Why I Am (Still) A Nazarene

[Ryan Scott]

I wrote the attached essay several weeks ago as I was reflecting on my most recent District License interview. These are not necessarily new thoughts, although I had never put them down on paper before. They spring from my need to be as authentically myself as possible. As I pursue this ministerial vocation, I am constantly confronted with questions and issues by which I must analyze and understand myself.

I wrote this words strictly for me, but as I've shown them to a few people, they seem to resonate with others. I've decided to share them here; perhaps they will spur some strong discussion.

[Steven Martinez]

Ryan,
You are right in that your thoughts reflect those of others in our denomination. I especially like your last paragraph. There is a gap in our denomination and I have seen too many of my friends run from it. I am glad that there are people like you are willing to stand in it, especially because you have the heritage and history of the CoN in your background. At the same time it is refreshing that your experiences and mind are similar even though we are from different sides of the spectrum in that I am a first generation Nazarene from a family of devote pagans.
Thank you for sharing, you made a good day a great day for me.
Peace

[Eric Frey]

Hey, I'd love to read it but I can't. When I download it it comes out all garbled and in symbols. I don't know if its a mac thing or what. Any chance you could post it as a .doc?

[Christa Woodward]

Great essay Ryan! I so resonate with what you are saying...know that you are not alone "standing in the gap" - I know you probably realize that, but maybe its nice to hear sometimes. Keep it up, don't lose heart...Blessings, Christa

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Ryan - I think it is well written and speaks well of you. Thanks for sharing.

[Billy Cox]

I wrote the attached essay several weeks ago as I was reflecting on my most recent District License interview. These are not necessarily new thoughts, although I had never put them down on paper before. They spring from my need to be as authentically myself as possible. As I pursue this ministerial vocation, I am constantly confronted with questions and issues by which I must analyze and understand myself.

I wrote this words strictly for me, but as I've shown them to a few people, they seem to resonate with others. I've decided to share them here; perhaps they will spur some strong discussion.

I second what others have said... This is a well-written articulation.

Since you stated you wanted to spur discussion and not just a Ryan Scott pep rally :), two things leaped out at me.

1. This quote:

"...but as a denomination, if we lack a unique contribution, we lack a reason to exist."

How about this reason? "Our Mission: To make Christlike disciples in the nations." There is nothing particularly distinctive about this, and yet our existence as a Christian Church does not hinge on saying something that nobody else is saying.

You asked why young people are leaving the denomination. I would suggest that Nazarene exceptionalism (delusion?) reflected in the quote above weighs heavily into that exodus. We beat the drum for distinctiveness while young people want authenticity.

2. This quote:

"We are in the midst of a postmodern culture begging to be
fed and we are, primarily, a modern people cowering in the corner."

I sincerely doubt that postmodern culture is interested in 'being fed'. For myself, I find that terminology paternalistic and mildly offensive. In fact, I like my church the most when it acts as though I can handle something that is not pre-packaged and pre-digested for people too busy to think without assistance.

Also (and it feels weird to say this), I think the characterization of the Nazarenes as 'a modern people cowering in the corner' is overly harsh and is quite insulting to those not in the habit of cowering - from rank and file Nazarenes to the Board of General Superintendents and many in between.

[Garth Lahana]

Hey, I'd love to read it but I can't. When I download it it comes out all garbled and in symbols. I don't know if its a mac thing or what. Any chance you could post it as a .doc?

Eric, and those who can read it, here it is in a TXT file.

[Hans Deventer]

Hey, I'd love to read it but I can't. When I download it it comes out all garbled and in symbols. I don't know if its a mac thing or what. Any chance you could post it as a .doc?

No, it's not a mac thing. The file is a PDF file that can be opened and read with Acrobat Reader, freeware, to be downloaded here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Which would be a good idea any because the internet is filled with pdf-files. This won't be the last time you see one. ;)

[Eric Frey]

Thanks Hans.. I have adobe & I am quite familiar with PDFs. Most PDF's open quite easily, but occasionaly one comes along that won't.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks Hans.. I have adobe & I am quite familiar with PDFs. Most PDF's open quite easily, but occasionally one comes along that won't.

OK! I'm sorry. But then I wonder what's going on. I have Windows XP and Acrobat Reader 8.1.2. What version are you using?

[Garth Lahana]

Hans I've experienced the same problem Eric mentioned. In my case an upgrade of Acrobat Reader was the solution. Earlier versions don't support the new PDF 1.5 format, and to my recollection that was the problem.

