Conversion of another sort

[Dennis Bratcher]

I thought some might find this interesting. It reflects what I have seen happening with dozens of Nazarenes I know the past few years.

A Conversion Story (http://profoundgratitude.com/blog/2007/04/09/conversion-story/)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Steven Martinez]

I can relate to many of the points made by the people in this blog. I was saved in the Church of the Nazarene and I am an Ordained Elder. Yet I simply relate better to my Catholic brothers and sisters better than my Nazarene ones. For example I have never been able to escape the fact that I am a seven sacrament guy and that transubstation just makes sense to me. Yet I like what the couple stated that they felt called to be Catholics. Although I might feel more Catholic than Nazarene I assuredly feel that I am called to be a Nazarene. I really do believe that many of us Christians are called by God to serve Him in specific denominations even though we might feel more comfortable in another.

[Scott Sherwood]

This is significant. Thank you for sharing this sister's story.

Of course this issue deserves a far more thoughtful reply than I am about to give, but I could preface every post that way. (hmmm, maybe I should).

I think any serious and self-reflective student of Christian history has wondered if they are where they belong amongst the "streams of Christian tradition" (Richard Foster).

For me the crux of the matter is this issue: What is the most authoritative source of God's truth?

If I ever come to the conclusion as many of our academicians have, that Scripture cannot have authority over the community of faith because it came from the community, I would have to make a change. If this were true, then no Christian ever had the right to break from the mother church and still call themselves Christian. Therefore, the only way I could truly be Christian would be to be a part of this particular community of faith.

Now there are some who believe this way who take a much more amorphous, existential view of community. They believe that authority lies in the community, but that means whatever community I happen to choose or assemble. In my opinion, this is a copout. If I decide that the community/tradition has authority over Scripture, then I had better get myself back into the community out of which every other stream has come.

Personally, I have to this point agreed with the reformers regarding this issue (as Wesley did). Scripture is the highest authority, which we interpret/understand through other other Scripture, through tradition, reason, and experience. How can this be, since it did in fact come from the community? The formation of canon was not based on what books the churches just happened to like. It was based on what books were considered to be apostolic and had been used as such from the beginning. So the church was not taking authority over Scripture in closing the canon; it was taking authority over individual believers, defining for them which books were truly apostolic and which ones were of questionable origin.

As I look at all the different churches out there that attempt to submit to Scripture's authority alone, all of them tend to overemphasize some pet doctrine. Some have to do with church organization; some with soteriology; some with lifestyle. What caused me to choose the COTN out of all of these is its point of overemphasis. To me, if there is one point of Scripture's revelation that cannot be overemphasized enough it is Scriptural holiness. The message that God can totally cleanse me and fill me with His presence and that I can have an uninhibited, unobstructed relationship with Him that goes deeper than any other relationship ever could . . . that message strikes me as so central to the Scriptures that it cannot be over done. (It can, as we have experienced, be twisted)

In Short, while I respect this sister's journey, I disagree with a couple of her conclusions.
I believe that Scripture is the highest authority and that holiness is the central doctrine of Scripture. That makes the Church of The Nazarene my home.

[Marsha Lynn]

Thanks, Dennis. I have wondered what happened to Shellie after she quit posting to NazNet. I always enjoyed her posts. Thanks for pointing us to this chapter in her life. I don't know any Nazarenes personally who have made that sort of conversion but I do have a friend who converted to Catholicism from another tradition and I appreciate the depth of her faith, even though I'm not inclined to move that direction myself. (Thus far, God consistently reinforces the call on my life to stay where I am at, and I am blessed in that place.)

Marsha

I thought some might find this interesting. It reflects what I have seen happening with dozens of Nazarenes I know the past few years.

A Conversion Story (http://profoundgratitude.com/blog/2007/04/09/conversion-story/)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

For me the crux of the matter is this issue: What is the most authoritative source of God's truth?

If I ever come to the conclusion as many of our academicians have, that Scripture cannot have authority over the community of faith because it came from the community, I would have to make a change.

I do not think this is an accurate characterization. I know most of “our academicians” and not a single one of which I am aware would take this position. I know of none who would claim that the Bible “came from the community” and connect that to lack of authority.

What most would reject is any form of dictation or verbal theory of inspiration that makes Scripture a purely divine book by eliminating the human element in Scripture. That still leaves a lot of room for plenary inspiration and authority, while still recognizing that God did not write the Bible, people did from within their own cultural and historical contexts.

It is interesting, however, that of all the “academicians” I know, the ones who promote the authority of the Bible (at least the NT) in the strongest absolute terms are those who claim the closest affinity with classic Catholicism.

If this were true, then no Christian ever had the right to break from the mother church and still call themselves Christian. Therefore, the only way I could truly be Christian would be to be a part of this particular community of faith.

I’m honestly not sure what the logic is here, but it seems, at least, to misunderstand the role of Scripture in the authority structure of Catholicism. The Catholic position is not that the Bible is a purely human product so therefore has no authority. It is that the Bible is absolutely authoritative, but that it can only be interpreted by the Church and leaders of the Church, and that official ecclesial interpretation is equally authoritative.

Over time, that eventually makes Tradition (the accumulated corpus of official interpretations and applications of those interpretations) functionally more authoritative since it is the lens through which Scripture must be read. That was officially stated at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563 as a reaction to emerging Protestantism. That was as much an issue of power and control as it was theology, for both sides.

Now there are some who believe this way who take a much more amorphous, existential view of community. They believe that authority lies in the community, but that means whatever community I happen to choose or assemble. In my opinion, this is a copout. If I decide that the community/tradition has authority over Scripture, then I had better get myself back into the community out of which every other stream has come.

