Dr. Carlton Harvey weighs in...

[Dave McClung]

Here is a link to an excellent article by Dr. Carlton Harvey. I have his permission to post it here. It is recommended reading --

http://www.sciphre.org/papers/religion/REIFICATION_CULTURES.pdf

[Mike Norris]

......a very interesting article, indeed. I certainly hope that the recommendations he listed at the end of the paper get " traction " and see significant progress in further study and implimentation.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Carlton has identified a number of factors in the present development. Bresee's quotation may become more than just a reminder to be gracious. It will be interesting to see how central that principle continues to be.

Identifying "Nazarene" is still a lot like the five blind men describing an elephant. They're all kinda right.

[Hans Deventer]

Here is a link to an excellent article by Dr. Carlton Harvey. I have his permission to post it here. It is recommended reading

Yes indeed. Great article! I'll pass it on to our delegates.

[William Hunter]

Joe Nielson has been my pastor, then prof. and then mentor. I have used his model of the 3 ways to view God for some years now. I have a couple of other models of his I have used for some time because they are so very useful and practical in explaining the issues of salvation, sanctification, and holy living to those who need to understand these and how the human being looks and functions under sin, in salvation, and in possession of sanctification. I use his overheads and other material, giving him credit, and they have been well received by those I taught and so many say they finally understand these various issues.

Joe Neilson is a wonderful man of God. I owe him much for he has helped me in any success I have had in life and as a pastor.

[Wayne Murrow]

Thanks for posting this article. I found it most interesting.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Thanks, Dave for bringing to our attention.

One thing that is interesting to me is that I have yet to hear anyone express displeasure with the new mission statement - "To make Christlike disciples in the nations." With all of the diversity, this appears to be one new venture on which most agree.

(I happen to love it and appreciate it.)

Anyone wonder as to why? Is it so vague that there's no need for disagreement? I don't think so - I think it is pretty specific.

I have heard people talk about the potential for disapproval (based on a perceived lack of focus on holiness), but I've not actually heard it.

[Ryan Scott]

If I recall, there was someone on Naznet who offered criticism of the new Mission Statement, but perhaps it was more for having a new mission statement than for the statement itself?

[Dave McClung]

Thanks, Dave for bringing to our attention.

One thing that is interesting to me is that I have yet to hear anyone express displeasure with the new mission statement - "To make Christlike disciples in the nations." With all of the diversity, this appears to be one new venture on which most agree.

(I happen to love it and appreciate it.)

Anyone wonder as to why? Is it so vague that there's no need for disagreement? I don't think so - I think it is pretty specific.

I have heard people talk about the potential for disapproval (based on a perceived lack of focus on holiness), but I've not actually heard it.

I like it, but I question if "in the nations" adds anything to the meaning. Wouldn't "To make Christlike disciples." be even better.

[Charles W Christian]

I like it, but I question if "in the nations" adds anything to the meaning. Wouldn't "To make Christlike disciples." be even better.

Dave -
For what it's worth, I've heard two reasons for adding "in the nations."

One is (obviously) the Greek phrase from the Great Commission ("ho ten ethnes" - to all nations, or in the nations -- where the meaning specifically addresses those who are unlike the disciples (who are Jewish), so that would explicitly launch a Gentile Mission). The second is to highlight that we are not simply (at least we're not trying to be) an "American" or "Western" movement. It seems that there was a need to highlight this given the fact that we are an AMERICAN Holiness denomination, but we have a strong mission emphasis outside the U.S.

Soo.... in short -- emPHAsis....:-)

Blessings,
Charles

[Ryan Scott]

It also highlights that the specifics of what makes a good disciple in one culture may be quite different in another.

[Eric Vail]

Thanks, Dave for bringing to our attention.

One thing that is interesting to me is that I have yet to hear anyone express displeasure with the new mission statement - "To make Christlike disciples in the nations." With all of the diversity, this appears to be one new venture on which most agree.

(I happen to love it and appreciate it.)

Anyone wonder as to why? Is it so vague that there's no need for disagreement? I don't think so - I think it is pretty specific.

I have heard people talk about the potential for disapproval (based on a perceived lack of focus on holiness), but I've not actually heard it.

I think the only question I've heard was a sermon by Oliver Philips asking the question "which Christ" or "whose Christ"? It wasn't oposition to the statement. He was just blowing the doors off of any domesticated, homogenous understanding of what that statement might mean. It means different things to different people from different backgrounds.

[Ian Robertson]

Carlton,

You wrote, “This author… now throws full support behind the movement Dr. David McClung has launched.”

Theory and practice are both important. A plan means nothing without implementation. So, thanks for advancing the discussion with an academic approach. This is a welcome change from the typical response to a new idea -- tear it down and show why it won't work. You mentioned the challenge of diversity.