[Ryan Scott]

How about this reason? "Our Mission: To make Christlike disciples in the nations." There is nothing particularly distinctive about this, and yet our existence as a Christian Church does not hinge on saying something that nobody else is saying.

You asked why young people are leaving the denomination. I would suggest that Nazarene exceptionalism (delusion?) reflected in the quote above weighs heavily into that exodus. We beat the drum for distinctiveness while young people want authenticity.

I'm happy with the focus on engagement in the Mission Statement, but I truly believe that we're wasting a lot of money on administration if we're just going to be for the same thing as other denominations. I see most people who leave the denomination doing so without complaint, but simply because they like another local congregation better and they can't tell any difference.

I am asking for authenticity. I believe the holiness message is one few denominations embrace in a primary way. Our problem is that most of the people in the denomination know nothing of what makes the Church of the Nazarene unique. I think we'd be better off being more authentic. In a way exceptionalism is authenticity - saying "this is what I'm about and I'm not ashamed to say it." Exceptionalism has a bad connotation, but I think it also means defining one's self so as to distinguish the subject from other like things. That doesn't mean we can't work ecumenically, but if we don't have a unique contribution, we're just into self-propagation, which, I believe is a sin.

I sincerely doubt that postmodern culture is interested in 'being fed'. For myself, I find that terminology paternalistic and mildly offensive. In fact, I like my church the most when it acts as though I can handle something that is not pre-packaged and pre-digested for people too busy to think without assistance.

Also (and it feels weird to say this), I think the characterization of the Nazarenes as 'a modern people cowering in the corner' is overly harsh and is quite insulting to those not in the habit of cowering - from rank and file Nazarenes to the Board of General Superintendents and many in between.


I agree with what you said here, however I was writing in metaphor in that particular quote, which you've taken literally. You've taken "fed" to mean the "tell me what I need to know" style of "doing Church." I meant "fed" as engagement. I was visioning the metaphor of postmodern culture as a scary animal in the corner needing to be fed and us (me included) as the one who needs to do it, but we're too scared to finish the job. Ultimately the scary animal is going to survive and grow and we'd be better off engaging rather than running.

Your cautions are good ones, though. I would not have expected that interpretation. Thanks for the comments.

[Billy Cox]

I'm happy with the focus on engagement in the Mission Statement, but I truly believe that we're wasting a lot of money on administration if we're just going to be for the same thing as other denominations. I see most people who leave the denomination doing so without complaint, but simply because they like another local congregation better and they can't tell any difference.


I think that people can perceive a difference between the denomination and other groups, but they can't put their finger on what it is.

Has a denominational merger ever come about because two nearly identical groups realize they could save a bunch of money on administrative costs?



Our problem is that most of the people in the denomination know nothing of what makes the Church of the Nazarene unique.

Why do you think that people know little of nothing about the denomination's history and/or theology? I have a theory, but I am curious as to what youre response is.


I agree with what you said here, however I was writing in metaphor in that particular quote, which you've taken literally. You've taken "fed" to mean the "tell me what I need to know" style of "doing Church." I meant "fed" as engagement. I was visioning the metaphor of postmodern culture as a scary animal in the corner needing to be fed and us (me included) as the one who needs to do it, but we're too scared to finish the job. Ultimately the scary animal is going to survive and grow and we'd be better off engaging rather than running.

Okay...when I heard the 'fed' metaphor, I was thinking of people who switch churches because they 'just aren't being fed' by the ministry of the local church - usually shorthand for dull preaching.

Incidentally, I relate more to the scary animal in the corner. The more I say about my faith journey in my local church, the more fear I detect in those who learned everything they needed to know in their bible classes at MNU. I think I could be elected to the board if I would just keep my mouth shut and let people assume I am a fundamentalist. ;)

[Ryan Scott]

Why do you think that people know little of nothing about the denomination's history and/or theology? I have a theory, but I am curious as to what youre response is.


Short answer: because we have too many clergy who don't know the denomination's history and/or theology and cannot live in it and/or pass it on.

There is also the issue of unity. It seems like the denomination, as a whole, is more concerned about unity in non-essentials than clarity or primacy of our distinctives.

We understandably avoid the fights over the "hows" and sometimes "whats" of sanctification and forget to agree on the results of such.