Again, I think this is mischaracterization of “them” (whoever they are). Those of whom I am aware who advocate any authority of the community would always qualify that as the Community of Faith, that is the Church. For many that would be the “one Holy, Apostolic Church,” as defined by the official creeds and Councils. It would never be “whatever community” on a personal basis. Note as below that Luther, Wesley and even Catholicism in the counter-Reformation understood that Tradition can be reformulated and modified based on changing circumstances and perspectives.

Personally, I have to this point agreed with the reformers regarding this issue (as Wesley did).

Just for clarity, we have to remember that Wesley agreed only as far as the Church of England. That is a considerably different stripe of Protestantism than exists today in evangelical Christianity.

Scripture is the highest authority, which we interpret/understand through other other Scripture, through tradition, reason, and experience. How can this be, since it did in fact come from the community?

This logic does not work since it begins with a false premise, that Scripture is only a human product. And note that even in this formulation Tradition plays an important role. We cannot reject Tradition, although we can certainly qualify what role it does play, which is what I hear you saying. With that I would agree.

The formation of canon was not based on what books the churches just happened to like. It was based on what books were considered to be apostolic and had been used as such from the beginning.

The process of canonization was far more complex than this, stretching over nearly a thousand years (although the basic shape of the canon emerged in the first 500). Luther in the 16th century could still raise questions about some biblical books (James, The Revelation). And there were several books that were widely used “from the beginning” that were not included (Epistles of Clement, The Didache) or that were accepted as Deuteronocanonical (“second canon:” 1-2 Maccabbees, Sirach, etc.).

The canon was not formed haphazardly “based on what books the churches just happened to like.” No “academicians” I know would say anything close to this. Yet we have to remember that the “canon” includes the OT, which the Church did not participate in forming. That process of formation of both Testaments was also a human process that led to some interesting results that reflected far more factors than the theologically pious rationales that are often given (for example, only the books that were inspired were included). Those factors must be taken seriously in talking about canon (a whole other topic).

So the church was not taking authority over Scripture in closing the canon; it was taking authority over individual believers, defining for them which books were truly apostolic and which ones were of questionable origin.

It was simply not this clean. For example, we have to deal with the fact that Hebrews was accepted because it was “apostolic,” that is, it was attributed to Paul. Virtually no one now accepts Hebrews as being from Paul. The same is true for other books, like 2 Peter, Titus, James, even the Gospels (they are all anonymous; it is tradition that attributed authors to the Gospels). There were other factors besides being apostolic, even though that may have been the theological rationale.

As I look at all the different churches out there that attempt to submit to Scripture's authority alone, all of them tend to overemphasize some pet doctrine. Some have to do with church organization; some with soteriology; some with lifestyle. What caused me to choose the COTN out of all of these is its point of overemphasis. To me, if there is one point of Scripture's revelation that cannot be overemphasized enough it is Scriptural holiness. The message that God can totally cleanse me and fill me with His presence and that I can have an uninhibited, unobstructed relationship with Him that goes deeper than any other relationship ever could . . . that message strikes me as so central to the Scriptures that it cannot be over done. (It can, as we have experienced, be twisted)

Yes I think you are right. And I agree.

In Short, while I respect this sister's journey, I disagree with a couple of her conclusions. I believe that Scripture is the highest authority and that holiness is the central doctrine of Scripture. That makes the Church of The Nazarene my home.

Let me make it clear. I am not promoting Roman Catholicism, nor do I have any desire to “return” to the “mother Church.” I have come to value a lot of what Roman Catholicism tries to preserve about the Faith. And I accept Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ as much as I accept Nazarenes as brothers and sisters in Christ.

But I do not and cannot agree with Catholic theological dogma, both in terms of its overdependence on Tradition as well as its emphasis on things like priesthood (I thought Jesus became our high priest), Mass, and Mariology. In other words, I think a lot of Catholic theology is simply wrong. And yet, Catholicism preserves something of the Christian Faith that we have lost as the radical Reformation has morphed into modernity and contemporary evangelicalism. Something is missing, and people are beginning to realize that.

It is that missing dimension that many Nazarenes and "recovering evangelicals"* are seeking and are finding in traditional Catholic (and Anglican) worship (*(a phrase used by a friend of mine recently). Many to whom I have talked do not consider the larger theological aspects, just as many do not consider the implications of buying into fundamentalism, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, or Rick Warren. They are just tired of what passes for worship and for discipleship in many evangelical churches. That ought to be telling us something.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Bob Evans]

Dennis

I am no scholar so I won't attempt to analyize all that occured from that view point. However, in reading the blog entry it almost seemed that the anti catholic message almost heightened interest in the church on the part of this family. That may be a bit to simplistic of an analysis but I think there is an eliment of that there.

That being the case what can Nazarenes and evangelicals do to adress the needs so that such a change isn't such an appealing option. I ask this for the sake of the church and for the sake of a person who professionally tries to help men and women find churches that will best enrich their recovery from drugs and alcohol addiction.

Bob

[Mike Schutz]

Several of my friends have chosen to travel the same path; one they have seen as a fulfillment rather than a rejection.

[Ryan Scott]

It makes me sad that so many people grow up in the Church of the Nazarene being taught that Catholics and Calvinists need to be saved.

The thing I admire most about the Catholic Church is their ability to tolerate many different views on just about everything. For a group that so often gets characterized as authoritarian and corrupt, they certainly do a better job of ecumenism within their ranks than any denomination out there.

[Shellie Stephens]

This morning (Is it still morning? Oh I need it to be!) I got a link to this thread. My first thought was "Oh man. My 94yo grandmother still doesn't know." I didn't think it fair to keep her mind occupied with our reconciliation from now 'til the Judgment. Plus she's kind of occupied with telling everyone the KJV is the only bible good enough for Jesus, so it should be for you too.

