PDA

View Full Version : Response to Orville Jenkins' open letter



Jonathan Grant
August 20th, 2010, 04:37 PM
Here's my response to Orville Jenkins, Jr.'s open letter. I wish all the church leaders who agree with Dr. Jenkins would read it, as there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the younger generation believes. Hopefully this letter can help bridge the gap. Feel free to pass this along to anyone you feel led to.


---------------------------


Dear Dr. Jenkins,

I read your email, and as a somewhat recent SNU graduate I very much echo your concerns. I grew up Nazarene and my parents are from two fairly prominent Nazarene families. I no longer attend a Nazarene church, even though my hometown church in Norman, OK is still much in line with traditional Nazarene theology.

The Problem

The spinelessness of the General Church and the pastors is just sickening. Even worse than their passiveness on the Purpose Driven movement and the Emergent Church is their passiveness in the area of child molestation and sexual abuse from church staff. I simply cannot support a church that routinely hires known sexual offenders, covers for them when they abuse children and women, refuse to report it to the police, refuse to warn other churches about them, and purposely turn a blind eye to their atrocities! I did not realize until the BFC trial just how large this problem is in the church. The information dug up about the general church and so many of the individual churches is absolutely infuriating!

The fact that it took a court order and a horrible law suit to force the General Church to do something about this is shameful and evil! I'm sick of pastors and church leaders wanting to avoid controversy and bad press. There is something very wrong with the Nazarene church! The exposé story on the International Church of the Nazarene (not just the local church) that ran on the evening news in Oklahoma City following the settlement of the above-mentioned lawsuit basically equated the General Church of the Nazarene cover-up with that of the Catholic Church (whether they actually said those words or not—I don’t remember specifically).

As for the emergent church: at SNU we were taught about it in a required course called Contemporary Social Issues. We were required to read the book that is basically the cornerstone of the movement (by Brian McLaren). I was the only one taking issue with it in the class. In fact, I was the only one taking a stand on most troubling issues in the college. I wrote letters to the editor raising my concerns and rebutting all sorts of questionable teachings from chapel, newspaper editorials, stories, teachings and letters from professors, etc. using scriptures and facts with documented resources. I received much hate mail for this and became quite a hated person on campus.


When taught in one class that humans are basically good and born good, I had to stand up and give scripture and a brief history lesson on Marxism to the professor who just happened to be a Nazarene pastor's wife.

While I agree with you on the poison of liberalism in the church, I really wish you had left that part out of your letter because it really hurts your argument about the emergent church. I’m not saying that the political issues shouldn't be addressed, but they should be addressed separately, and preferably by a different party. It's too easy for you to be written off as a political old-fogey and therefore your vital message about the emergent church to be ignored.

I fought a lot against the liberal beliefs and teachings at SNU. The professors are very liberal and it comes through in their teaching. I was there on 9-11 and when we went to war. The religion department was preaching out against the war. And one of the most respected religion profs (who is now the pastor of one of our Nazarene college churches) put an editorial in the paper about how socialism is biblical because of how the early church lived communally! Absurd! How could I respect someone with such a poor understanding of the bible?


The truth is that the young people in the church are overwhelmingly liberal. They have bought into their teachings in college and public schools growing up. They've bought into what they see in the media. “The Daily Show” is the main source of news for most 20-somethings!

I remember during my senior year of college having to stand up in class against my peers who were pro-choice. Most of them were against abortion, but believed women should have the right to choose. How much clearer can it be that it should not be a woman's choice whether a baby lives or not; it is the baby's choice!



The Solution

One of the biggest problems in your argument is that I'm afraid you misunderstand the position of the young liberals in the church. They do not see liberalism as being God-less or void of morality. In fact, they believe that conservatism is counter to the teachings of Jesus. They believe that because they are moral, because they are Christians, that they should be liberal. They believe Jesus would be a liberal. I've heard all these things many, many times! Until you understand them, you cannot make a difference. You'll make it worse. One of the things they object to the most is the church telling them what they have to believe politically. They rebel against that. Equating politics with Christianity will drive them away!

They believe in helping the less fortunate, they believe in helping minorities and those who are not given equality, they believe in helping the poor, they believe greed is bad, they believe becoming rich is evil, they believe corporations are evil, they believe in tolerance of people who are different than us, they believe in science and technology, protecting the environment, and they believe judging is wrong, war is wrong, etc.

Most of those beliefs are actually good. The problem is that they also believe that liberalism is about helping the less fortunate, minorities, those who are not given equality, and giving to the poor...and conservatives are old fogeys who oppose government programs and legislation that seems to be about helping all those people--therefore conservatives must not care about them, and thus are against Jesus' teachings. The idea that there are other options other than the federal government solving the problem is not widely understood. The idea that the state and local governments can do a much better job at fixing much of these problems, is much more efficient, more tailor-made for the specific situation in the state, more able to be changed by citizens of the state, can be scrapped much more easily if it fails, people can leave the state if they don't like it, etc. isn't even discussed!

