Eric's thread on "Wesleyan" got me thinking...

[Wilson L. Deaton]

1 Corinthisan 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

To what extent is claiming to be "Wesleyan" or "Calvinistic" any different from the Corinthian claims to "follow Paul" or to "follow Apollos?"

Wilson

[Charlotte Mercer]

IMO, It isn't different at all. The names have changed, but the idea seems to be the same. That thought has occurred to me too recently.

[Hans Deventer]

1 Corinthisan 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

To what extent is claiming to be "Wesleyan" or "Calvinistic" any different from the Corinthian claims to "follow Paul" or to "follow Apollos?"

If we follow Wesley's "catholic spirit", it is vastly different. If we don't, we're not Wesleyans anyway.

[Charlotte Mercer]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "catholic spirit," Hans. Can you explain?

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "catholic spirit," Hans. Can you explain?

Sure! Wesley had a sermon on this topic, you can find that one here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/039.htm

But in short (though Wesley is rarely "short"):

5. If, then, we take this word in the strictest sense, a man of a catholic spirit is one who, in the manner above-mentioned, gives his hand to all whose hearts are right with his heart: one who knows how to value, and praise God for, all the advantages he enjoys, with regard to the knowledge of the things of God, the true scriptural manner of worshipping him, and, above all, his union with a congregation fearing God and working righteousness: one who, retaining these blessings with the strictest care, keeping them as the apple of his eye, at the same time loves--as friends, as brethren in the Lord, as members of Christ and children of God, as joint partakers now of the present kingdom of God, and fellow heirs of his eternal kingdom--all, of whatever opinion or worship, or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please, and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil, and zealous of good works. He is the man of a truly catholic spirit, who bears all these continually upon his heart; who having an unspeakable tenderness for their persons, and longing for their welfare, does not cease to commend them to God in prayer, as well as to plead their cause before men; who speaks comfortably to them, and labours, by all his words, to strengthen their hands in God. He assists them to the uttermost of his power in all things, spiritual and temporal. He is ready "to spend and be spent for them;" yea, to lay down his life for their sake.

[Charlotte Mercer]

Ah. Well, I do agree with that. I agree that it is immensely important to love everyone like Christ did, does and would. I agree that it is more important to follow Christ than to follow a particular theologian. And I would certainly call myself a Wesleyan if someone asked, just like I would call myself a Christian if someone asked. But my being a Wesleyan doesn't keep me from loving Calvinists any more than my being a Christian keeps me from loving atheists.

I try to love people regardless of what they believe, but I still feel like there is a danger if we identify our beliefs based on different people. I believe that the church can be stronger if we act as a whole than if we divide ourselves into parts. Just as the Church of the Nazarene as a whole can do more good for the world than one particular Nazarene church, I feel like the entire body of believers could more adequately express God's love to the world if we acted as one than we can if we spend our time arguing which human theologian is most right.

I am not, however, saying that we should do away with those labels altogether, as it does make it much more simple to very briefly tell people precisely what we believe.

[Roland Hearn]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "catholic spirit," Hans. Can you explain?

The word "catholic" means universal and inclusive. It is a part of the church name for the Roman Catholic church to describe the universality of that church. When it is used with a small "c" it just means someone that includes everybody.

[Roland Hearn]

1 Corinthisan 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

To what extent is claiming to be "Wesleyan" or "Calvinistic" any different from the Corinthian claims to "follow Paul" or to "follow Apollos?"

Wilson

That is certainly the constant danger and as someone approaches the sense that their salvation depends on being part of one camp or another they have fallen within the circumstances of this warning. However, it isn't possible to think about faith in a way that is inclusive of all opinion as at some points they are mutually exclusive. To be identified by one of these nomenclature however is simply to identify the way we see faith, it is inevitable that such perspectives are named.

[Tami Martin]

While I agree with Roland that there seems to be an inevitibility in human beings to name things, another "name" often rears it's head: right.

Calvin is right or Wesley is right or someone else is right, with the implication that others are wrong.

I know there are those in my particular fellowship who worship at my church because they believe it to be the church that "gets it right" or stays closer to the scriptures than any others. But there are others, and I am one of them, who fellowships with this particular group for other reasons.