I haven't done more than skim, but I appreciate the supportive notes. I was recently at SNU's Homecoming events and Nazarenes will always be family to me. I wouldn't even mind participating on this thread a bit, but wow is it almost Christmas or WHAT? Six days and people around me want some sort of huge meal outta me.

Grace and peace be yours in abundance,
Shellie

I thought some might find this interesting. It reflects what I have seen happening with dozens of Nazarenes I know the past few years.

A Conversion Story (http://profoundgratitude.com/blog/2007/04/09/conversion-story/)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ian Gentles]

Ah Christmas, the celebration of gluttony! ;)

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Scott Hilton]

It makes me sad that so many people grow up in the Church of the Nazarene being taught that Catholics and Calvinists need to be saved.

The thing I admire most about the Catholic Church is their ability to tolerate many different views on just about everything. For a group that so often gets characterized as authoritarian and corrupt, they certainly do a better job of ecumenism within their ranks than any denomination out there.
I didn't grow up in the COTN, but I can tell you that from my short experience within the church, I have not experienced that thought process that Catholics and Calvinists need saved within my church and personal contacts. Maybe I need to consider myself blessed in that way? In fact, I have heard several people speak pretty highly of a Father in the Catholic church in our area.

I think every denomination has its sect that is anti-something. The SBC I attended for a bit was very anti-catholic and it stemmed from the head pastor there, who used to be Catholic. The SBC also didn't think you had a relationship with Christ if you didn't believe in the OSAS doctrine ( :rolleyes: ). On the other board I frequent we get threads started all the time asking if Roman Catholics are saved. I can tell you that pretty much every denomination and/or theological standpoint will have someone in there saying that they aren't and some that they are.

Its sad that we spend more time trying to figure out who has it right and who is really saved when we could be spending more time working together as part of His church for His purposes. But then, thats not exactly a new thing for us humans, is it?

Blessings
Scott

[Dennis Bratcher]

I was recently at SNU's Homecoming events and Nazarenes will always be family to me.

Maybe this is really at the heart of the matter, or at least a major factor. Nazarenes were so proud of being "come outters" that we had a hard time being family to anyone but ourselves. We tended to define ourselves negatively, often in contrast to other Christian groups (not Methodist, not Catholic, not Pentecostal, not Calvinist, etc.). That became part of our ethos, intensified by the fundamentalist influences of the 1920s-60s and the cultural wars of the 1970s-1990s. The modern world will not allow us that luxury any longer (not to mention the fact that it is not very Christian).

I think Nazarenes collectively are growing up theologically and spiritually. We are finally realizing that amid all the really good things that are part of our tradition (and there are a lot of good things!), we also had some blind spots. We really were sectarian through most of the 20th century. And we still have some blind spots (just as Catholics, Baptists, and Pentecostals do!). But we’re seeing better.

My concern is that we figure out how to live in a big Christian tent with room for other Christians that are brothers and sisters in Christ and yet are different. That is really part of the Wesleyan, and certainly Nazarene, heritage (Pilot Point was about unity in diversity). I deeply believe that Wesleyan theology is the best expression of the Faith around and best reflects the biblical testimony as well as the core of the Christian tradition (at least in Eastern Christianity). Because of that, I would really like to find structures in which we can live the Faith in ways that are faithful to the historic Church, faithful to our own theological commitments, and still address the perspectives and needs of the contemporary cultural and historical context. Much of what we have done in programs , emphases, or following trends, won’t do that.

I find no fault with most people who choose, or feel called, to another church tradition (I know of a few who just stomped off mad, which means it was not about Church at all). For some of us, the calling is to stay where we are, in spite of a lot of junk, and help the C of N fulfill its own vision to proclaim the message of holiness of heart and life. Our modern world needs to hear that. We just have to find ways to do it, as Cardinal John O’Connor once said, “without sticking our fingers in everyone’s eye.”

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ian Gentles]

When, we were young, my wife had surgery for her piturity gland to be removed, catholic friends in Scotland paid for mass's to be said for her, this touched us deeply. Protestants prayed, catholics paid!
I have no problem with Calvinists, seems Nazarenes are frightened of them lol . They are wonderful warm Christians!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Billy Cox]

Hi Shellie.

Somehow I deduced that you were the 'Shellie' in the article, but I'm not sure how I knew that. Maybe you were on staff at Bethany Calvary at some point?

[Dale Cozby]

It is that the Bible is absolutely authoritative, but that it can only be interpreted by the Church and leaders of the Church, and that official ecclesial interpretation is equally authoritative.

No man can serve two masters.
I find it funny you said the Bible is “absolutely” authoritative but then take it back by saying the church is its equal.

So…Either the Scriptures trump the church or the church trumps the scriptures. To say both are equal cannot be. If the church is equal then we get into which church is equal? The only “true” church? The RC Church? Been there done that…. As you point out with the Council of Trent. As to the modern biblical criticism…it supports the idea of church as supreme. Thus by undermining the authority of scripture enough we get the move toward “Mother church” as a by-product in our search for “absolute authority” since the “Church of One” crowd isn’t very appealing to many of us.

Note as below that Luther, Wesley and even Catholicism in the counter-Reformation understood that Tradition can be reformulated and modified based on changing circumstances and perspectives. Could you please be specific about which traditions or dogma that have been modified within the RC church? I am only aware that more tradition has been added to tradition or at best de-emphasized but never taken off the books. All previous RC traditions still exist, only they get a new layer on top of it. Of course I cite a reading of the Catechism for official positions held by the RC church.

This is just a personal observation but I see this move toward the RC church's traditions more as a pendulum swing away from the extremes of the fundamentalist-modernist rise to supremacy in evangelicalism over the last 50+ years.

I would say that, using Wesley’s quad, we are moving away from a strong emphasis on reason and scripture(modernism and fundamentalism’s major points) to a strong emphasis on tradition and experience. This is why the Emergent’s apparent “rediscovery” of high church and the old traditions, as well as the validity of the personal “relative” spiritual experiences of each person.