In the essay, I define our distinctive message as

The idea that we do not have to wait for heaven to have the kind of relationship God wants to have with us. The belief that the Holy Spirit of God is at work as strongly here and now as the Spirit ever will be. The commitment to living out the biblical mandate to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. The Church of the Nazarene believes this is not some pipe dream for completion in glory, but a real and powerful charge for the Church on Earth and that, by the grace of God, we will do it.

I think there are few Nazarenes who couldn't get behind this, even if we can't always agree on the specifics behind it. But by focusing on those other things in very public ways, we've limited access to our core beliefs and thus produced a large percentage of members (and even a growing number of clergy) who can't identify that message.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

This is all so sad, the things that are being said about the COTN. How is it that one person can know what the majority of Nazarene churches (and the people in them) think and do?

I have been in the church MANY years, been in many Nazarene churches, and there is only one way, we can know how a church operates--being a member of the church, regularly attending
the services, and being part of the leadership of the church, etc. Anything else is only hear say.

It seems strange to me, that the majority of our minsters, it seems, graduated from a Nazarene school and don't know what what the manuel says, and the history of our denomination.

[Heidi Anderson]

I'm thankful my pastor (a proud graduate of SNU) knows what the BIBLE says and that we are seeking to return to our roots - as a social/missional agency to the broken and hurting. Although he knows the manual - it is secondary or thirdary...or fourthary.

[Ryan Scott]

How is it that one person can know what the majority of Nazarene churches (and the people in them) think and do?


I am not claiming to know what individual congregations say and do, but only what I see as the response and activity of the whole. It could very well be that the whole is not reflective of the individual parts, but if this is true, we need to work on the mechanisms that unite the parts into a whole. I believe that is the purpose of this new forum in which we are all participating.

[Ken Pell]

Short answer: because we have too many clergy who don't know the denomination's history and/or theology and cannot live in it and/or pass it on.

I *think* you're wrong on this. Completely wrong. I actually think its rather arrogant of you to even state that so many miss it and, by inference, you've got a grasp on it.



There is also the issue of unity. It seems like the denomination, as a whole, is more concerned about unity in non-essentials than clarity or primacy of our distinctives.

We understandably avoid the fights over the "hows" and sometimes "whats" of sanctification and forget to agree on the results of such. ... I think there are few Nazarenes who couldn't get behind this, even if we can't always agree on the specifics behind it. But by focusing on those other things in very public ways, we've limited access to our core beliefs and thus produced a large percentage of members (and even a growing number of clergy) who can't identify that message.
I think this is an over-simplification and over-generalized. Such thinking leads to over-reaction which I also think you are bordering.

[Ken Pell]

I am not claiming to know what individual congregations say and do, but only what I see as the response and activity of the whole. It could very well be that the whole is not reflective of the individual parts, but if this is true, we need to work on the mechanisms that unite the parts into a whole. I believe that is the purpose of this new forum in which we are all participating.

Are you suggesting this forum actually represents the faith and practice of our church? I doubt it does.

Are you suggesting that this forum consists of the movers and shakers that will actually "transform" our church into somehing meaningful? I doubt that too. I see more malcontents than I do visionaries here. I also think think there are a myriad of movers and shakers that are already doing something and don't dare spend their time with a site like this.

I know that this might offend some who think this site is significant for change ... I just don't think it is. I do think it can be significant for fellowship, idea sharing, etc. but as an actual agent of change I doubt it.

[Ryan Scott]

I *think* you're wrong on this. Completely wrong. I actually think its rather arrogant of you to even state that so many miss it and, by inference, you've got a grasp on it.


I said "we have too many clergy who don't know the denomination's history and/or theology." I also believe one is too many. I'm pretty sure that's an accurate statement; I've met more than one.

As for my knowledge of these things, I'll admit I don't know as much as I should. I've had a good amount of quality education along these lines, but I feel like I've only scratched the surface and am excited to continue to explore these things. I also am aware that we have a history of ordaining people with a very limited amount of education, cutting corners at times and recognizing ministers from other, occasionally very different traditions with little additional education, expecting them to learn on the job.

My second point was not that these were wrong choices, as practicality dictated many of them, but that people could learn better on the job is there was a clear unity at some basic level. I believe this is along the lines of Dave's original proposal, that we have one vision moving forward.


I think this is an over-simplification and over-generalized. Such thinking leads to over-reaction which I also think you are bordering.