They believe that because greed is bad and the love of money is bad, that capitalism, corporations, and being rich must be wrong. They believe in tolerance and that judging is wrong, therefore liberals who say you can be who you want and there's no right or wrong must be good and conservatives who oppose gay marriage, and certain types of lifestyles must be bad. They believe murder is wrong, so anti-war liberals must be good and pro-war conservatives must be bad.

They believe in science and technology, and because older people struggle to keep up with the speed of the advancement in today's culture and stay relevant, they must have outdated ideas and are not as enlightened as the media and professors. The truth is, scientists know much more about the world now than they did 20 or 30 years ago. We now know how wrong so many long-held beliefs are, and how older people stubbornly stick to old-wives tales, outdated science, cultural norms, etc. despite the undeniable evidence against it. This has led the young people to believe that the older people have no credibility.

Think about it, if you grew up hearing certain things from your parents and were taught them as fact...but then went to school and learned that science has proven many of those things false, or that new discoveries have lead to new theories, it would very much shape the way you felt about the rest of your parents’ teachings. It makes sense that when told how outdated the social, political, and religious beliefs of your parents are, and are given all sorts of "facts" and "logic" that seem to prove the opposite...you'd probably believe them!

We hear that people used to believe slavery was good, that black people were inferior...then later generations realized the fallacy of that. The older people think homosexuals are evil and inferior, so maybe they are wrong and we, the new generation, see the "fallacy" of that, and in the future people will look at this issue just like slavery and racism. Throughout history we see a pattern of "new" liberal beliefs being laughed at, challenged, and punished...but history ultimately proves those new liberal beliefs correct. People used to think the world was flat, then they thought the sun revolved around the earth, then they believed...well, you get the idea. Very often it was the powerful church that opposed these radical new ideas like "the earth is round" or "the sun revolved around the earth" or "slavery is wrong, blacks are equal" and often put them into prison. After hearing these kinds of stories over and over growing up, what side are you going to take when the old powerful church is opposed to new science and social ideas (that aren't really new, but seem new to young people)? There are so many parallels between the current situations and the ones learned about in history classes!

It doesn't help that the church is so ignorant of science. The church opposed and ridiculed the "big bang theory" but it was eventually proven correct. The church opposed evolution, and the old age of the earth, but all branches of science prove it over and over again. Ironically, the big bang theory was originally laughed at and ridiculed by scientists because they thought it sounded "too religious".

The more the church stays ignorant of advances in science, culture, and technology the less and less relevant they will be. It's no wonder the younger generation is trying to transform the church. The problem is that they are wrong, they are manipulated, and they don't realize what they are doing. It is up to the 30-50 year olds to bridge the gap and teach the truth while showing that they are in step with the cultural advances. Teach the truth that Jesus taught with the correct context. Simplify it down to the important concepts and not the "cultural" rules, terms, and phrases that the church has preached as if they are permanently intertwined with the gospel. We have to treat the new generation like a mission field in a completely different country. We must separate Jesus' teaching and the Bible from the less important theological and cultural bickerings. Then see how the basic concepts of Jesus' teachings apply to their situation and culture. It will look VERY different than the traditional church...just like the traditional church looks almost nothing like the early church in the New Testament. Trying to fit others into OUR culture won't work. It will backfire. There is something wrong with the church today and they know it, they want to change it...but they don't know what's wrong, what's right, or what to change it to. What they are doing is making it even worse!

We must start over and reach out to the hurting, the drug dealers, the prisoners, because they are the ones who will listen. They are the desperate ones. They make us uncomfortable, they won't fit in, and because of that churches have turned them away and forced them to become outsiders. I'm just now meeting many of these on-fire Christians who were rescued from the absolute worst situations and they are the real deal. They are exactly what Christ followers should be! Unfortunately, their stories are all the same. Church after church after church ignored them, turned their noses up at them, and kept them at a large distance. They didn't fit in with those churches. Nazarene churches are better than most when it comes to this, but it is still a problem.

We've lost the battle with the youth. We've lost the battle with the Nazarene church. It has become a large entity that has separated from what Jesus taught. The doctrine is good, but often misunderstood and few people in the church even know it! We don't reach out to the widows and orphans, the sinners, the lowest of society, the prisoners, etc. like we should. They are the reachable ones. They are the ones desperate for the gospel. The "friends" like us that we bring to church hoping the sermon will convert them are extremely tough to reach. How many people in the Nazarene church weren't raised as a Christian? How many came to Christ later in life? A small percentage. We've become a club. A club with rules...cultural rules.