FYI: I grew up in an almost 100% Catholic neighborhood. I was the lone Nazarene, so I am pretty well versed in the RC church from the RC laymens perspective. Including all the jokes, the humor of growing up Catholic and attending mass and parochial school, etc..

I have never considered them all lost sinners. Just like any other church...some lived it and some didn't. God judges the heart not the church name.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dennis, it took awhile after becoming an adult, and then a minister's wife, but, I have learned to live within that tent, you mentioned.

[Scott Daniels]

No man can serve two masters.
I find it funny you said the Bible is “absolutely” authoritative but then take it back by saying the church is its equal.


I'm not Dennis, but I don't believe Dennis took the authority of the scripture back. What he did say, I believe, is that scripture is always interpreted scripture and because it is always and must always be interpreted then it raises the additional question of interpretive authority.

So the issue is not, I don't think, that the church has authority over the canon because the church formed the canon... But the issue is that even divinely inspired the scripture has to be interpreted. I think we would all agree that the church ought to have authority (as opposed to the individual) to interpret the scriptures rightly.

But that raises the key question: what do we mean by "church"? I believe the answer to that question has in part driven some folk back to traditions with longer histories than the CoN.

[Glenda Harvey]

I don't know any Nazarenes personally who have made that sort of conversion

Marsha

I have a nephew who converted to the Catholic Church when he became serious with his Catholic girl friend who is now his fiance. My sister thinks that his coversion was not just because his girl friend was Catholic but because he was attracted by the history of the Catholic Church. I don't ever remember thinking that Catholics were not Christians. I did see one of those Chick anti Catholic tracts recently and threw it away because it was so full of obvious falsehoods that it was embarrasing.

There are things that the Catholic Church teaches that I don't agree with and they are important enough to me that I could not convert but I think sometimes we forget that the Nicene Creed that is the basic teaching of most Christian Churches came from the Catholic Church. I have Catholic friends that I consider Sisters in Christ and I percieve them as very strong Christians. There are Catholics I know who just go through the motions of being Catholic or who call themselves Catholic because they were baptized Catholic even though they never enter a Catholic Church. The same can be said of People from evangelical Churches. I know people who can say and do all the right things at Church but do not live a Christian life outside of Church. I think we have to remember that we are not the ones who decide who is going to Heaven and who isn't. Only God truly knows each persons heart and who belongs to Him.

[David Pettigrew]

I find it interesting that the Nazarenes I know, or hear of, who convert to RC almost always have RC roots, often that they are not even aware of, or only nominally aware of. Seems kind of like a God thing to me. Doug Gonzales (http://www.syrdio.org/NewsStories.asp?id=1042) is another example of this, if any are aware of his story.

There are many things that appeal to me about catholicism. Here are the things I cannot get past (admitting up front I have done very little research on them, and may have this all wrong.)

1.) All the dogma (papal infallibility, immaculate conception, veneration of Mary, pergetory, etc.)

2.) Laity receive only the bread in communion (or do I have that wrong?).

3.) Celibacy of priests/only men can be priests.

Perhaps this is why anglicanism so appeals to me. It has all the parts of catholicism I feel so connected with, and none of the parts that don't make any sense to me. This is interesting, because I recently found out that my great grandmother, though she emigrated from Germany, was an Episcopalian.

[Ian Gentles]

No offense to any, could never be a catholic, and yes looked at their dogma. What i am not is a catholic hater, hey I was a Scottish Protestant, and believe be thats a biggy! Yet, no offense, having studied catholicism, cant see Christianity, as Biblical in it! I see Gods word as counting more than any tradition, and there are many traditions!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[John Kennedy]

No offense to any, could never be a catholic, and yes looked at their dogma. What i am not is a catholic hater, hey I was a Scottish Protestant, and believe be thats a biggy! Yet, no offense, having studied catholicism, cant see Christianity, as Biblical in it! I see Gods word as counting more than any tradition, and there are many traditions!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

"...hey, I was a Scottish Protestant, and believe me that's a biggy!"


In '06 we spent 3 weeks in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The tour guide was extremely well-versed in history, religion, literature, etc. I very quickly came to expect several common elements about what we would see when we got off the tour bus:
Someone died here
Probably violently
Most likely at the hand of a relative
The deed was, in most linstances, done in the name of God.

[Shellie Stephens]

Several of my friends have chosen to travel the same path; one they have seen as a fulfillment rather than a rejection.

Absolutely. A beautiful, serene fulfillment. (Not that I knew anything was missing per se. ;-) I loved being Nazarene. I was not drawn to liturgical worship. I do love it now, but then? Nah.)

Maybe this is really at the heart of the matter, or at least a major factor. Nazarenes were so proud of being "come outters" that we had a hard time being family to anyone but ourselves.This insight resonates as truth to me.

I deeply believe that Wesleyan theology is the best expression of the Faith around and best reflects the biblical testimony as well as the core of the Christian tradition (at least in Eastern Christianity). As did I but I am uncomfortable with the implications of this. For me I realized it is: *I* believe what is the best expression of faith.

Allow me to quasi-briefly quote and link two of my dear friends (http://profoundgratitude.com/blog/2006/09/06/whats-a-girl-like-you-doin-in-a-place-like-this/) whose presentation I appreciate:

*I*, through my own self-interested interpretation of the Bible, and indeed the entire world around me, am the ultimate authority. My *understanding* of what Jesus said and meant through the Bible is ultimately authoritative.

I entertained the illusion that I somehow possessed extraordinary powers of my own in interpreting the Bible, and that the Bible was manifestly clear and self-evident in such a way that all I needed to divine all truth was… me!