That's why I heartily support you and Dr. McClung. We all love the Church of the Nazarene and believe we can regroup in such a way to really impact North American communities for Christ and the Church.

You mentioned "core idealogy and envisioned future." Our core idealogy, "to make Christlike disciples in the nations," is in place. We need to work on the envisioned future.

Rick Warren suggests renewal is needed in five areas: (1) personal renewal, (2) relational renewal, (3) ministry renewal, (4) organizational renewal, and (5) community renewal. It all must start with our personal relationship with the risen Christ.

"Kansas City, we've had a problem here." Let's work together.

Let’s move from “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” to “If it ain’t perfect, let’s continue to improve it.”

[Billy Cox]

It also highlights that the specifics of what makes a good disciple in one culture may be quite different in another.

That is certainly an application, but I don't think it is abundantly obvious. The 'weaker brothers' among us may have difficulty understanding how a Christlike disciple in Germany or France could be allowed to drink a beer when Christlike disciples in the USA are supposed to have zero tolerance even for fake beer like O'Doul's. Can Christ really be divided on this *critically important* topic?? :rolleyes:

[Dennis M. Scott]

That is certainly an application, but I don't think it is abundantly obvious. The 'weaker brothers' among us may have difficulty understanding how a Christlike disciple in Germany or France could be allowed to drink a beer when Christlike disciples in the USA are supposed to have zero tolerance even for fake beer like O'Doul's. Can Christ really be divided on this *critically important* topic?? :rolleyes:

Maybe since judging each other is going to be so difficult cross-culturally, we might just forget the sacred privilege of judging one's brother altogether. I've noticed I have a pretty full agenda just keeping my own self straight, anyway. What with figuring out what is sin and what is only making mistakes, I'm about to just ask for grace on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be wonderful if grace were abundant and free? Maybe then He could empower me to just live to please the Lord fulltime and not waste a lot of time with this judging responsibility.

[Billy Cox]

Maybe since judging each other is going to be so difficult cross-culturally, we might just forget the sacred privilege of judging one's brother altogether. I've noticed I have a pretty full agenda just keeping my own self straight, anyway. What with figuring out what is sin and what is only making mistakes, I'm about to just ask for grace on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be wonderful if grace were abundant and free? Maybe then He could empower me to just live to please the Lord fulltime and not waste a lot of time with this judging responsibility.

You know of course that grace leads to obeying one's private convictions and that makes it really difficult to write a Manual that people will obey. :basic05

[Hans Deventer]

You know of course that grace leads to obeying one's private convictions and that makes it really difficult to write a Manual that people will obey. :basic05

I don't think that should be the case. The Holy Spirit, who will lead us into all truth, has not been given to individuals but to the Body of Christ. If I don't care for that Body, I don't care for Christ.

[Billy Cox]

I don't think that should be the case. The Holy Spirit, who will lead us into all truth, has not been given to individuals but to the Body of Christ. If I don't care for that Body, I don't care for Christ.

I respect the communal aspect of this, but what is the Body of Christ? The more broadly we define the Body, the more difficult it is to see how in the world it can hold contradictory positions even where cultural variables are the same.

If the Body is too narrowly defined as a local congregation and the congregation's collective interpretation of the Holy Spirit and Scripture is that pubescent girls are fair game for marriage, who am I to disagree?

It might be repulsive to me as an individual, but the group says otherwise and the Holy Spirit is not given to me after all, but to the group.

I can't think of any biblical evidence supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit speaks only to believers collectively, but I am willing to listen.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Interesting question. If something is repulsive to you and/or to "me", does that make it the leading of the Holy Spirit? Often we treat as such.

[Billy Cox]

Interesting question. If something is repulsive to you and/or to "me", does that make it the leading of the Holy Spirit? Often we treat as such.

Interpreting the Holy Spirit's direction and interpreting scripture are so subject to individual bias, organized religion has historically risen to interpret on behalf of the collective whole. While this makes sense, it puts rank and file people at least one step removed from the original sources of revelation.

I don't know that there is an alternative. The average Nazarene after all isn't quite as open-minded or intelligent as we are. :basic03

[Hans Deventer]

I respect the communal aspect of this, but what is the Body of Christ? The more broadly we define the Body, the more difficult it is to see how in the world it can hold contradictory positions even where cultural variables are the same.

Not really, as long as you define the essentials. Which is the very reason why I'm convinced we need clarity on those. As Wesley asked, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?"

I can't think of any biblical evidence supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit speaks only to believers collectively, but I am willing to listen.

Billy, of course the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals. But the idea is that everyone benefits. So if He speaks to me, it is on order to speak to others as well. We are blessed in order to be a blessing. God always has the community in view, and actually, even broader than that.
The idea that the Spirit has been given to me so I don't care on bit about the others is alien to the Scriptures.