Of course its over-generalized. It was a short explanation. I see this along the lines of Hans' proposal to define our essentials. It seems to me that there has been so much argument (and positive, necessary arguments; I'm not condemning the dialogue) that our central message has been lost in the noise.

I posted this essay here only because I think it resonates completely with the other proposals and statements made on this forum. I'm not trying to say anything new, just affirming my commitment to what's already been said.

[Ryan Scott]

Are you suggesting this forum actually represents the faith and practice of our church? I doubt it does.


I never said it did. I am committed to this denomination and put forth my best efforts to be involved where I can be involved. I am well aware that the Church of the Nazarene is far different outside of Kansas City than it is so close to "the center," but at the same time, much of the talk about renewal centers on general denominational practices. Just as our local congregations represent the larger denomination to our communities, the denomination represents the local congregations on an international level. My comments are only my opinion on how I see those relationships and representations evolving.

Are you suggesting that this forum consists of the movers and shakers that will actually "transform" our church into something meaningful? I doubt that too. I see more malcontents than I do visionaries here. I also think think there are a myriad of movers and shakers that are already doing something and don't dare spend their time with a site like this.

I agree, this site is not representative of the denomination at large, however, I know that people with the power to affect change do pay attention to the conversation here. I've spoken with some about it.

I hope I am not lumped into the category of "malcontent;" I love the Church of the Nazarene and I hope the essay conveyed my commitment to contribute my all to the valuable and necessary message of holiness it represents. Nothing I write here comes from animosity, but a desire to better what we do and who we are.

[David Pettigrew]

I *think* you're wrong on this. Completely wrong. I actually think its rather arrogant of you to even state that so many miss it and, by inference, you've got a grasp on it.

Nah, he's pretty much on the money.

[Ken Pell]

Nah, he's pretty much on the money.

That's two that are wrong. :basic03 :):laughing

[Scott Hilton]

I am not sure if this fits into this conversation or not. If it doesn't, I apologize greatly. I was just thinking about the different views of what some think the ministers know about the church history. What about the church board members? How many board members do you think know who Dr. Phineas F. Bresee is? Is the history even being led to the board members who help drive the local churches?

blessings

[David Pettigrew]

I'm happy with the focus on engagement in the Mission Statement, but I truly believe that we're wasting a lot of money on administration if we're just going to be for the same thing as other denominations. I see most people who leave the denomination doing so without complaint, but simply because they like another local congregation better and they can't tell any difference.

The mission statement was brought up in another thread, and I decided at the time to let it go, but since it has come up again...

It really grieved me when we took out the word "holiness". To me, the new mission statement was the equivalent of Red Lobster coming out with a mission statement that read something like "To Make Food in the Nations." Ok. Duh. But how does that distinguish you from other restaurants? I, too, felt our new statement was too generic.

So, I ranted and raved about it for a while, found out I was VERY much in the minority on this board, and forgot about it.

I kinda understand why we would not want our mission statement to be something like "We are a Holiness Church." The word has taken on a different meaning. To some it means legalism, to others an incomprehensible, unexplainable "us vs. them" doctrine, and to most in today's culture, it has no meaning at all.

However, most Nazarenes understand that "Christ like" equals "holiness", which is something we can explain to others.

If we decided that our church's new mission was to be really, really happy, we could put out a new statement that said "Church of the Nazarene - The Gayest Church in the World." But what we mean is not what they would hear.

I say all that to say I'm now ok with dropping the word "holiness" from our mission statement.

[Marsha Lynn]

How many board members do you think know who Dr. Phineas F. Bresee is?

All of them who participate in an adult Sunday School class/small group using the WordAction lessons will know who Bresee is after May 25. Next Sunday starts a 5-week series on leaders from church history: Macarius, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, Bresee.

:basic01

[Heidi Anderson]

Are you suggesting that this forum consists of the movers and shakers that will actually "transform" our church into somehing meaningful? I doubt that too. I see more malcontents than I do visionaries here. I also think think there are a myriad of movers and shakers that are already doing something and don't dare spend their time with a site like this.


I am not sure how you define "mover and shaker" but I am a board member, district advisory board member, delegate to GA in 2009 and a PhD student...and I understand that conversation leads to change. I plan on transforming myself first to do gospel work - only then can I think to influence others but I can guarantee you it is happening and will continue to happen - whether through this forum or otherwise. But...this conversation is relevent to me and other folks making decisions in districts all over the world.

P.S. I know who Dr. Bresee was and can only hope to follow his legacy of ministry to the broken and undignified!