We should be taught the disciplines, taught how to seek God ourselves! We should be told to find someone to disciple us and to disciple others. We should teach how to first of all seek God and love Him with all our heart soul and mind! Most church attenders won't listen. But, the drug-dealers will. The prisoners will. The lowest of society will. Reach out to them. Create relationships with them. Disciple them. When those people start filling the pews, the pretenders in the congregation will leave. Those left will see the love, devotion, and desperation for God that they have and will be inspired. Either they will join in or be left out.

We can try and fight a church full of "comfortable" people and lose. Or, we can reach out to the lowest of the low and start a revival. Eventually the revival will show the "comfortable" people what they are missing. That's how to change a church. The emergent movement will become irrelevant when believers are seeking God as fervently as possible because they love Him so much and can never get enough! It's only when we become comfortable that we start trying to split hairs theologically to try and come up with the least we can do and still get into heaven.

So reach out to the most uncomfortable in society! Everything else will fix itself.

- Jonathan Grant

David Graham
August 20th, 2010, 06:42 PM
Thank you Jonathan for your post, you have definately identified the church's failures and other areas of concern.

But I wonder if perhaps the biggest concern is that the COTN has become less of a movement and more of an ecclesiastical institution and more particularly a "middle class" one which has forgotton its roots?

Your well written post describes a people who have lost their sense of divine calling and therefore mission, and needs to call upon God for a Holy Spirit empowered revival, where we will cast aside the shackles of our personal comfort and self sufficiency and be released to be the holy people of God to which we have been called, living out this calling and the the message of heart holiness which we have embraced, and doing so boldly through lives sacrificially lived in order that the world may see (at the very least) that we are an authentic people even though our message (of heart holiness) may never be popular with some.

For me personally, I pray for revival every day both for my own denomination and the Church of the Nazarene, so that we might return to being the global instruments of challenge and change that God originally raised us up to be.

Again, thank you for your post, I'll continue to reflect upon it and digest what you have said as I engage in my busy schedule in parish ministry today.

Blessings,
Dave

Shea Zellweger
August 20th, 2010, 07:09 PM
Jonathan,
I'm having trouble understanding your position. Your section entitled "the solution" sounds pretty great to me, yet your statements about the "poison of liberalism" and the unbiblical/liberal things that are taught come across as mildly offensive to me, as I too teach things such as that "Socialism is biblical," and "preaching out against the war."
My suggestion would be that if you want to seek the unity you describe here, that you do not first start by making claims that alienate, marginalize, and offend those on the other side of the aisle. I respect your strong convictions regarding things like Capitalism and War, but please respect that I, and many like me, have equally strong convictions that are in direct opposition to your own, and for one group to demonize or dismiss the other- or to describe the other as apparently misinformed or ignorant- is not a good start to building unity.

Also, welcome to NazNet.

Bob Hunter
August 20th, 2010, 07:38 PM
Jonathan,

I think your intentions are good, but I cannot agree with much from your essay. You make broad and sweeping generalizations that are completely unfounded. You lump people together and label the younger generation as liberal. You seem to think there is no hope. Your proposed solution comes across somewhat arrogant. What you are saying is very black & white and leaves no room for dialog or debate and little space for people to struggle with complex issues. I get the feeling you have all the answers or that maybe you are the expert and no one else is.

I could go on, but at this point I would just like to ask you to reconsider some of your claims. I do admire your desire and passion to reach people who are hurting,; the orphans, widows and aliens. No problem there at all. And I would argue that many of those things are being done in the Church of the Nazarene. So I can't believe you had the audacity to suggest those things are not present.

So maybe you can go back over this and straighten some of it out. Because I don't see where it adds up my friend.

Bob

Manny Silva
August 20th, 2010, 10:42 PM
Jonathan,
Welcome to Naznet. I appreciate your boldness in posting such a letter for the first time, and applaud your effort here, even if I might not agree with all that you are saying or proposing. I have already read it once, and will look it over again. In the meantime, just be prepared for a few personal attacks that will come your way for stating your positions in such black and white statements.

Mike Schutz
August 20th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Jonathan,
Welcome to Naznet.

Hans Deventer
August 21st, 2010, 01:32 AM
I wrote letters to the editor raising my concerns and rebutting all sorts of questionable teachings from chapel, newspaper editorials, stories, teachings and letters from professors, etc. using scriptures and facts with documented resources. I received much hate mail for this and became quite a hated person on campus.

[....]