[Hans Deventer]

I know there are those in my particular fellowship who worship at my church because they believe it to be the church that "gets it right" or stays closer to the scriptures than any others. But there are others, and I am one of them, who fellowships with this particular group for other reasons.

Yeah. But if they started worshipping Krishna, you just might start to think something is wrong after all.

[Terri Knoll]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading yours posts. I am glad you are a part of the Naznet family now.


blessings,
Terri

[Tami Martin]

Yeah. But if they started worshipping Krishna, you just might start to think something is wrong after all.

Hans, I think you're really out in left field now.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that I wouldn't know it if my church suddenly denied all its Christian teachings and foundations and started moving toward another belief altogether.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this comment.

[Billy Cox]

If we follow Wesley's "catholic spirit", it is vastly different.

Yeah, but it could lead to Catholicism. :basic05

We must avoid the very appearance...

[Billie Goodson]

I think it is interesting that Paul always called people his "brothers and/or sisters" and other non-disciple terms.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I think you're really out in left field now.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that I wouldn't know it if my church suddenly denied all its Christian teachings and foundations and started moving toward another belief altogether.

No. I did not intend to suggest that at all. I'm totally sure you would know.

I am suggesting that there is a lot of truth that you have checked to be present if you want to worship in a specific church. So just like the people you mentioned, you want the church to "get it right" on those. You probably agree with 90% of what that means, and differ in 10%. Then there still may be other reasons as well to worship with this specific group, but I wanted to point out the difference isn't all that big. We all need our church to get it right on a lot of issues. We just differ on a few.

[Tami Martin]

I see what you're saying. I also completely agree.

I attended this particular church as a child, so I had the "approval" if you will, of my parents. I checked it out before I committed to attending. The preaching was still where I thought it should be.

I visited several other churches in my town before settling on this one. There wasn't one that was so far afield that I felt I couldn't fellowship there based on their doctrine or theology. My decision was left to many "non-essentials" such as style of worship and friendliness of the people.

However, I honestly doubt that the "average Joe Churchgoer" checks out a potential church. I think they make their decision based on what style of worship a church uses and what kind of programs they have for the kids. I think at least 75% of the folks in the pews will accept whatever doctrine the church espouses without ever really discovering for themselves if that is true.

[Marsha Lynn]

However, I honestly doubt that the "average Joe Churchgoer" checks out a potential church. I think they make their decision based on what style of worship a church uses and what kind of programs they have for the kids. I think at least 75% of the folks in the pews will accept whatever doctrine the church espouses without ever really discovering for themselves if that is true.

I think you're right. I was chatting not long ago with someone who grew up in the Church of the Nazarene and had more recently left a small Methodist church for a much larger congregation outside the Wesleyan tradition with a wonderful music program in which she and her family were involved. She told me that she didn't think the difference between denominations in terms of doctrine were important as long as they taught the Bible. I know I couldn't make that same switch. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way that good music could make up for preaching and teaching that set my teeth on edge.

Marsha

[Eric Frey]

Thanks Marsha. I have a friend who was raised with me in a Nazarene church, but later, for various reason worshiped at a Baptist church. I asked about the differences he noted: particularly theological in worship (word & sacrament) and in teaching. He said, I don't see any.

[Charlotte Mercer]

I don't actually know from experience, but one of my friends has mentioned that some Baptist churches are actually starting to lean a little more towards Wesleyan doctrine now, and that it's apparently bothering some of the older, true blue Baptists.

[Billie Goodson]

I have gone from a baptist, non-denominational, and Nazarene churches and frankly, I am not sure I would say there is any definitive difference in what I would say was doctrine or theology. Only if I engage the pastor have I really discerned a difference, or from reading the literature that was around. I once was aware that the only difference between Nazarene and Baptist was "once saved always saved" which really seems to be an overly simplified version of Calvinist teaching to me. In some ways, the church seems to reflect politicians, they don't seem to be as good at telling us why to vote for them, but, really good on telling us what is wrong with the other guy.