[Scott Hilton]

P.S. I know who Dr. Bresee was and can only hope to follow his legacy of ministry to the broken and undignified!
Do you think this knowledge is shared by a majority on the board?

blessings

[Heidi Anderson]

Do you think this knowledge is shared by a majority on the board?

blessings

Good question. I think they know who he is - perhaps not his actions but certainly his name.

On another note, we have a community coffeehouse in our church basement - and I cut out a picture of P.F. Bresee and put it up so only us volunteers working (it's open 60+ hours week) can see it and be reminded of our great history!

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Do you think this knowledge is shared by a majority on the board?

blessings

Years ago (decades ago!) I decided the dorms on the West Texas Campground needed to be named. Instead of their being called names like, "The couple's dorm" I thought it would be helpful to actually name the dorms and put signs on them.

I got permission and then painted signs, naming the dorms after people with a historical connection to the Church of the Nazarene.

I named one of the dorms "Bresee." The second day of camp I heard two kids talking. One asked which dorm the other was staying in and the reply was, "I'm in breeze-ey" dorm. I had to laugh even though I was disappointed that Nazarene kids didn't know who dear old P.F. "Breeze-ey" was!

By the way, I think all of those dorms are gone except maybe "Hill" which I think actually named after A.M. Hills.

[Ryan Scott]

I say all that to say I'm now ok with dropping the word "holiness" from our mission statement.


I don't think we've ever had a mission statement. "Holiness Unto the Lord" was sort of an un-official slogan, but the whole concept of an official mission statement is relatively new. I believe this is the first one we've got.

[Hans Deventer]

That's two that are wrong. :basic03 :):laughing

How many more do you want? Till you're the last man standing? :rolleyes:

[Hans Deventer]

I am [...] delegate to GA in 2009

Hey, totally off topic, you're the first one besides David van Beveren and me that I know is a GA delegate from NazNet. Welcome! Hope to meet you there, not sure if your avatar will help me to find you though :basic05

[Christa Woodward]

How many no more do you want? Till you're the last man standing? :rolleyes:

I guess I'm wrong too...I'm no "Mover and Shaker" but I'm no "malcontent" either, I'm just a stay at home mom, pastor's wife (and 4th generation Nazarene) who is crazy enough to believe that I can maybe make a difference in my small little world...and whether this site can help do that, I don't know - but I agree that change begins, on some level with a conversation. A conversation sparks a vision, a vision an action...

[Christa Woodward]

Hey, totally off topic, you're the first one besides David van Beveren and me that I know is a GA delegate from NazNet. Welcome! Hope to meet you there, not sure if your avatar will help me to find you though :basic05

She doesn't look that green in real life, but the nose is right on...:)

[Crystal Lutton]

I can honestly say that our Board members don't know or honestly care that much about the history of the COTN (though I have taught a class and we aren't fostering ignorance of it). What our congregation cares about is the Holiness message--and what the COTN is/stands for/ and does today. We chose the COTN because of what we understood to be a similar theological position, and an emphasis for missions and holiness. So if you are looking for what is making people leave I can't help; if you want to know what made our entire congregation join, that I can share :)

Ryan, I appreciated your essay. I wasn't raised within the COTN but my grandmother was saved in a small COTN church in her hometown, I grew up going to COTN summer camps and activities, and now here I am a COTN pastor. I share a lot of your thoughts and felt you expressed them really well.

[Hans Deventer]

I *think* you're wrong on this. Completely wrong. I actually think its rather arrogant of you to even state that so many miss it and, by inference, you've got a grasp on it.

I think this is an over-simplification and over-generalized. Such thinking leads to over-reaction which I also think you are bordering.

I'd love to hear your comment on Chuck's post http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=188265#post188265

[Ken Pell]

I'd love to hear your comment on Chuck's post http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=188265#post188265

If I felt that way I'd have to move on.

[Hans Deventer]

If I felt that way I'd have to move on.

Yes, but I don't think Chuck feels very different about any other denomination.