The inflection point for me was this: can you, Touchstone, assent to the received wisdom of the Church — any church? For quite a long time, the answer was no. If I disagreed with the institution, I simply needed to find a church that better fit my beliefs — that’s the Protestant way! In my opinion, the burden which you are carrying is not one which is properly from the Lord. You have taken upon yourself a burden of personal spiritual authority which does not belong to individual believers.

Where is the authority?

Is the authority….in what would be a STUNNING reversal of every paradigm given to us in scripture….in each individual believer? Has God burdened each individual with finding the “right” answer? Or is there authority somewhere else? Some other mechanism that lifts the burden from us as individuals? Did Jesus really leave us with so little guidance? Are we all sin-free enough to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us perfectly?

Where does the authority that Jesus MUST have left behind, rest?Because of that, I would really like to find structures in which we can live the Faith in ways that are faithful to the historic Church, faithful to our own theological commitments, and still address the perspectives and needs of the contemporary cultural and historical context. I love the way you've put this. I also think it will be the defining struggle of Protestantism. It would be like herding cats to come to agreement on what is "faithful to the historic Church" since our theologies are so varied and each denomination has come so far — even from our inceptions.

I believe this appears to be the way of all denominations and men — we veer further and further from the truth as time goes by without the plumbline of a living, authoritative Church (http://profoundgratitude.com/blog/2006/11/17/john-wesley/).

Somehow I deduced that you were the 'Shellie' in the article, but I'm not sure how I knew that. Maybe you were on staff at Bethany Calvary at some point?

Yes, I was youth minister from 1994-1997. The plot thickens. ;-)

There are Catholics I know who just go through the motions of being Catholic or who call themselves Catholic because they were baptized Catholic even though they never enter a Catholic Church. The same can be said of People from evangelical Churches. I know people who can say and do all the right things at Church but do not live a Christian life outside of Church. I think we have to remember that we are not the ones who decide who is going to Heaven and who isn't. Only God truly knows each persons heart and who belongs to Him.I agree with you; but this reminds me of something I've been thinking for quite a while now.

I find myself less distressed (than I was previously) these days about people "going through the motions." I am very committed to life/heart change / worship in spirit and in truth, but I believe in the Old Covenant there were hundreds, thousands, of the chosen people who did not understand the full meaning of ritual cleansing, for instance. God required their obedience not their understanding. I believe in the New Covenant, God is still requiring obedience.

Therefore I expect God is less judgmental than I on those who are just "going through the motions." God, in both covenants, set up "motions," and while I believe there is more -- so much more -- than motions, I just can't get wrapped around the axle anymore re: covenant people acting like covenant people.

Actually, because of the cultural freight "Christian" carries anymore, I just prefer to think/call myself a child of the Covenant. Some days a very, very poor one just going through the motions, but a covenanted child no less.

I find it interesting that the Nazarenes I know, or hear of, who convert to RC almost always have RC roots, often that they are not even aware of, or only nominally aware of. That is interesting and has not been my experience with greater convert-hood, but so far I'm the only Nazarene convert I know. But it was a very cool phone call to tell my paternal grandmother that we were reconciling to the church.

2.) Laity receive only the bread in communion (or do I have that wrong?).I receive under both species every Mass. It is not required, but in most places, both are offered.

Perhaps this is why anglicanism so appeals to me. It has all the parts of catholicism I feel so connected with, and none of the parts that don't make any sense to me. This is interesting, because I recently found out that my great grandmother, though she emigrated from Germany, was an Episcopalian.You're in good company. Our Nazarene heritage lies in the Church of England. I wonder if we have so many converts from Nazarenedom due to our sacramental roots.

[Shellie Stephens]

But the issue is that even divinely inspired the scripture has to be interpreted. I think we would all agree that the church ought to have authority (as opposed to the individual) to interpret the scriptures rightly.

But that raises the key question: what do we mean by "church"? I believe the answer to that question has in part driven some folk back to traditions with longer histories than the CoN.Excellent. Yes.

Who is the Church when I want an abortion? When I want a divorce? Take it to the Church. I can find a church right now that will permit both or disallow both.

When I want to know whether baptism is regenerative or not? Whether Calvinism is true? Whether I can reject grace or was I ever really covenanted?

Questions to take to the church, but which can answer authoritatively?

[Kevin Rector]

Who is the Church when I want an abortion? When I want a divorce? Take it to the Church. I can find a church right now that will permit both or disallow both.

When I want to know whether baptism is regenerative or not? Whether Calvinism is true? Whether I can reject grace or was I ever really covenanted?

Questions to take to the church, but which can answer authoritatively?

What I seem to hear in your question of authority is not so much about authority as it is "correctness". It seems the question is who has the authority to give me the correct ruling on a situation. Or maybe who has the correct doctrine.
There is this implicit assumption that because Roman Catholicism has been around the longest or that because it is the largest denomination that it must be the "correct" authority. Of course Rome has only been around longer if you take the very western view that the Eastern Orthodox church split from Rome. It would be much more historically accurate to say that they split from each other.

Anyway, the point I was making before getting off on an historical tangent is that there is no such thing as "correct" doctrine. Everyone gets something wrong. All theology is flawed because all words fail to capture the totality of a transcendent God. No one denomination has perfect doctrine. Not RC, not the COTN, not the SBC, not Eastern Orthodoxy, not Anglicanism, not the house church Movement, nor Pentecostalism, or restoration churches, or any other.

The point being that we are not saved by authority or correct doctrine, we are saved by God. By the amazing power of God's grace and love for us. I don't think rightly about everything, I may even have more wrong that right for all I know. But one thing I know without a doubt that no denomination or church or faith or power can every shake me of is that I can trust in God and in God's undying everlasting love for me. If I worship with Roman Catholics, or Anglicans, or Nazarenes, or Baptists is of little importance as long as I am covered by the love of Christ and am being reconciled to Him and transformed by the Holy Spirit.