[Tami Martin]

I have gone from a baptist, non-denominational, and Nazarene churches and frankly, I am not sure I would say there is any definitive difference in what I would say was doctrine or theology. Only if I engage the pastor have I really discerned a difference, or from reading the literature that was around. I once was aware that the only difference between Nazarene and Baptist was "once saved always saved" which really seems to be an overly simplified version of Calvinist teaching to me. In some ways, the church seems to reflect politicians, they don't seem to be as good at telling us why to vote for them, but, really good on telling us what is wrong with the other guy.

EXACTLY!!

[Eric Frey]

So I guess my question is...where are we missing the boat.

If the only real difference is in engaging the pastor, or reading the literature, where does the life transformation really happen? Why do we not see more heart transformation or mind renewal in people?

Where do we (speaking as a pastor, for pastors) drop the ball? I don't even really know the right question to ask---someone help me out...

[Charlotte Mercer]

Are you trying to ask what pastors should do in order to make the difference more obvious? Are you trying to ask why the doctrines seem similar until people engage the pastor or read the literature?
Are you trying ask how deep pastors ought to go in order to help people to see the true difference that the love of God can make in our lives?
Or am I totally off base, and you really meant something else altogether?

[Glenda Harvey]

While I agree with Roland that there seems to be an inevitibility in human beings to name things, another "name" often rears it's head: right.

Calvin is right or Wesley is right or someone else is right, with the implication that others are wrong.

I know there are those in my particular fellowship who worship at my church because they believe it to be the church that "gets it right" or stays closer to the scriptures than any others. But there are others, and I am one of them, who fellowships with this particular group for other reasons.

Our Pastor frequently talks about Conviction, Persuasion, and Opinion level beliefs. Conviction level beliefs are the ones that we feel strongly enough about that we could not fellowship on a regular basis at a Church that did not teach these beliefs. Pesuasion level beliefs are beliefs we feel strongly about but not enough to stop fellowshipping with those that do not agree with us. Opinion level beliefs are just that, opinions.

I realized years ago that I would never find a Church in which I agreed 100 percent with everything that was taught. Some Churches just feel like home, like it's where we belong. I think that is what you feel at your Church. It is possible to attend a Church whose teaching you totally agree with but it just doesn't feel comfortable for one reason or another. I'm glad you have found a Church that you love being part of even if you don't agree with everything that is taught there.

[Hans Deventer]

I have gone from a baptist, non-denominational, and Nazarene churches and frankly, I am not sure I would say there is any definitive difference in what I would say was doctrine or theology. Only if I engage the pastor have I really discerned a difference, or from reading the literature that was around. I once was aware that the only difference between Nazarene and Baptist was "once saved always saved" which really seems to be an overly simplified version of Calvinist teaching to me.

Ever since our church started out in 1984, the pastor has held pastor's classes for people who wanted to join the church. In one case, an elderly couple came that had been around in evangelical churches all of their lives and requested if they would be allowed to join without going through that course. The church board agreed and regretted it within a year. They left, disagreeing with some Wesleyan stuff.
From that moment on, the church board solemnly swore never to let anyone join the membership who had not passed the pastor's class.
And indeed, frequently, people leave because of what they learned there. They don't agree with the way we look at sin, or how we baptise infants and adults, or don't believe in sanctification the way we do. These would be the most common points of disagreement.

[Roland Hearn]

I have gone from a baptist, non-denominational, and Nazarene churches and frankly, I am not sure I would say there is any definitive difference in what I would say was doctrine or theology. Only if I engage the pastor have I really discerned a difference, or from reading the literature that was around. I once was aware that the only difference between Nazarene and Baptist was "once saved always saved" which really seems to be an overly simplified version of Calvinist teaching to me. In some ways, the church seems to reflect politicians, they don't seem to be as good at telling us why to vote for them, but, really good on telling us what is wrong with the other guy.

Wow that is amazing. Every church I have pastored you could pretty much ask anyone the difference and they could give you a gracious loving response that would be non antagonistic but would reflect the difference. That statement tells me there is considerable lack in the preaching ministry in the Nazarene churches you have attended. The difference in our perspective on free will and grace is so profound that it ought to leap out at you the first time you come into contact with it. That is a tragic statement. I'm sorry that it is true.