[Scott Hilton]

I can honestly say that our Board members don't know or honestly care that much about the history of the COTN (though I have taught a class and we aren't fostering ignorance of it). What our congregation cares about is the Holiness message--and what the COTN is/stands for/ and does today. We chose the COTN because of what we understood to be a similar theological position, and an emphasis for missions and holiness. So if you are looking for what is making people leave I can't help; if you want to know what made our entire congregation join, that I can share :)

I agree that we should all care about the holiness message, but to me, someone who is strictly speaking, a Nazarene church member. I personally think it is important for the body of people who are making decisions about our local church and how it represents the holiness message, to have a history of the church they are representing. Not that they need to be able to dictate it back to anyone or pass a college exam on it, but at least an understanding of where our church came from. We talk a lot on here about how the COTN is losing some of its definition and I wonder if that is because we are losing the ties to its past that actually defined us.

This is coming from someone without a Nazarene history to speak of too, so maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.

blessings

[Hans Deventer]

I can honestly say that our Board members don't know or honestly care that much about the history of the COTN.

I am somewhat surprised. I thought that one of the major issues, of not the major issue from a Jewish point of view is history. God's saving actions through history were celebrated time and time again, and seem to have been the internalised rituals that kept the Jewish people together as a people.

[Judy McDonald]

Top 100 Nazarene churches for numerical gain......all but one (at first glance) have removed or never had...the word "Nazarene" as part of their name....the only one I saw was an Hispanic church....good trend or bad?

http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100NumericalGain1.pdf

[Ken Pell]

How many more do you want? Till you're the last man standing? :rolleyes:

I realize I am in the minority (of posters on this site) Hans.

What, exactly, is your point?

[Hans Deventer]

I realize I am in the minority (of posters on this site) Hans.

What, exactly, is your point?

The point is that it is pretty hard to prove one's view on either side, Ken. Only time will tell.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Top 100 Nazarene churches for numerical gain......all but one (at first glance) have removed or never had...the word "Nazarene" as part of their name....the only one I saw was an Hispanic church....good trend or bad?

http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100NumericalGain1.pdf


Second glance imay indicates differently. Most of those churches do include the word Nazarene, but the names have been abbreviated for this list, apparently. However, I'm not certain it indicates a trend

[Ryan Scott]

Top 100 Nazarene churches for numerical gain......all but one (at first glance) have removed or never had...the word "Nazarene" as part of their name....the only one I saw was an Hispanic church....good trend or bad?

http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100NumericalGain1.pdf


Officially, every congregation in the denomination has "Church of the Nazarene" in their name. Essentially you can just add "Church of the Nazarene" to the end of those abbreviated names for an official name. It gets repetitive to have "Church of the Nazarene" repeated 100 times on a list like that.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think so too. If Nazarenes are destined to be another generic evangelistic denomination I think we ought to shut 'er down and help some other generic group.

I think that 100 years ago we came into being to promote Christian holiness, both personal and social. It is the air we breathe. If we give it up we will suffocate.
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=19493




I agree that we should all care about the holiness message, but to me, someone who is strictly speaking, a Nazarene church member. I personally think it is important for the body of people who are making decisions about our local church and how it represents the holiness message, to have a history of the church they are representing. Not that they need to be able to dictate it back to anyone or pass a college exam on it, but at least an understanding of where our church came from. We talk a lot on here about how the COTN is losing some of its definition and I wonder if that is because we are losing the ties to its past that actually defined us.

This is coming from someone without a Nazarene history to speak of too, so maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.

blessings

[Billy Cox]

Top 100 Nazarene churches for numerical gain......all but one (at first glance) have removed or never had...the word "Nazarene" as part of their name....the only one I saw was an Hispanic church....good trend or bad?

http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100NumericalGain1.pdf

Wow... No Kansas City churches made the list...and it's not like the bar is set very high. A church only had to gain 38 in worship attendance to tie for 98th ranking.

Also conspicuous is the absence of any churches with over 2,000 in attendance. (Bethany 1st, Olathe College Church, Grove City, etc.) A gain of only 38 in a church of 2,000+ is practically flat growth.

Maybe it's time to change how we count noses so that we don't look so darn bad. :rolleyes:

Double-wow!

[Gary Swartzlander]

A gain of only 38 in a church of 2,000+ is practically flat growth.
Double-wow!

While I don't know the reasons of the churches you mentioned, the numbers don't often tell the whole story. We've discussed this before.

Our church (Jackson First) is on the list. I think we will be next year, but if we aren't we will have still had growth while sending roughly 50 of our people to a new start in our community. We sent a whole congregation (including their pastor and part of our music team) to the east side of town to start the new church. The growth there won't show up in our stats for this year.