We can try and fight a church full of "comfortable" people and lose. Or, we can reach out to the lowest of the low and start a revival. Eventually the revival will show the "comfortable" people what they are missing. That's how to change a church. The emergent movement will become irrelevant when believers are seeking God as fervently as possible because they love Him so much and can never get enough! It's only when we become comfortable that we start trying to split hairs theologically to try and come up with the least we can do and still get into heaven.
So reach out to the most uncomfortable in society! Everything else will fix itself.


Jonathan, welcome to NazNet.

I agree with the last paragraph. A church that is focussed on its main goal, has no time nor need to focus on one of the endless number of issues that divide the church.

However, considering the first quote above and the rest of your post, you may have to work on your delivery style. Chances are, you're not the first one to read the Scriptures and think about them. :)

Billie Goodson
August 21st, 2010, 06:37 AM
I actually find many similarities in style between the letter and McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian". Or maybe I should say the first 3/4 of both, I never was able to finish McLaren.

Houston Thomas
August 21st, 2010, 09:40 AM
Who is Orville Jenkins and where can I read his letter?

His letter must have been pretty good because I've never had a kajillion word response to one of my letters. :)

Mark Metcalfe
August 21st, 2010, 11:32 AM
Here is the Jenkins letter. I am sure it has become ubiquitous enough to post in its entirety (except for the email recipients).

From: Orville Jenkins, Jr. <dsnfd@bellsouth.net <mailto:dsnfd@bellsouth.net> >
Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM
To:

Dear Pastors and Friends:



I am sharing with you personal thoughts and concerns that I've shared with about 30 district superintendent colleagues. I am not an alarmist nor a pessimist, but a realist, and see us as a church facing some challenges that, if continue to be ignored, spell trouble for us ahead. Several of you have already shared with me your own thinking, three or four of which are cited in my letter. But I would welcome additional input and feedback.



My purpose has been to spur some dialogue and even an awareness that some may not have. I would rather see us put our creative energies together rather than just sitting around wringing our hands at what we see taking place. All of us in a sense are gatekeepers of the faith.



Orville





----- Original Message -----

From: Orville Jenkins, Jr. <mailto:dsnfd@bellsouth.net>

To: {deleted}

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:00 PM

Subject: RE: What Say You?



Dear Colleagues:



Am writing a few of you as trusted friends (and not that I don't trust all the rest of our fellow district superintendents) to share some growing concerns, and hopefully, receive some feedback. I am writing in three parts.



Part One.

Below is a letter from one of my pastors regarding what is required reading for his associate who is enrolled through the Bible College and our District Board of Ministry for the ordination track. The book, Humble Leadership, was assigned by his professor at NBC, but as best understood, was given to the professor from those above him in a list of required readings for students in the ordination track.



As you read the letter from the pastor, Barry Dunlap, and then the book review by the associate, Jerry Gilmore, they take issue with the book's heavy content on the concepts and beliefs of the Emergent Church movement.



Interestingly, this is the fifth or sixth letter I've received from pastors on our district since the first of this calendar year expressing similar concerns with where we are going as a denomination, especially when an editorial in Holiness Today on the subject of the Emergent Church sends either mixed or conflicting signals, and when our institutions of higher learning appear to be continual breeding grounds for Emergent Church thought that is in direct conflict with who we are theologically and doctrinally.



For the purposes of this e-mail, I am not going to delve into the Emergent (or Emerging) Church issue except to say that from my understanding it is a movement which believes there is value, even virtue, in the uncertainty of Scripture. It would appear there is a denial of the clarity of Scripture, and that some believe we aren't even supposed to understand precisely what the Bible means. They have embraced this mystery as if it's true spirituality, with the end result that it becomes almost a celebration of mystery, a celebration of ignorance, a celebration of what we cannot really know, and a celebration of relativsm. Yet the doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) and certainty of Scripture has long been a cornerstone of Christianity ever since the Reformation.



Brian McLaren, one of the chief architects of the movement, underscores this challenge of truth and Scripture in the title of one of his books as well as a conference he conducted on one of our Nazarene campuses, Everything Must Change. Consider the book title and the name of the conference: Everything means nothing can remain as it is; Must means choice is not involved; and Change means to radically alter or make different. This would seem to confront all of us who love and serve the Lord, as well as the greater work of Christ's Church around the world. Evidently we have to throw out everything we're doing, for apparently we've been doing it all wrong.



This is not to categorically dismiss all changes and evolutions as unnecessary or unbiblical, or that there are not ways of doing church that no one has even thought of yet. But it points back to the need and importance to doctrine, for which the Church of the Nazarene makes no apology. No ministry activity is more important than rightly understanding and clearly proclaiming sound doctrine. And the scriptural concept of this includes the entire message of the gospel...its teaching about God, sin, salvation, righteousness, and eternity.