[Billie Goodson]

To be fair, I have only been in one Nazarene Church for the last 10 years, prior to that, I had not attended a Nazarene Church regularly since about 1990. Prior to that, I did attend Nazarene Churches and college for about 8 years. Even during that time, I would not say there was too much of a difference that I noticed, but, how much of that may be blame on my part is not really easy to figure out. The first area of difference I was aware of was in the belief of sanctification. I will say that at least 2 of the churches that were not Nazarene are much closer to Wesleyanism than the hyper-Calvinism.

Hans, I so agree with the position your board has taken regarding requiring membership classes being mandatory. If a church doesn't offer some form of membership class, I would really wonder. I remember when we looked at joining one church (which was non-denominationally baptist), they gave us a somewhat good sized handout to go over, then we sat with a pastor and discussed it, then went to membership (that was their process). The meeting with the pastor was to sift through the material and try to help emphasize any areas that we may have had questions about. They were very deliberate about membership.

Roland, your response is interesting. Given the discussion about having "Church of the Nazarene" on signs or within the church name, it is interesting that such a significant amount of time would apparently be dedicated to ensuring that almost everyone would be so aware of what Wesleyanism is, and one would think what the COtN is all about, yet, the need to avoid openly proclaiming the name because of bad past experiences. That is quite a feat to get the point across so universally. (Added) Part of my difficulty in your statement Roland, is that it requires people to understand both points of view. That is not something I think is extremely universal in many churches, but, having never been in your congregation, I cannot say it is not possible. I just get back to my politician statement about them telling me the bad about the other guy.

[Charlotte Mercer]

To be fair, I have only been in one Nazarene Church for the last 10 years, prior to that, I had not attended a Nazarene Church regularly since about 1990. Prior to that, I did attend Nazarene Churches and college for about 8 years. Even during that time, I would not say there was too much of a difference that I noticed, but, how much of that may be blame on my part is not really easy to figure out. The first area of difference I was aware of was in the belief of sanctification. I will say that at least 2 of the churches that were not Nazarene are much closer to Wesleyanism than the hyper-Calvinism.

Hans, I so agree with the position your board has taken regarding requiring membership classes being mandatory. If a church doesn't offer some form of membership class, I would really wonder. I remember when we looked at joining one church (which was non-denominationally baptist), they gave us a somewhat good sized handout to go over, then we sat with a pastor and discussed it, then went to membership (that was their process). The meeting with the pastor was to sift through the material and try to help emphasize any areas that we may have had questions about. They were very deliberate about membership.

Roland, your response is interesting. Given the discussion about having "Church of the Nazarene" on signs or within the church name, it is interesting that such a significant amount of time would apparently be dedicated to ensuring that almost everyone would be so aware of what Wesleyanism is, and one would think what the COtN is all about, yet, the need to avoid openly proclaiming the name because of bad past experiences. That is quite a feat to get the point across so universally. (Added) Part of my difficulty in your statement Roland, is that it requires people to understand both points of view. That is not something I think is extremely universal in many churches, but, having never been in your congregation, I cannot say it is not possible. I just get back to my politician statement about them telling me the bad about the other guy.

I probably don't really need to say (but will anyway) that my opinion or Roland's preaching style may not be entirely unbiased considering who my dad is, but I can tell you that from the years I've spent listening to his preaching, I don't think I've ever heard him badmouth any other denominations, or churches for that matter. He will talk about the differences in private conversation, as you've seen here on NazNet, but I don't remember ever hearing him badmouth other people, churches or denominations to the congregation.

[Billie Goodson]

I probably don't really need to say (but will anyway) that my opinion or Roland's preaching style may not be entirely unbiased considering who my dad is, but I can tell you that from the years I've spent listening to his preaching, I don't think I've ever heard him badmouth any other denominations, or churches for that matter. He will talk about the differences in private conversation, as you've seen here on NazNet, but I don't remember ever hearing him badmouth other people, churches or denominations to the congregation.

