the rationale for the resolution, but not to the extent that everyone will understand it.

Nah, you misunderstood me. No judgements being passed here. I am truly curious - I asked the same question about three times...Why does it matter? If your answer is because Phineas F. Bresee cared about it, therefore so do we, then fair enough. Whatever works for you - you are correct, the end result is irrelevant to me, personally, but DOES affect my family, hence, my curiosity. Thanks.

[Ryan Scott]

The Bible says for us to come out from the world.


Where is that, exactly?

[Hans Deventer]

Nah, you misunderstood me. No judgements being passed here. I am truly curious - I asked the same question about three times...Why does it matter? If your answer is because Phineas F. Bresee cared about it, therefore so do we, then fair enough. Whatever works for you - you are correct, the end result is irrelevant to me, personally, but DOES affect my family, hence, my curiosity. Thanks.

Okay Dee, let me try. I think there are several issues at stake.

1. I think we as a CotN haven't been very successful in making Bresee's ideal part of the warp and woof of who we are. Generally (and I am painting with broad strokes here) we have become a generic Evangelical church that is hardly very Wesleyan anymore. The general evangelical culture has invaded and all but conquered the grass roots of our church. Hence the endless discussions on infant baptism, women in ministry, end times, literal 6 days creation etc. And we're simply not clear on our own Wesleyan/Arminian roots.

2. In recent years (and in some places little has happened yet, while in other places it's like a tsunami), post modern thinking seems to be affecting us increasingly. Most of us will recognize the idea that truth is what is true for me personally, and may be something different for you. Now we probably all agree that our faith is at least also something personal, and is indeed shaped by our experience in our walk with God. If only because part of our theology relates to our personal experience of entire sanctification. So how far can we go with this "personal" truth? I would say, there is still a core to the Christian faith that is truth, no matter my experience. And we need to be clear on that one, especially in a time when truth is made totally relative. Because if we know where we cannot and should not back down, we also know where we should and probably must give room for change, in order to be able to pour the gospel in new "wineskins"

3. Our own churches are changing too. Whereas in the past, communities were relatively homogeneous, nowadays it isn't rare to find an increasing number of different cultures within our city, and even in our church. In fact, if we are proclaiming the gospel like we should, that is something to be expected and even to be celebrated! But, the question that bounces back to us right away is, what of the way we do church is merely defined by white middle class culture, and what part is fundamental to our faith? I'm not only talking about the worship service, but about our polity and our ethics as well.

These are some of the issues that in my view require of us clarity on our essentials. And that is not so easy.

We'll probably agree that our Articles of Faith are part of our essentials. But would the same go for our polity? The sharp distinction between clergy and laity? The membership lists we have to maintain and the endless statistics Kansas City asks of us?

I'm not saying every local CotN will experience what I am describing here. Some churches throughout the world will be facing completely different challenges. But even then, a clear focus on our essentials will help them to see where they can adapt to their different cultures and where they cannot.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, give us an idea of what you think is essential. If we veer too far, we may end up not being an actual holiness church. The Bible says for us to come out from the world. What is the world - in this context?

The world in the Bible is a very interesting concept. Usually, it is viewed negatively, yet it is clear that even if we are not from this world, we are still in it. And we should not forget that it is God's love for this very world that made Him sent our Lord Jesus in the first place. And He of course is the prime example of how far God was willing to go to communicate the gospel (in fact, Himself) to this world. And He certainly did remain holy while doing so.

But returning to your initial question, I myself would like the essentials of the CotN to encompass the following:


The early creeds of the church (Nicea, Apostolic)

Of the Articles of Faith, IV-X, because they deal with how we see the authority of the Scriptures and how we read them regarding their essential purpose: "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation". That of course includes our article X on Entire Sanctification, though I agree with Tom that it needs to be rewritten (but not to be watered down!)
The other articles are either covered in the early creeds, or flow from the fact that these alone are our essentials regarding our faith and hence, we have room on everything else.

I would also want to include the statement about the mission of the church from article XI: "The mission of the Church in the world is to continue the redemptive work of Christ in the power of the Spirit through holy living, evangelism, discipleship, and service."


There may be a few more issues that need to be addressed. I recall how Barb Bouldrey once wrote that our essentials are the Articles of Faith and the experience they describe or something to that effect, and I very much appreciate the link with our praxis. I'm not quit sure how to describe that though.

Anyway, this is what comes to mind, Anne.

[Dee Smith]

Hans, appreciate the clarification. Makes sense - as an organization, the Naz church does have many hurdles to jump in today's society. I guess every church does, in many respects. I never studied Wesleyan theology deeply, so I'm not sure how far the current day church has swayed from it's roots. I know that Nazarene churches were born out of Wesleyan theology; I just can't articulate what that means. But, it sounds like you are fighting the good fight. You will probably be able to establish some consensus to iron out these issues.

Don't know if you are a minister in the CotN or not? I'd venture that most ministers feel the weight of the questions posed above on a more intense level than the average church attender. If you asked me to explain the theology behind the Lutheran church, I could not do so with any authority. I know the basics - Luther's revolt against the Catholic church and the sale of indulgences, the 95 Theses, etc... but beyond that I can't dig much into the nitty gritty.

From a non-involved lay-point of view, that's my take. Best of luck on your work in preparation for the General Assembly meetings.