It is also my observation this movement is accompanied by a degree of arrogance, with a sometimes condescending attitude toward those not in agreement with them. While appearing to be open and responsive to dialogue and discussion, there is a very deliberate theology being promoted, though somewhat esoterically. And it has overtones of spiritual pride or superiority couched in a false sense of humility when they say, "We're too humble to say that we know what the Bible means."



McLaren even makes it a point to champion ambiguity. In A Generous Orthodoxy, he writes, "A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mishchievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity (pp. 22-23).



To me it's just another form of liberalism, another way of denying the truth and the clarity of Scripture. For those who don't know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. And those who don't know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Yet McLaren has been an honored guest and lecturer on some of our college campuses, with some faculty seemingly enamored with him.



And pastors and others, in a chorus that is becoming louder, are asking, "Where is the leadership of the church in all of this?" "Who is 'steering the ship'?" "Who is 'minding the store'?" As someone said,

"Unless addressed forthrightly, this issue (the Emergent Church) has the potential of creating a great fission in our church. No, I take that back. The fission has already been created."



Part Two.

Some, or all of you, may be aware that a branch of the Nazarene Publishing House has begun, rather quietly, known as The House Studio. You can Google their website under the same name. The purpose of this new publishing arm of NPH appears to be able to publish items out of the mainstream of evangelical Christianity, and certainly not the accepted norm for the presses of a conservative, holiness denomination.

In other words, an attempt to reach people way beyond NPH's normal sphere of readers. But in so doing have we gone too far in trying to target and accommodate a new audience? Have we forgotten who we are?



One of The House Studio's new books is entitled, 180...Stories of People Who Changed Their Lives by Changing Their Minds. Some have received the first chapter as a promotional excerpt from the book, or you could read the excerpt on their website, although no longer as it has now been removed. The Studio touts it as a collection from popular voices such as Leonard Sweet and Frederica Matthews-Green to many new and compelling writers, and challenges the reader to discover the difference an open mind makes in the lives of those courageous enough to confront their own deeply held beliefs.



When Drew Jolly, pastor of the Lapeer, MI, Church of the Nazarene, read 180, he wrote NPH to say he was offended that our denomination would promote such heresy, and that the book was neither true to our spiritual heritage or to Scripture. And then two of my pastors called me on it, expressing their concerns. One was Peter Migner who had also expressed his personal objections to NPH on the book's content and how it was being marketed. The Studio, in turn, asked Peter to read the entire book and write a review for them. The review he submitted to them is attached.



After reading the review, perhaps you, too, will be dismayed. And just so you'll know, like Barry Dunlap, Peter Migner is not an extremist. He is as sound and solid as they come doctrinally, theologically, and practically. I am honored to serve alongside both of these pastors on our district.



In talking with Peter about the book, some familiar themes kept running throughout the pages and being promoted...an emphasis on tolerance, an absence of spiritual conviction, a life change brought about by a mindset rather than the transforming power of God, a questioning or denial of Scripture, certainty as being overrated...making one less tolerant, the dismantling of truths once held, and the vagueness of moral law. Sound familiar? It's the liberal, cultural thinking of our day...some of which is very prominent in the Emergent Church.



So why is The House Studio a rather hush-hush project? Who's making these decisions? Who are these new and compelling writers? And when did the values and beliefs and doctrines and convictions of the Church of the Nazarene so change that I can casually be labeled a "fundamentalist" because I choose to be intolerant of a church that is beginning to quickly lose its moorings?



Part Three.

And finally, three of my pastors have recently shared with me their difficulties in sending their children to Nazarene colleges where they have been subjected to certain professors who had liberal or secular world views. As one pastor said, "Why spend all that money to send my child to one of our church schools and have them taught things they didn't expect...like homosexuality is simply a life choice, not a sin God opposes, or that certain portions of Scripture are not to be taken literally or truthfully? And when she objected, she was berated. Not only is the state university much cheaper, but there are no surprises. Our daughter knows from the beginning what to expect from a professor in a state classroom."



I was also recently made aware of a conference at Pt. Loma Nazarene University, called "Nurturing the Prophetic Imagination," whatever that means. I am not singling out Pt. Loma, but merely mention them as the host site for this conference. In reading through the brochure announcing the event and then looking at the schedule (both attached), I noticed that among the featured guest speakers was an environmental activist, a monk, a priest, a black activist, and among the workshop leaders was a Muslim iman, a Catholic priest, as well as professors from ENC, NNU, TNU, and PLNU. And emceeing this gathering was the president of Nazarene Theological Seminary.



Some of the topics sounded...uhm...let's just say intriguing, such as "Sophia and Phronesis: A 'What If' Question About Theology," and "Feminist Pedagody as Acts of Prophetic Imagination."