[Roland Hearn]

I wrote the attached essay several weeks ago as I was reflecting on my most recent District License interview. These are not necessarily new thoughts, although I had never put them down on paper before. They spring from my need to be as authentically myself as possible. As I pursue this ministerial vocation, I am constantly confronted with questions and issues by which I must analyze and understand myself.

I wrote this words strictly for me, but as I've shown them to a few people, they seem to resonate with others. I've decided to share them here; perhaps they will spur some strong discussion.

Ryan, I've been real busy since I got back from the memorial service. I'm going to have more to say on this post in a couple of days but I couldn't wait any longer. Thanks for writing what you have. I love it, I truly love it.

[Ryan Scott]

The growth there won't show up in our stats for this year.


I guess you know your district better than I, but in a lot of districts, they are keeping the stats for sponsored new congregations under the "mother" congregation until the new work is organized. They found that some congregations didn't sponsor new ones because it would adversely affect their numbers. Sad, I know, but a reality that this new system seems to have fixed.

[Billy Cox]

While I don't know the reasons of the churches you mentioned, the numbers don't often tell the whole story. We've discussed this before.

Our church (Jackson First) is on the list. I think we will be next year, but if we aren't we will have still had growth while sending roughly 50 of our people to a new start in our community. We sent a whole congregation (including the pastor and part of our music team) to the east side of town to start the new church. The growth there won't show up in our stats for this year.

Regardless of the reasons behind none of the large Nazarene churches showing up on the list, the fact that an annual gain of only 38 in worship attendance puts a church in the top 2% of churches the USA/Canada is alarming.

[Crystal Lutton]

We talk a lot on here about how the COTN is losing some of its definition and I wonder if that is because we are losing the ties to its past that actually defined us.Hmmm I see what you're saying and I don't disagree . . . I just don't think we need to know all about what has happened between Wesley and today when much of what has happened is how we ended up questioning our relevance.

Now, those who are making decisions for the denomination absolutely need to understand our history because when we don't understand the past we are destined to repeat it. I have a lot of respect for the denom the more I've learned about it. Knowing our history is good. But living there, which is what I think some end up doing, is dangerous. If we live in our history we will be absolutely irrelevant--the bold and relevant things we did as a denom in different ages are not what we need to be doing now. We need to be as bold and relevant today as our predecessors were then. We need to avoid the pitfalls that others fell into. But mostly we need to figure out who we are today! and I absolutely believe that it is an emphasis on holiness and living eternity today that has to be what sets us apart!

[Barb Bouldrey]

Ryan,

I am very glad that you have chosen to be a Nazarene and stay with the church. I am also very pleased that you know WHY you have chosen to still be a Nazarene. That is so important.

Great essay.

barb

[Kevin Rector]

Ryan, with a few minor tweaks (and if I were as eloquent as you) I could have written the same thing. Thank you for helping me to articulate to myself why I am a Nazarene.

[Bob Evans]

Ryan

You message was a real blessing to me. Thanks.

Bob

[David Parker]

Top 100 Nazarene churches for numerical gain......all but one (at first glance) have removed or never had...the word "Nazarene" as part of their name....the only one I saw was an Hispanic church....good trend or bad?

http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100NumericalGain1.pdf

My family attended a concert at one of the churches on this list (one of the top 20) while vacationing a few weeks ago.

My brother-in-law, who lives in the area, (and attends a Calvary Chapel) told us about the concert and said it was in a large "interdenominational" church. When we arrived, I recognized the pastor's name and suspected it was a Nazarene church, but could find nothing to confirm it. No indication in the signage, lobby, sanctuary, nothing....I assumed that this pastor must have left the denomination and gone independent.

Finally, I found 'church of the Nazarene' in small fine print on the offering envelopes. I told my brother-in-law that it must be a 'stealth Nazarene' church. ;)

[Judy McDonald]

David Parker said: "Finally, I found 'church of the Nazarene' in small fine print on the offering envelopes. I told my brother-in-law that it must be a 'stealth Nazarene' church." Our district requires the words Church or "a church" of the Nazarene appear somewhere on church letterhead, etc. I guess I understand why churches want to remove as many barriers as possible to church attendance, but I've even heard of churches who chose not to put up crosses inside or out....because that might offend someone or bring back bad memories from early religious experiences.....so we have buildings that look like warehouses from the outside, and concert/movie theaters on the inside, complete with coffee shops and gymnasiums. That's all good up to a point, just so we don't try to make church so "cool" we forsake the message of holiness. I have to admit, because I did not grow up in this denomination, I used to get tired of hearing the word "Nazarene," but with so many "Community" churches springing up everywhere, I think it's important to remind newcomers we're NOT a generic New Agey group that sprang up last week. And, even if newcomers never hear the hymn, let's pray they hear the message of redemption and cleansing through "The Old Rugged Cross."