[Crystal Lutton]

The Holy Spirit's leading is very important. I daresay he won't lead us against Scripture. One thing about the Manual that has always bothered me is the prooftexted support for each point of faith. For example, the abstinence clause. The verses quoted just don't support it.

Add in that the concept of the "weaker brother" is not supposed to mean immature believer but refers to what makes someone spiritually sick (whether based on personal conviction or background) and Paul doesn't teach that we are to "accomodate" or "placate" but sacrifice our comfort out of love and I'm not sure where this leads to a confusion in what the HS is saying. Are we to apply what takes place at a dinner where meat is sacrificed to idols to asking an entire country to abstain from alcohol because America can't find balance without going to one extreme or the other?

I won't feel guilty at all when I drink wine Saturday night at Passover.

[Hans Deventer]

The Holy Spirit's leading is very important. I daresay he won't lead us against Scripture.

I'm not sure Peter would have agreed with you (Acts 10). But even if not, the Spirit's leading can apparently clearly go against cherished interpretations of the Scriptures.

So we should be careful with this.

[Crystal Lutton]

I'm not sure Peter would have agreed with you (Acts 10). But even if not, the Spirit's leading can apparently clearly go against cherished interpretations of the Scriptures.

So we should be careful with this.

Peter interpreted that dream for us so anything we impose on it will not be sound interpretation. Peter knew immediately that the dream was informing him the Gospel was for the Gentiles. He went on to continue in keeping kosher--in fact, when Peter and Paul were at odds about anything, it was Peter who held to the more stringent interpretation.

And your argument falls flat to a Biblically kosher cooking mama :)

[Hans Deventer]

Peter interpreted that dream for us so anything we impose on it will not be sound interpretation. Peter knew immediately that the dream was informing him the Gospel was for the Gentiles.

Sure. That is why he refused to eat and it had to be repeated 3 times.

He went on to continue in keeping kosher--in fact, when Peter and Paul were at odds about anything, it was Peter who held to the more stringent interpretation.

I'm not so sure about that (Gal 2:11-14). Anyway, it seems he was rather hypocritical. But of course is not about kosher. Whoever feels like eating kosher should do so.

And your argument falls flat to a Biblically kosher cooking mama :)

Well thank you, what a nice remark.

I disagree, btw. The issue was entering a house of gentiles. The disciples had been taught that this was forbidden by their religion. So it took teh Holy Spirit quite some persuasion to get Peter to do so all the same, using an image that was clearly contrary to the Torah.

So it is at least interesting that God would be willing to go against the Torah in order to make a point, and it should most certainly warn us that cherished interpretations of Scripture can be very wrong all the same.

[Crystal Lutton]

I think you're still missing something vital, though--you're confusing Torah with the Hedge created by the Pharisees. In a sense, that is exactly what we have here. Much of the manual, via prooftexting, is a hedge--a hedge that if we don't violate the manual we won't violate Scripture. BUT the hedge is what Jesus did away with. Not the Torah--he says plainly he didn't come to abolish it. It's the hedge that always upset him--the hedge that was a burden to his children--the hedge that was creating whited sepulchres. If we have created a hedge then THAT needs smashing. If we have a hedge that led to a period of legalism in our denomination, THAT needs overhauling. I would hate to see us deal with organizational structure overhaul and vision development without addressing prooftexted positions in the manual. :o

As for the Galatians passage, this strain of conversation may be best in another forum, but eating *with* Gentiles doesn't violate anything in Torah ;)

[Billy Cox]

The Holy Spirit's leading is very important. I daresay he won't lead us against Scripture. One thing about the Manual that has always bothered me is the prooftexted support for each point of faith. For example, the abstinence clause. The verses quoted just don't support it.

Add in that the concept of the "weaker brother" is not supposed to mean immature believer but refers to what makes someone spiritually sick (whether based on personal conviction or background) and Paul doesn't teach that we are to "accomodate" or "placate" but sacrifice our comfort out of love and I'm not sure where this leads to a confusion in what the HS is saying. Are we to apply what takes place at a dinner where meat is sacrificed to idols to asking an entire country to abstain from alcohol because America can't find balance without going to one extreme or the other?

I won't feel guilty at all when I drink wine Saturday night at Passover.

Wow. Thanks for saying that. The 'weaker brother' mythology has annoyed me for years. In the case of alcohol, the weaker brother is not the alcoholic in our midst but is the person who gets their panties in a bunch when someone else lives by a more permissive ethic.

[Hans Deventer]

I think you're still missing something vital, though--you're confusing Torah with the Hedge created by the Pharisees.

No, I am not. Not at all. I am saying the disciples apparently made no distinction and hence the Holy Spirit had to teach them a new interpretation of the Torah.