This prompted me to do a little further background check and learn the following on five of the featured speakers:

1. Bill McKibben -- environmental activist; supporter of Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth"; known for this quote: "America...hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a

program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq."

2. Kathleen Norris -- poet from Bennington College in VT; lives a monastic life in a Benedictine monastery and is into spiritual formation; but embraces universalism, Buddhism, as well as Christianity.

3. Michael Eric Dyson -- Professor of Sociology, Georgetown Univ.; hip-hop intellectual; strong Obama supporter; writings reveal his admiration for black revolutionaries.

4. Emmanuel Katongole -- Center for Reconciliation, Duke Divinity School; Catholic priest from Uganda.

5. William T. Cavanaugh -- Professor of Theology, Center for Catholic Studies, Univ. of St. Thomas; wrote "The Unfreedom of the Free Markets"; is anti-capitalistism, anti-consumerism.



After reading through the brochure and then the schedule of sessions and topics, and then learning more about the speakers, I said to myself, "This is one big mish mash of holy hog wash all in the name of pseudo-intellectualism and higher education...and on a Nazarene college campus." (Where our daughter attends, I might add). I then shared about the conference and my reaction with a very close friend who is an intellectual giant as well as an articulate conservative Christian leader. His response was, "Wow, you are right. What on earth are they saying? It appears to be totally liberal, globalistic, anti-capitalism. The overtones are strong."



Is this the new mantra for our schools to engage in today, including our seminary, to display their openness to embrace liberal ideology that has a far left social and political agenda?



In closing, all of us marvel at what God is doing in our midst and beyond. The phenomenal growth of our church in Bangladesh, Africa, Cuba, South America, and elsewhere. The resiliency of our Haitian brothers and sisters. We're getting ready for an assembly, and even in spite of the economy and lost jobs quite a few of our churches have had a really good year. Just three months ago we experienced a district-wide revival with Dan Bohi that most people had never witnessed, or had not seen in a long, long time. The overflow of that anointed time continues. And this coming Sunday we will begin a new church with possibly 80 people...all for which I rejoice!



But there are some cracks in the foundation of the old Zion of which I cannot ignore or pretend do not exist. Neither can I turn a deaf ear to another question and comment recently made, "Does anyone in our leadership know how to spot and identify false teachers and prophets today? We're being infiltrated and influenced by them all over the place." It was not stated flippantly, but in a spirit of love, referenced by 2 Peter 2:1.



Interestingly, once an organization or institution begins to drift, its veer is always to the left, never to the right...unless a deliberate and overt effort is made to correct the direction. And the descent toward the left can be rapid. We are dealing with things today we never thought were possible just ten years ago. Where once our campuses of higher learning were bastions for conservative thinking and theology, Open Theology and tenets of the Emergent Church are now celebrated, and it is fashionable and acceptable to be "liberal." One campus hosted a regional youth conference for high school students called into ministry in which R-rated movies were shown containing vulgar language and provocative scenes so the participants "would better understand the world into which they were being called." Our denomination's Compassionate Ministry periodical devotes an entire page as a tribute to Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu of Africa, whom many consider to be an avowed Marxist. And now we are publishing works considered at best, extremely questionable, and at worst, pure heresy.



Again, it begs to be asked, "Who's in charge?" "Where's leadership?" "Who's permitting us to go in this direction?" "Where is the accountability?"



As district superintendents, you and I are also part of the leadership of the church, and thus, also partly responsible. I believe our influence could somehow make a difference. But our collective voice and thinking would be much stronger than just one voice or a few voices. In writing you, I would welcome your feedback. Any of you share similar concerns? Is it possible to "right the ship" at this juncture? And if given such a task, what would you do? Where would you start and what would your priorities be?



I'm now in the "4th quarter" of my calling and ministry. Practically all I've known, all my life, is the church. But before bowing out, I want to do all I can to help preserve and protect the church I love, and to which I have given my life.



Orville Jenkins, Jr.

Jon Bemis
August 21st, 2010, 11:44 AM
Jonathan,

Welcome to Naznet! You probably have already figured out that folks here don't have any hesitation letting you know what they think. Enjoy the discussion!

Rich Schmidt
August 21st, 2010, 01:10 PM
Who is Orville Jenkins and where can I read his letter?

His letter must have been pretty good because I've never had a kajillion word response to one of my letters. :)

There's a big long thread on it here at NazNet that started back in July: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?1276-Letter-from-Orville-Jenkins-Jr.

He's the DS of one of the Florida districts.

Jim Franklin
August 21st, 2010, 01:55 PM
I adhere to what my parents preached and feel fully satisfied of their correctness and righteous preaching and living and have wondered of late when some young person will come to me in a Nazarene foyer push me off of my walking aid into a wheel chair and wheel me off to the nearest retirement home to save the Church of the Nazarene from those who respect the heritage of our holiness denomination. In another forum I have even identified myself as one of those "shouters" that must frighten so many.