All those who claim the name of Christ and confess Jesus Christ as Lord are my family.

Perhaps my favorite of our articles of faith in the COTN is number 11. I really think we got it dead on right:


We believe in the Church, the community that confesses
Jesus Christ as Lord, the covenant people of God made
new in Christ, the Body of Christ called together by the
Holy Spirit through the Word.

God calls the Church to express its life in the unity and
fellowship of the Spirit; in worship through the preaching of
the Word, observance of the sacraments, and ministry in His
name; by obedience to Christ and mutual accountability.

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.

The Church is a historical reality, which organizes itself in
culturally conditioned forms; exists both as local congregations
and as a universal body; sets apart persons called of
God for specific ministries. God calls the Church to live under
His rule in anticipation of the consummation at the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Shellie Stephens]

There is this implicit assumption that because Roman Catholicism has been around the longest or that because it is the largest denomination that it must be the "correct" authority. Of course Rome has only been around longer if you take the very western view that the Eastern Orthodox church split from Rome. It would be much more historically accurate to say that they split from each other.Would so stipulate.

First assumption, however, would be that Jesus established one Church, which is visible and in which doctrine matters (Titus 1:9, for one example) and does not conflict. (So therefore one *would* look back to who has been around the longest.) An invisible body of believers made up of every denomination would of necessity include conflicting doctrine. I do have questions about that, implication being the Holy Spirit -- who everyone thinks is leading *them* into all truth, is leading thousands of denominations a different direction theologically and it's up to us to go with the right doctrine as best we understand it.

Anyway, the point I was making before getting off on an historical tangent is that there is no such thing as "correct" doctrine. Everyone gets something wrong. All theology is flawed because all words fail to capture the totality of a transcendent God. Protestantism requires this assumption and I disagree that Saint Paul would agree with you. And while words fail, words and structure and authority are the tools God has deigned to use with us.

There was authority from the beginning: The apostles gathered, decided, and proclaimed a ruling that was sent out to the churches for them to observe. (Acts 15:28–29; Acts 16:4)

I believe in any given theological debate/issue there is one truth and that truth matters. The bible does not divide doctrine into essential/non-essential categories as we are wont to do. I cannot accept an indifferent stance that contradictory doctrine is acceptable because the differences are minor or do not matter. No division in the Body is acceptable.

The Church is the structure God left for us to practice our faith within. Theology is the practice of our faith; what we believe should dictate our actions. And I don't believe God left it up to the individual believers to hunt down the "closest thing to" in the interim. I believe He left us a Church. With authority to make pronouncements to be obeyed. And even when "Eli's sons" sit in the "seat of Moses," we are to obey what they say but not necessarily do as they do.

The point being that we are not saved by authority or correct doctrine, we are saved by God. Absolutely.

All those who claim the name of Christ and confess Jesus Christ as Lord are my family.Yes, precisely. I find the Catholic Church far more "inclusive" in this way. At minimum, they do not make the pronouncements of who is *not* a brother with the same temerity or as often as the fundamental evangelicals with which I normally discuss theological issues online.

I utterly enjoy this sort of thing, and regularly do it on a Protestant homeschooling board where the arguments get heated quite rapidly, but I know we have gone far afield of the original post so I will cut myself off (and in trying to be sensitive and brief [ha!] in this forum, I feel that I'm doing a poor job representing the Church).

Thank you for the time, space, and dialog: I won't presume on my extended family's good grace any longer. Now you all know where to find this Catholic née Nazarene who is supposedly vigorously preparing not only her law school applications but something Christmas-y.

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Thanks, Dr. Bratcher, for the link.

I found Shellie's blog a while ago and remembered her from Naznet.

I have nothing to add, except to ask is "conversion" the correct label here? While it depends on perspective, I'm not sure that it's very catholic (though it may indeed be Catholic).

[David Pettigrew]

God gave us a brain before He gave us the Church. God asks for trust from us, but not blind trust. For these two reasons, it would be very difficult for me to believe something that I cannot accept intellectually just because the Church teaches that it is true.

For example, I cannot intellectually accept that Mary remained a virgin until the day she died, when it seems far more reasonable that she and Joseph had children together. So, should I accept what the Church says just because it is the Church, and waste my energy "circling the square", or use the brain the good Lord blessed me with and move on?

Remember, the Church also once taught that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. It took thinking people to step outside of the Church to prove this was wrong, and they suffered at the hands of the Church because of it.

Again, I have great respect for the RC faith, but what they have in common with their evangelical brothers and sisters is they have painted themselves into a corner on some issues that just don't seem to be of eternal consequence.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Yes, precisely. I find the Catholic Church far more "inclusive" in this way. At minimum, they do not make the pronouncements of who is *not* a brother with the same temerity or as often as the fundamental evangelicals with which I normally discuss theological issues online.

This is not quite accurate historically. There have been a whole host of doctrinal statements in Church dogma and papal bulls across the past 2,000 years stating exactly this and in very forceful terms (I won’t bore everyone with quoting them, but they are easily available). True, many if not most Catholics are not quite as militant as they used to be, especially since Vatican II, and are not nearly as much so as some strands of evangelicals, who sometimes were reacting to the attitude of Catholics in kind. But the historic Catholic position is that everyone but Catholics are apostate.

Throughout most of its history the Catholic Church has not accepted non-Catholics as Christians (there are numerous expressions of this). Non-Catholics (and especially certain groups at certain points in history) were considered to be sincere but mistaken and therefore outside of God’s grace since they did not accept the authority and true doctrine of the Church as led by the See of St. Peter. The Church so defined was considered the only source of salvation since salvation could only be obtained from the Church through confession and absolution.