Thanks Charlotte -- I put much behind what you say because it reflects what you heard, not what was said (not doubting Roland in the least, just I often wish what was heard was what I said). Your witness is enough to settle any question that may have been in my mind. I would point out that you said "in private conversations" which goes in line with what I was saying about only from discussions with the pastors have I observed differences. I do believe once you are aware of the difference (or once I was aware) -- the differences were discernible in the messages from the pulpit. But, I think many pastors concentrate on the catholic message, rather than the denominational message. My guess is that Roland would spend far more time talking about Jesus than Wesley/Calvin -- and I think it would be wrong to do otherwise. As far as I know, both of those gentlemen did not proclaim any divine substance, and most assuredly did not display it. They did witness to one who did, thus, we are pointed to whom we should be disciples of.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks Charlotte -- I put much behind what you say because it reflects what you heard, not what was said (not doubting Roland in the least, just I often wish what was heard was what I said). Your witness is enough to settle any question that may have been in my mind. I would point out that you said "in private conversations" which goes in line with what I was saying about only from discussions with the pastors have I observed differences. I do believe once you are aware of the difference (or once I was aware) -- the differences were discernible in the messages from the pulpit. But, I think many pastors concentrate on the catholic message, rather than the denominational message. My guess is that Roland would spend far more time talking about Jesus than Wesley/Calvin -- and I think it would be wrong to do otherwise. As far as I know, both of those gentlemen did not proclaim any divine substance, and most assuredly did not display it. They did witness to one who did, thus, we are pointed to whom we should be disciples of.

Billie, if you are talking about differences in terms of specific denominational issues and good and bad, no I doubt that many people in my churches were Nazarenes in the same way a person might be sports fan. However for me the differences are woop and woof stuff. They are fiber and essence. They resound at every level. They shape and move and inspire. We have had many people comment that the reason they hang around is because of those differences. My messages are always theology and you can break them down into specific Wesleyan theological tenets and I do it deliberately every time I preach and yet only someone trained in theology would be able to articulate the theological principle I was referring to. As an example there is almost never a message that I do not preach the concept and construct of entire sanctification. Yet I would only use the word about once or twice a year. I have great confidence in the grace of God to be consistent with, well, the grace of God. So I don't need to teach words but concepts and God will do the rest. I have many times had the conversation where by someone has described to me an experience they had with God as a result of hearing a new message and as we talked I would be able to tell them that the experience is ES, which I would do.

As far as the sign issue is concerned, I see the two concepts utterly unrelated. It seems the room that the writing forum gives for the interpretation of ideas through the prisms and paradigms of particular contexts probably means you will struggle to understand what I mean at that point until you have had the chance to see and hear in person but if you want to explore the way those two things are utterly unrelated further I would be happy to give it a shot.

[Billie Goodson]

As far as the sign issue is concerned, I see the two concepts utterly unrelated. It seems the room that the writing forum gives for the interpretation of ideas through the prisms and paradigms of particular contexts probably means you will struggle to understand what I mean at that point until you have had the chance to see and hear in person but if you want to explore the way those two things are utterly unrelated further I would be happy to give it a shot.

Well, if your explanation would be that laborious, I would agree that I would not be able to fathom it, nor would I care to. I don't really see it so much as a paradigm as a parody. But, I do agree that the written form of communication often requires more preciseness than we are accustomed to providing.

[Roland Hearn]

I'm not sure the issue is "laborious" as much as striking at the right points. It seems to me there is a little resistance in the way you framed your posts and rather than run down a road of trying to make explanations where there are already walls I would rather address the things that are going to make most sense to you.

But Billie I would hope that you have not written me off yet as having nothing of value to say.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm not sure the issue is "laborious" as much as striking at the right points. It seems to me there is a little resistance in the way you framed your posts and rather than run down a road of trying to make explanations where there are already walls I would rather address the things that are going to make most sense to you.

But Billie I would hope that you have not written me off yet as having nothing of value to say.

Actually, I think you over-interpreted my use of the term "interesting", or perhaps, I chose a bad (or for you, loaded) term. I think Charlotte's comments really clarified what I was getting at, unless you disagree with her comments regarding your style, I think the entire subject was effectively handled by her remarks.