I had one of Orville Jenkins,Jr's sisters Jeanne in one of my college classes.

Dr. Chapman wept when he was asked about the future of the Church of the Nazarene in fear that it would become just another liberal Methodist type organization.

Todd Erickson
August 21st, 2010, 04:21 PM
I'm always fascinated when people identify McLaren as the cornerstone of the Emerging Church. I suppose he makes for a convenient target.

When all that matters is which ideology rises to the top, I suppose that this sort of thing is relevant. Otherwise...*shrug*

Paul DeBaufer
August 21st, 2010, 06:45 PM
have wondered of late when some young person will come to me in a Nazarene foyer push me off of my walking aid into a wheel chair and wheel me off to the nearest retirement home to save the Church of the Nazarene from those who respect the heritage of our holiness denomination.

Jim,

I have seen older couples thrown away because they wouldn't get on board with the new direction of the church that was their home longer than the new pastor has been alive. At one time I was right there with these pastors-"change is here, get with it or get out of the way." However, I have been convicted. Nothing is so sad (and I believe unChristian) as throwing people away in the name of progress (which ends up not being progress but trendiness in the adoption of a consumerist mentality and method).

While I may believe that the structures and definitions of the church of the Modern Age are crumbling for many, especially many younger people, I do fully believe that those structures and definitions have served and continue to serve many very well. How dare us tell people they are no longer needed or wanted just because they don't want to adopt our consumerist trends. Would Jesus really have done that?

Billy Cox
August 21st, 2010, 07:43 PM
Dr. Chapman wept when he was asked about the future of the Church of the Nazarene in fear that it would become just another liberal Methodist type organization.

Perhaps the holiness movement has run its course and even J.B. Chapman wouldn't insist on keeping something on life support that is so hopelessly disconnected from its original calling.

Sadly, those who defend the so-called legacy are the first to demonize whatever is new and different...kind of like the reception that the early Nazarenes got from the 'liberal' Methodists of the 19th century...liberals who would seem quite old-fashioned compared to even the most conservative Nazarenes of 2010.

Greg Farra
August 21st, 2010, 08:49 PM
I left a mainline denomination that has been bleeding to death since its inception in 1989. You don't want to go that way. You don't want to go too conservative either, they tend to circle the wagons. How about the via media?

Jim Chabot
August 21st, 2010, 10:28 PM
I'm always fascinated when people identify McLaren as the cornerstone of the Emerging Church. I suppose he makes for a convenient target.

When all that matters is which ideology rises to the top, I suppose that this sort of thing is relevant. Otherwise...*shrug*

It seems that the only thing definite about the emergent movement is it's insistence that it has no leaders and cannot be defined. Lately I have heard that it has died.

I can't quite grasp the concept of how a faceless group that defies definition can die. Nor can I grasp how it could exist in the first place.

I'm getting a picture of one who is looking into a very dark room, searching for a black cat, that isn't there.

Dennis Bratcher
August 22nd, 2010, 12:15 AM
I appreciate your willingness to state a viewpoint. I agree with you about some of the failures of the CofN to deal with such problems (although I have seen no evidence that the problem is as large as you are suggesting; from first-hand knowledge I know that neither TV nor newspapers are reliable sources of detailed information, especially if it involves some scandal or sensational story). The "good ole' boy" system has governed for way too long (a Gallup Poll a few years ago showed that "networking" was at the same time one of the greatest strengths as well as the greatest weakness of the CofN).

Beyond that, a couple of points. I have found after a long time in the C of N and in most venues of it, as well as working with several other denominations, that among evangelicals the label "liberal" applied to other Christians is nothing more than a sanctified profanity that we call other people who do not agree with us. It serves only to demonize and marginalize other people in the name of advocating one's own opinion as the only truth. It has very little content beyond personal baggage (people who use the term rarely bother to define it, thinking that it is self-explanatory).

Since you are a "somewhat recent" graduate of college, I would humbly suggest that you acquire a little more experience before you decide to see the world and other people in such negatively and aggressively black and white terms ("I'm right and the church is wrong"). That experience will teach you that you may not have it all as figured out as it appears right now. The professor that you called down (an action which borders on being unChristian, since it violates some basic biblical principles about how to deal with such issues) may just know more and understand more than you do. She may have a broader perspective on God and the Church precisely because of that wider experience and education. And that professor that you deride for not knowing the Bible? Such an assertion surrenders any credibility you might have had.

If you are the only one "taking issue" or "taking a stand" it may well be that you are the only one who sees the truth. We certainly need such prophets. But then again, it may be that you are allowing personal agendas, personal issues, and lack of understanding to interfere with truly comprehending the larger issues and exercising wisdom in dealing with other people who may well be just as committed to God as you are.