That was only changed beginning with Vatican II in the early to mid 1960s, which acknowledged that non-Catholics could be Christian. However, they are acknowledged as sort of second-class Christians who are still in error because they do not acknowledge the authority of the only true Church (see the document Lumen Gentium (http://www.crivoice.org/creedlumen.html), especially section 15). Non-Catholics can only have salvation because of the faithfulness of the Catholic Church.

From another document of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegrati, section 3 (highlight added; I don’t have this online yet):

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

There is a strong ecumenical movement among many Catholics today. But it is not generally conceptualized as cooperation between denominations as it is among Protestants; it is seen as a movement to reunite under the authority of the Catholic Church.

I agree with the Catholic desire for unity. But we must admit that in Catholic tradition, both historically across 2,000 years and at present, that unity is far more about authority and control of doctrine than it is about spirituality. That will remain an obstacle to any organic unity for the foreseeable future (the same is true in even stronger terms for Eastern Orthodox, since the very name implies that others are not “orthodox,” that is heretics).

On the other hand, I often have fellowship with individual Catholics, including priests, many of whom are not quite so committed to papal and Church authority. Robin and I were marred in a Catholic Benedictine monastery, and shared Communion with some of the Sisters, something that would have been impossible not that many years ago, especially since we are both elders and both served (some of the Sisters would not partake, and a couple only shared the bread but not the wine; but they all sang us a blessing at the end).

That just means that it is probably important to recognize the difference between Catholic doctrine and dogma, which is often a sticking point for many Christians, and the more open attitudes of many Catholics. It is ironic that the practices of many Catholics actually deny some of the dogma, which presents its own problems to the Catholic Church.

In any case, I really appreciate your openness and willingness to discuss this here. May the Lord bless your activities this Advent Season.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ian Gentles]

"...hey, I was a Scottish Protestant, and believe me that's a biggy!"


In '06 we spent 3 weeks in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The tour guide was extremely well-versed in history, religion, literature, etc. I very quickly came to expect several common elements about what we would see when we got off the tour bus:
Someone died here
Probably violently
Most likely at the hand of a relative
The deed was, in most linstances, done in the name of God.


Many things were done in the name of God, sadly!


http://iangentles.livejournal . com

[Ian Gentles]

I can only say, not being bad, catholic church martured oh so many in its lost struggle for power her in UK. Some would say, dont forget the blood of the martyrs. But ok stepping aside that was all political stuff, and we need to seperate it all!

[Ian Gentles]

Going further, we cant, historical theology, separate the spiritual from the theological, theology in reformation days in UK was very political. Lets not forget Henry the 8th had a very political agenda in his theology, if He had any? But there was a struggle, and yes many many died, rather than submit to catholocism!

[Terri Knoll]

that's one of the things I have been discussing with my children. We don't need to try and "save" the Jehovahs witnesses et all that we come in contact with. Jesus told us not to worry about those that were for him (I know the theological implications of sects and false teachings) but to reach those who don't know about him. If every christian (catholic, evangelical, mormon, jehovahs witness etc) were to reach just one who does not know Christ, we would have so many christians we wouldn't know what to do with them lol

life is so much freer when I don't have to worry about saving everyone to the Nazarene church!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Shellie, when those dark hours, and big decisions come--the church (people) may be able to help comfort us, and give us some guidlelines, but, ultimately, the rest is up to us and God. No one is authorized to tell us whether or not to have an abortion. No one, is authorized to make our decisions for us. The only true authority, is Christ. He definantly is able to lead us in the way we should go, and what we should do.

The RC's, COTN, Baptist, Methodist, ASOG, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc. is able or has the authority to tell us what to do concerning abortions, and so forth, and what the answer is to decisions we have to make. Christ is the only authority. He will intercede to the Father for us, as we pray in His name. I promise you, from many years of experience, that HE IS ABLE--no other authority is.

[Eric Frey]

that's one of the things I have been discussing with my children. We don't need to try and "save" the Jehovahs witnesses et all that we come in contact with. Jesus told us not to worry about those that were for him (I know the theological implications of sects and false teachings) but to reach those who don't know about him. If every christian (catholic, evangelical, mormon, jehovahs witness etc) were to reach just one who does not know Christ, we would have so many christians we wouldn't know what to do with them lol

life is so much freer when I don't have to worry about saving everyone to the Nazarene church!

I think it is one thing to talk in terms of RCC and denominations. It is quite a large leap to include JW and Mormons in that discussion.

[Roy Richardson]

It makes me sad that so many people grow up in the Church of the Nazarene being taught that Catholics and Calvinists need to be saved.



Check out this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22A48jCstJI) to see where the leadership is on the issue.

[Carol Kane]

Well I just want to interject another a view that I find very intriguing:

www.bethechad.com and www.azshabbat.org

Both are organized Nazarene churches, how great is that? Awesome, God is good.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well I just want to interject another a view that I find very intriguing:

www.bethechad.com and www.azshabbat.org

Both are organized Nazarene churches, how great is that? Awesome, God is good.

I greatly value the traditions and heritage of Judaism since I work with the Old Testament. I frequently conduct a Christian Seder service for Maundy Thursday. However, there are serious theological problems with some forms of “messianic Judaism,” usually in overdependence on legal formulations of the Faith.

I find it more than a little ironic that on the Beth Simchat site they quote “Rabbi Saul” from Galatians as supporting the idea of “messianic Judaism,” when in fact Galatians is a scathing rejection of exactly what they are trying to do, that is, redefine Christianity as a sect of Judaism (“At its inception nearly 2,000 years ago, Messianic Judaism began and today continues to remain a sect of Judaism.”)