By the way, interesting on the endless KC requests for statistics. I smiled at that reference. I'm guessing the CotN hierarchy is still consumed with numbers - attendance, tithe, % paid to the district, % paid to the local Naz University, etc... They always were when I was a kid. Thanks again for the explanations - my family will find that post interesting to read.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hans, from what you post, it seems that nothing destructive will come from minor changes in how these thing are changed. Of course your changes don't seem as if they would water down holiness--as far as I can see.
A number of times, when the church let up a little, the members seemed, in my opinion, to take it further, still. That may be a reason, it is so hard to get things changed. It seemed that is what has been done with movies. We have to be very careful what we see, hear and read, also.

[David Showalter]

Hans, give us an idea of what you think is essential. If we veer too far, we may end up not being an actual holiness church. The Bible says for us to come out from the world. What is the world-in this context?
Maybe, I am wrong, but I have always, just accepted our manuel, and it did not seem as if any of it was something hard to follow. But, I have dropped a few things that mother added...very long hair, no make up, no jewerly, etc. and, I do go out in the back yard and go swimming with family, or lady friends. I still do not attend movies, or frequent dances. But, I don't point a finger at those who do.

Anne and all, the part where you say, "we may end up not being an actual holiness church" is where I think we have gone astray. When I grew up I knew I was in a holiness church and was around holiness people because I witnessed it in the lives of my grandparents and others, who loved unconditionally, had a deep hunger for God, and confessed their sin and unChristlikeness often,(even though I couldn't ever see what it was they needed to confess of or for) and God in turn, filled them with love, grace, kindness and power. As long as we continue to think or believe that holiness is as much about us, as it is about God, I believe we are going to have a dilemma on our hands. In my humble opinion we will always be a holiness church if we allow the holiness of God access to our hearts and minds, and we will never be a holiness church without that, regardless of what our manual states or does not state.

[Hans Deventer]

Don't know if you are a minister in the CotN or not?

You can find a lot on me reading my profile. I'm not a minister, but I am a lay preacher and also a member of the District Advisory Board, and have been a delegate to the General Assembly since 1997.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Sounds Biblical to me! Would make it easy to receive Jews as members too :basic05

I'm glad to offer the hand of fellowship to Jews testifying to that.

That apparently was good enough for Jesus, but we will need to deliniate a little more. I even think that's appropriate, but it begins to make our "essentials" mean "essentials, plus a few non-essentials." I don't even mind that. It seems to me that what begins to be disappointing is when we begin to value others based on whether or not they agree with our own "few non-essentials." The most significant help in Bresee's "essentials" quote is not what he said, but the spirit in which it was said. Foundationally, what it communicates is "Let's not be judgemental." Curiously, we frequently quote him and attempt to make that the litmus test by which we will judge people. Kinda misses the point, maybe. There are people (I hesitate to call them cultures or even sub-cultures) for whom judging is pretty important. That value often transcends religion, going into gender issues, politics, parenting styles, and host of arenas. It's a pattern considerably larger than faith - and probably has little to do with faith.

On a little more upbeat note, much of the discussion in this and similar threads communicates values that have rarely been communicated at the general church level, whether on the assembly floor or in denominational publications. One can't help but wonder if it can be transferred to participation broader than a dozen or so individuals on Naznet. My prayer is that discussion here is more representative than prescriptive.

[Dee Smith]

You can find a lot on me reading my profile. I'm not a minister, but I am a lay preacher and also a member of the District Advisory Board, and have been a delegate to the General Assembly since 1997.

You sound like my Daddy. Almost exactly - except you left out "I am a Trustee of Nazarene College X". And I think his GA delegate status would read "since 1977". But, you definitely are not my father. You're a bit young.

Hee. :basic03

[Hans Deventer]

The most significant help in Bresee's "essentials" quote is not what he said, but the spirit in which it was said. Foundationally, what it communicates is "Let's not be judgemental." Curiously, we frequently quote him and attempt to make that the litmus test by which we will judge people.

Dennis, I've actually been thinking about that. Part of our essentials would have to be how we deal with one another. Obviously orthopraxis is as important as orthodoxy, most certainly in a holiness church.

[Kevin Rector]

Well, you focussed on the Covenant of Christian Conduct and I'm not sure that is where the issue is. So I saved your message to reflect on it. Perhaps we can discuss it in a week or two?

Interesting, I look forward to discussing it in a few weeks. There are two areas that I can think of that tend to cause conflict, the first is speaking in tongues and the second is whether or not someone adheres very closely to the Covenant of Christian Conduct.

[Eric Vail]

Resolved, That the Board of General Superintendents appoint an international committee that will propose a statement (to be included in the Manual) to the next General Assembly that clearly defines the essentials of the Church of the Nazarene.

Reason

Ever since the beginning days of our church, we have heard and subscribed to the statement: "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity". It is a wonderful and wise statement, but unfortunately not very specific. In fact, as far as we know, no one ever clearly defined what those essentials exactly are.
It seems that especially in our time with its rapid changes, we could really do with clarity on this issue. It would help churches to stand firm on what is essential, and understand where we can agree to disagree, with love.

This is an interesting question. Within my Wesleyan theology class at NTS I learned that there is a strong and inseparable connection between Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy. What we believe shapes what we do. What we do shapes what we believe. These give shape to and are shaped by the Christian spirit. So what is essential? Doctrine? specific practices? Certain Christian pathos?

There are many traditions that guard their liturgy as much as they guard their doctrines. The Arian controversy was won at the Council of Nicea on an appeal to liturgy; we worship the Son; we only worship what is divine; therefore, the Son is divine. One thought...the church through history has had many councils establishing certain things at the level of dogma. If we are going to be part of the larger body (and not a sect), we need to pay attention to our Christian heritage.

Problem: we are an international Church.
1) From the floor of the