As for the Galatians passage, this strain of conversation may be best in another forum, but eating *with* Gentiles doesn't violate anything in Torah ;)

Of course not.

Crystal, you're doing the very same thing you resent Dennis doing towards you: making me look stupid. I may not be the brightest theologian around, in fact, I am certainly not, but I am not a total fool either.

[Crystal Lutton]

Hans, I'm not trying to make you look stupid at all. I'm sorry if that is how you are feeling. I really do not for one second believe that the Scriptures teach anything against Torah. I know that's a common belief in the church and I think it's very wrong. I'm trying to say that in a lighthearted way rather than a confrontational way. I don't mean for that to come off as mocking. Please forgive me if that has been the case.

I fully believe Scripture teaches against the hedge that the Pharisees created; I fully believe Scripture teaches Biblical Torah living.

[Ryan Scott]

I really do not for one second believe that the Scriptures teach anything against Torah.


That's not really what anyone is saying. However, they are insinuating that perhaps a particular interpretation or tradition developed from Torah might not be absolutely congruent with other scripture (even if the interpretation or tradition is not, on its own, wrong).

[Crystal Lutton]

That's not really what anyone is saying. However, they are insinuating that perhaps a particular interpretation or tradition developed from Torah might not be absolutely congruent with other scripture (even if the interpretation or tradition is not, on its own, wrong).
And I would agree with that. *nods yes* I'm not defending the traditional Jewish interpretations of things--like I keep saying, the hedge is what Jesus railed against *nods* I just believe also that the Church's traditions are among these. The church has its own hedge and so much of what is traditionally taught is more Plato than Paul.

What is actually in the Bible has never been changed from one testament to the next. It was properly interpreted; expanded upon; taken back to character and not just behavior, but never abolished or changed.

[Hans Deventer]

The church has its own hedge and so much of what is traditionally taught is more Plato than Paul.

Exactly. And to tear that down, we may very well need visions like Peter had, where the Holy Spirit invited him to do what he thought he was never allowed to do. That was my point.

[Crystal Lutton]

Exactly. And to tear that down, we may very well need visions like Peter had, where the Holy Spirit invited him to do what he thought he was never allowed to do. That was my point.GOTCHA--and I"m glad we dialogued that out. Thank you for your patience with me in the process. I most often hear that dream pulled out to say that God told Peter that all unclean foods were now clean. This is then the foundational argument for yet another area of Torah not being relevant today. When you pulled out that dream in this context, discussing how the "interpretation" provided by the Holy Spirit changes, I went there when I see now you were going to a place I completely agree with :basic07

So it turns out we are saying exactly the same thing. God's Word is unchanging. Our interpretation is fallible. Yes, the Holy Spirit interprets for us, but we must not assume that every interpretation we've ever had was inspired by Him. When we find He is saying something about the text we didn't get before, we need to have the humility to embrace His vision and not stubbornly hold to ours.

[Hans Deventer]

GOTCHA--and I"m glad we dialogued that out. Thank you for your patience with me in the process. I most often hear that dream pulled out to say that God told Peter that all unclean foods were now clean. This is then the foundational argument for yet another area of Torah not being relevant today.

Yes, I've heard that one before. But the vision's point wasn't the spice laws, but to the way Peter used to deal with the goyim.

When you pulled out that dream in this context, discussing how the "interpretation" provided by the Holy Spirit changes, I went there when I see now you were going to a place I completely agree with :basic07

:basic05

So it turns out we are saying exactly the same thing. God's Word is unchanging. Our interpretation is fallible.

Exactly. The problem is, we often have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Not a new problem though.

[Billy Cox]

God's Word is unchanging. Our interpretation is fallible. Yes, the Holy Spirit interprets for us, but we must not assume that every interpretation we've ever had was inspired by Him.

Isn't this characteristic of Christianity though? Many of our errors begin with failure to distinguish between two realities. We fail to distinguish between Scripture and our interpretation thereof. We thus unduly elevate our interpretation and succeed only in dragging down the authority of the Scripture by means of our philosophical categories and cultural presuppositions.

[Crystal Lutton]

Isn't this characteristic of Christianity though? Many of our errors begin with failure to distinguish between two realities. We fail to distinguish between Scripture and our interpretation thereof. We thus unduly elevate our interpretation and succeed only in dragging down the authority of the Scripture by means of our philosophical categories and cultural presuppositions.

Yes, sadly it is. I took an amazing class at Seminary called "From Plato to Nietzche" and it was fascinating to see how philosophy and theology were so interwoven in each day and age. Thankfully, when you can see where an idea comes from it's much easier to evaluate it and try to get back to what the Scriptures say *to* us.

I am always one for questioning and requestioning doctrine and striving to make sure I'm not getting in it's way. I know we all do it--it's part of being human and our limited understanding. Let's just keep striving for better!