What you offered as your style of preaching also added to Charlotte's explanation greatly. I think you clearly and intentionally weave things through your sermon that, as you say, "only someone trained in theology would be able to articulate the theological principle I was referring to." What I was pointing out in my original post dealt with the fact that on the surface, to the common listener, many sermons on Sunday mornings do not go deep into really presenting and contrasting a tenet of Wesleyan theology to another system such as Calvinism. I think most Sunday morning services are more "catholic" and tend to deal with much broader issues, yet, if we are aware of the differences, we can clearly point them out -- but, as you stated, all may not be able to. At the heart of this is the belief I hold that we all should be striving toward that understanding.

As I said, I think Charlotte stands as a witness to what you preach -- I fully accept that what she says is at least the view of one if not more of the people sitting under your ministry. From you post, I was mainly just curious as to how deliberate it would be in sermons to have it so that "you could pretty much ask anyone the difference and they could give you a gracious loving response that would be non antagonistic but would reflect the difference." Then again, I am basing my statement on the fact that in my experience (which is not universal) the greatest number of "attenders" seldom move deeper than the sermons, thereby limiting their exposure to theology to that small time period each week. That was reflected in my response.

While I think you and I have some differences, I still find much value in what you say. I think we approach things from different sides, I don't think you are always wrong, or that I am always right. I think that the kingdom requires both views, and then a whole lot more. I value your insights, because they are different than my own. I don't need or desire someone to parrot back to me my own beliefs, I would probably think they were nuts if they did.

One thing I have learned from my study is that I am often wrong or not complete -- like a ship, I require constant course corrections. I guess sometimes I am even surprised when I get things right! When I quote Phil 2:12:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I think of work, labor, sweat, and some blood -- and all mental, or of the mind. I wonder if God is not a potter, but a stone mason, chipping away and grinding to get me to what I can be. I don't mind the process, rather I enjoy it -- he wired me this way for some reason!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

No matter how great the music program is, and how strong one may feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in a service, there would still be things I would want to know about doctrinal beliefs. I may feel good, in the service, but what one or more beliefs would I not want my children to grow up believing?
God probably looks down here and sees us as children, trying our best to live as close to Him as we can, and may feel that the differences that bother us, do not bother HIM, AS LONG AS OUR HEARTS ARE RIGHT.
But, some doctrines, such as eternal secuirty (once saved-always saved) or a certain kind of predestition belief, etal. If these beliefs are believed to ther point of actually thinking someone who actually lives a life of sin is a Christian, or believing that those in a certain church are the only ones going to heaven, and other things that would not be good for my child to believe, these would concern me, and I might look for another church.

But, I do not believe in someone getting up front in a church, and call out denomination names in a way that is against them.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Part of my difficulty in your statement Roland, is that it requires people to understand both points of view. That is not something I think is extremely universal in many churches, but, having never been in your congregation, I cannot say it is not possible.

When I teach my, "Orientation Class," I explain that the purpose is to explain what it is that we believe. I elaborate that it is not within the scope of the orientation class to defend what we believe or debate our position versus other positions, etc.

(I call it an, "Orientation Class," and promote it as a class for anyone who wants to know more about us. At the end of the class, I pass out membership applications and tell them that now that they've had the class if they think they want to take the step of formal membership to fill out and return the application. I tell them if they don't want to become members that is perfectly OK.)

Wilson

[Billie Goodson]

When I teach my, "Orientation Class," I explain that the purpose is to explain what it is that we believe. I elaborate that it is not within the scope of the orientation class to defend what we believe or debate our position versus other positions, etc.

(I call it an, "Orientation Class," and promote it as a class for anyone who wants to know more about us. At the end of the class, I pass out membership applications and tell them that now that they've had the class if they think they want to take the step of formal membership to fill out and return the application. I tell them if they don't want to become members that is perfectly OK.)