They have also formulated their own 16 Articles of Faith (http://www.azshabbat.org/OurBeliefs.php)that are different and more stringent on some particular aspects (for example, immersion) than the C of N. They also take some positions that are questionable (for example, maintaining the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, in spite of Paul in Romans, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians). These aspects at least raise questions.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Scott Sherwood]

In the News. Tony Blair's "conversion of another sort"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22368586/

[Steven Martinez]

It is sad that our leaders use sweeping, broad strokes to condemn something. How about some specifics. As far as reformed theology, are we going to stop teaching systematics? Many of the great sytematic theologians are from the reformed tradition i.e Barth, T.F. Torrance, and Brunner. Take a Wesleyan Sytematics class or book and you will find references to these men in a positive perspective. The same with Calvin, we need to stop throwing out the Baby with the Bath Water on these issues because we simply begin to look ignorant and closed minded.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Ryan, do you think that our leaders should not preach against eternal security and predestination. That is what many Calvinist believe. Do we believe that?
Truthfully, I don't see why all of the people that think Nazarenes should not teach against Calvinism, don't start another church, that they would be happy with. Preaching against those doctrines, is not saying that none of them are Christians. For nearly 100 years, MANY have made it through to Glory, with our beliefs.
If and when, the younger people get their way, it will not even be the COTN. It will be another denomination, altogether.

[Steven Martinez]

Ryan, do you think that our leaders should not preach against eternal security and predestination. That is what many Calvinist believe. Do we believe that?
Truthfully, I don't see why all of the people that think Nazarenes should not teach against Calvinism, don't start another church, that they would be happy with. Preaching against those doctrines, is not saying that none of them are Christians. For nearly 100 years, MANY have made it through to Glory, with our beliefs.
If and when, the younger people get their way, it will not even be the COTN. It will be another denomination, altogether.

Are you by chance responding to me? Ryan has not posted in this thread in a while.

I wrote this in another thread similar to this one:
The problem in regards to Calvinism is that many Nazarenes do not understand the doctrines we disagree with. For example, Nazarenes believe in election and predestination for they are biblical (read the first 2 chapters of Ephesians). However we reject a form of predestination that is refered to as superlapsarian double predestination. This is the belief that God predestines people to hell as well as heaven. This is an extreme form of Calvinistic theology that stems more from Beza (the person who picked up for Calvin after he died) than Calvin himself, although Calvin came to this conclusion. Nazarenes believe that God elected Abram to be the father of God's chosen or elected people - Israel. It is our belief that through Jesus, the Church has been grafted into this vine and therefore, all who join the Body are part of this election. So has God predestined anyone to be with Him? The answer is yes. God has chosen all of us from the beginning to be with Him that none shall perish. However, he has given us response-ability to respond to His call.
As far as Eternal Security... this is a straw man arguement that engages believers and no one else. Have you ever seen two "sinners" have this discusion? It seems to me that this is a discusion where we should just drop the arguement and go make disciples by winning souls for Christ. Personally what I find fascinating is that those who argue for security are ussually very happy to proclaim their freedom of will to recieve Christ but desire to lose this freedom if comes to rejecting the grace has been given to them so apparently God's love and grace removes our freedom. Who knew?

I have no objection to our leaders urging that we face the challenges that we have before us. I just object to sweeping statements without specific details for I believe that this is the way of fundamentalism. I believe that we should preach for our doctrines rather than preach against those doctrines we diagree with. In other words be proactive rather than reactive.

As far as changing the Church of the Nazarene. I have no desire to change it the heart of the denomination. However, many people feel that the CoN made significant changes from its roots in the last 50 years with the rise of Fundamnetalism and legalism in the CoN. I do not think that many people desire to change the denomination as much as bring it back to the denomination that preached holiness as well as lived it in the context of perfect love. Every generation should act as reformers to steer the ship in the direction of the Spirit. To assume that any denomination, even our own, does not need to be challenged and reformed is a form of idolatry that has and will hinder any denomination from being the Body of Christ to the nations.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Ryan posted on the 19th, but it was the one of GS Gunter speaking at M7 about Calvinism, that I was responding to.

[Steven Martinez]

Ok, so it was Roy's post that you responded to. No problem.

[Billy Cox]

Ryan, do you think that our leaders should not preach against eternal security and predestination. That is what many Calvinist believe. Do we believe that?
Truthfully, I don't see why all of the people that think Nazarenes should not teach against Calvinism, don't start another church, that they would be happy with. Preaching against those doctrines, is not saying that none of them are Christians. For nearly 100 years, MANY have made it through to Glory, with our beliefs.
If and when, the younger people get their way, it will not even be the COTN. It will be another denomination, altogether.

I think that many Nazarene preachers have opted to preach the Good News rather than preaching against other Christians. I cannot find any reason to disagree with that.

If being Nazarene means attacking other Christian denominations, I want out.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Billy, I did not call the names of denominations. I hope you noticed that. But, it is the pastors place, in my opinion to help veer the people away from doctrines that holiness people feel is not correct. But, I still believe that there are Christians in other denominations that live holy, Christlike lives, even if they believe different than we do.

Once we were in a series of revival services and the evangelist, said something about Prebyterians, and I just cringed. I happen to know that a school teacher that was raised in the COTN was there, but her husband was Presbyterian. We should not call names like that.

And Steven, you would be surprised how much progress has been made in the COTN from the time I was a teen and now. There have been a good number of Nazarenes, that have learned to be more openminded about many things, that they used to be closed minded about. It has been 52 years since I became a teen.
I was raised by a Mother who taught us the OT and the NT, and the Manuel, and could present the Bible in a very exciting and interesting way. I love the OT, very much. I spent many nights on my next door grandmother's feather bed, with her reading the Bible to me and explaining it. I have a great heritage. But, when we moved to Nashville for Dwayne to go to school, and then all the many years he pastored, I was enlightened, by meeting so many different people from different walks of life, and denominations, and Catholics. In that way, with close times of fellowship, we can feel the Love of Jesus shining through them, even though their belief may be a little different than ours.

It seems that many young ministers, seem to think that older people are usually closed minded, and critical about nearly everything.