Learning is not about knowing everything and telling others what you think. Genuine education is the process of finding out what you do not know and learning what the proper questions are to continue the journey of discovery and growth, with God and in company of God's people. It is the humility to allow God to use others in that process. It is about acquiring some information to use in that ongoing journey, as well as the basis to develop the wisdom to know what to do with new information and new life experiences in ways that serve both God and others. I don't think your perspective does either very well.

Those who have a teachable spirit grow and learn, because they admit that they still need to learn. Those who think they already have all of truth don't grow. And that becomes destructive to everyone. What is not growing and changing is dying.

Of course, as always, this is all FWIW. Do with it as you will.

With prayers for your journey,

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Hans Deventer
August 22nd, 2010, 07:28 AM
It seems that the only thing definite about the emergent movement is it's insistence that it has no leaders and cannot be defined.

It's not so hard. Ask the question, who can speak on behalf of the emergent movement? Or pretends to do so? Answer: nobody. There are people that would consider themselves part of the conversation (and there are those who are definitely not part of that conversation). But that is something else as being a leader in any official capacity.


I can't quite grasp the concept of how a faceless group that defies definition can die. Nor can I grasp how it could exist in the first place.

Ever seen a conversation die?

Ryan Plott
August 22nd, 2010, 09:35 AM
Ever seen a conversation die?

If my dating experiences are anything to judge by, I have seen this happen many times over. :)

Todd Erickson
August 22nd, 2010, 02:12 PM
It seems that the only thing definite about the emergent movement is it's insistence that it has no leaders and cannot be defined. Lately I have heard that it has died.

I can't quite grasp the concept of how a faceless group that defies definition can die. Nor can I grasp how it could exist in the first place.

I'm getting a picture of one who is looking into a very dark room, searching for a black cat, that isn't there.

Where you see people willing to listen where others have declared the conversation/debate over

Where you see people willing to try new things in the name of God

Where you see people not rejecting other denominations as evil

you will see the Emerging church.

Strangely, the Emerging church looks precisely like the church in Paul's day did.

Jim Chabot
August 22nd, 2010, 03:41 PM
Where you see people willing to listen where others have declared the conversation/debate over

Where you see people willing to try new things in the name of God

Where you see people not rejecting other denominations as evil

you will see the Emerging church.

Strangely, the Emerging church looks precisely like the church in Paul's day did.

Now that is funny. Your description fits our church well, actually it fits well with most of the conservative Nazarene churches that I know of.

So now I'm confused, and if I could be candid without getting beat up over my lack of understanding. My experience in my area is that emergent churches here seem to big into missions trips and food kitchens etc. Which I think is good. They seem to function with a liberal theology, coupled with intolerance for those whom they fear may be conservative. And the deal breaker for me is the contmplative liturgical and dead slow music styles they seem to enjoy. I'm not attempting to be critical, just my observations after a two year 75 church search, we did a few years back.

Shea Zellweger
August 22nd, 2010, 04:04 PM
It seems that the only thing definite about the emergent movement is it's insistence that it has no leaders and cannot be defined. Lately I have heard that it has died.

I can't quite grasp the concept of how a faceless group that defies definition can die. Nor can I grasp how it could exist in the first place.

I'm getting a picture of one who is looking into a very dark room, searching for a black cat, that isn't there.


It's not so hard. Ask the question, who can speak on behalf of the emergent movement? Or pretends to do so? Answer: nobody. There are people that would consider themselves part of the conversation (and there are those who are definitely not part of that conversation). But that is something else as being a leader in any official capacity.



Ever seen a conversation die?

Has the conversation "died," or has the terminology (emergent, missional, emerging, etc.) simply lost meaning as it has become ubiquitous?

Jim- I think the same struggle "emergents" have with being defined can be found in the church at large. What is Christianity? We can say that it's following Christ, or being little christs, or what have you, but when it comes to specifics, what is Christianity? Is it the teachings of John Calvin? The teachings of the followers of John Calvin who quickly changed Calvinism? Those of Wesley? Arminius, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Jude, James...? Is there anyone alive and physically present on the Earth today to whom all Christians could point to and say that his or her teachings epitomize what it means to be Christian? The answer is a resounding "no." We could even allow such a spokesperson based on a simple majority, and still there would be none selected. We could seek a spokesperson for the Church of the Nazarene alone, and still our search would come up short (though we might see a 6-way tie :D ). So if Christians can't point to a "cornerstone" apart from Jesus, and if Nazarenes can't do so either, What would lead anyone to think that "the Emergent Church," with its "members" coming from so many traditions, would be somehow unique in that area?