Wilson

Is there a point where the debate/defense can occur? I don't feel that all of these issues should be relegated to private discussions. Wilson, what you describe is what I think the norm is -- my point is whether the norm is getting the job done? I think it is too easy for some to just sit back and listen and not absorb -- then we are left with someone that is not emotionally or spiritually involved. I like Moreland's comment in his book that we are told to be childlike, not childish -- one point I took is who asks more questions than a child? In all other areas of my life, I am told to ask, search, verify -- except in Church where I sit through sermons and for some of us, a Sunday School that more close resembles a reading. We have abandoned the intellect in our spiritual life. That is why I chose my signature verse -- what does it mean to love God with all of my mind?

[Marsha Lynn]

Is there a point where the debate/defense can occur? I don't feel that all of these issues should be relegated to private discussions.

I have a couple of thoughts here:

1. I agree that these conversations need to happen in a way that everyone can participate. I grew up with full exposure to Hal Lindsey and the influence his views had on popular beliefs about the Second Coming. I encountered it often, including in multiple official venues of the Church of the Nazarene. When one of my pastors didn't preach that view, I didn't notice the omission and my struggle to reconcile scripture with what I had been taught continued. No one had ever told me that I didn't have to believe all that stuff. It wasn't until I borrowed one of the standard texts on Nazarene doctrine from my pastor that I discovered an authoritative voice with a dissenting view; which it turned out my pastor held, but, presumably in the interest of not challenging closely-held beliefs among the congregation, hadn't clearly communicated. When my current pastor finally dared challenge that view officially, he caught a lot of flak from others who had been taught it all of their long years in the Church of the Nazarene, but it was a conversation that needed to happen.

2. I think that when we discuss the differentiating issues, it needs to be done with grace, allowing those with differing views to be "good Christians", even when they aren't there to defend their view. Somebody needs to say, "This is the origin of this position and here's the value that we can draw from it." For example, if the topic of eternal security comes up in a Bible study, somebody needs to point out that it's partly a reaction to our fear that God will reject us the minute we commit a single sin, and that we would do well to embrace the security part of the position; not that we can't choose to walk away from the faith, but that God's acceptance of us is not capricious and easily destroyed by a moment of carelessness (a fall) on our part.

Even while clearly differentiating our beliefs from those of other denominations, there needs to be an acknowledgment that one can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and a faithful child of God and still disagree with the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene.

Marsha

[Billie Goodson]

I have a couple of thoughts here:

1. I agree that these conversations need to happen in a way that everyone can participate. I grew up with full exposure to Hal Lindsey and the influence his views had on popular beliefs about the Second Coming. I encountered it often, including in multiple official venues of the Church of the Nazarene. When one of my pastors didn't preach that view, I didn't notice the omission and my struggle to reconcile scripture with what I had been taught continued. No one had ever told me that I didn't have to believe all that stuff. When my current pastor finally dared challenge that view officially, he caught a lot of flak from others who had been taught it all of their long years in the Church of the Nazarene, but it was a conversation that needed to happen.

2. I think that when we discuss the differentiating issues, it needs to be done with grace, allowing those with differing views to be "good Christians", even when they aren't there to defend their view. Somebody needs to say, "This is the origin of this position and here's the value that we can draw from it." For example, if the topic of eternal security comes up in a Bible study, somebody needs to point out that it's partly a reaction to our fear that God will reject us the minute we commit a single sin, and that we would do well to embrace the security part of the position; not that we can't choose to walk away from the faith, but that God's acceptance of us is not capricious and easily destroyed by a moment of carelessness (a fall) on our part. There needs to be an acknowledgment that one can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and a faithful child of God and still disagree with the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene.

Marsha

Marsha,

With grace and clarity, you have better articulated my thoughts than I could hope to accomplish! I have a few other things I am thinking about that you should post on so I would better understand them.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Is there a point where the debate/defense can occur? I don't feel that all of these issues should be relegated to private discussions. Wilson, what you describe is what I think the norm is -- my point is whether the norm is getting the job done? ...

Whether right or wrong, off the top of my head, I would tend make the debate/defense a matter of private discussion except for within our small-group Bible studies. In that setting, I'm more willing to explain differences and why I land where I do.

(Beyond that, in sermons, etc., if I deal with issues like the second coming I simply make disclaimer statements like, "Not everyone sees it this way but I believe..." or "Biblical scholars are divided on this but I lean toward...")

Wilson