[Hans Deventer]

I told my brother-in-law that it must be a 'stealth Nazarene' church. ;)

Can't be bad. The Nazarene Himself used a rather "stealth" approach Himself. And I always thought we were supposed to follow Him..........

[Scott Sherwood]

Finally, I found 'church of the Nazarene' in small fine print on the offering envelopes. I told my brother-in-law that it must be a 'stealth Nazarene' church. ;)

Gives me an idea. Rather than insisting that all Nazarene churches prominently feature the word "Nazarene," we may improve our image more by barring some churches from using the name on their sign and letterhead until they shape up. :basic07

[David Pettigrew]

Perhaps the best organizational restructure would be to treat each local congregation as an independently owned franchise!

[John Kennedy]

Gives me an idea. Rather than insisting that all Nazarene churches prominently feature the word "Nazarene," we may improve our image more by barring some churches from using the name on their sign and letterhead until they shape up. :basic07

This is probably a concept that could be used to great advantage in a number of denominations.

[Ron Davis]

Perhaps the best organizational restructure would be to treat each local congregation as an independently owned franchise!

I thought that was what we were doing.

[Billy Cox]

I thought that was what we were doing.

Not really. If each local church was a franchise, the non-performing locations would be shut down. In the current system, the district has a strong financial *disincentive* to shut down non-performing churches.

$5000 given to WEF by a lost-cause church is just as good as $5,000 given by a church that is assaulting the very gates of Hell.

[Ron Davis]

Not really. If each local church was a franchise, the non-performing locations would be shut down. In the current system, the district has a strong financial *disincentive* to shut down non-performing churches.

$5000 given to WEF by a lost-cause church is just as good as $5,000 given by a church that is assaulting the very gates of Hell.

You are right. I was thinking in terms of "do what you please" as long as you post the appropriate sign out front, purchase the required company supplies and send in the required franchise fees. Of course I intended it to be humorous more than accurate.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Why are people ashamed to post the name of the COTN on the Church sign, if they chose there to attend, or pastor?

[Hans Deventer]

Why are people ashamed to post the name of the COTN on the Church sign, if they chose there to attend, or pastor?

We've discussed that endlessly after the 2005 GA, that, as a majority, didn't want to listen to those who explained why it was beneficial to reaching the lost.

[Ryan Scott]

The whole point of my posting this statement here was to affirm that I'm a Nazarene because of the message.

I don't care what the sign says, however, I am concerned that what is taught inside the building is becoming more and more generic, no matter what the sign says on the outside.

[Ryan Scott]

My question is:
What is the real message of the Church of the Nazarene now?
I know what it was in the past. I can read what Uncle Buddy spoke about. I can read 'Called Unto Holiness'. But I am not really clear on what the Church of the Nazarene really wants to be today. Many of the posts on this site really surprise me in a way because it seems like there is a more blending with the culture rather than a distinctive holiness message in contrast to this present culture. (Holiness meaning 'come out from among them and be ye holy'.)


I think the holiness message is incredibly counter-cultural, but I also think it's meaningless if it doesn't connect with culture. Just because most of the assumptions which undergird our culture are counter to the gospel, doesn't mean everything in culture is evil.

I've been raised in the Church of the Nazarene my entire life and I'd describe the message as: we can all enjoy the kind of relationship with God that God wants us to have right here and now. To me, that truth is the ultimate good news.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

If we don't want to be known as Nazarenes, those that don't should start an independent or non denominational church and let the COTN be the COTN-my opinion.

[Billy Cox]

You are right. I was thinking in terms of "do what you please" as long as you post the appropriate sign out front, purchase the required company supplies and send in the required franchise fees. Of course I intended it to be humorous more than accurate.

Yeah, I know. I doubt that any healthy franchise operates in such a hands-off manner.

[Billy Cox]

I think the holiness message is incredibly counter-cultural, but I also think it's meaningless if it doesn't connect with culture. Just because most of the assumptions which undergird our culture are counter to the gospel, doesn't mean everything in culture is evil.

I've been raised in the Church of the Nazarene my entire life and I'd describe the message as: we can all enjoy the kind of relationship with God that God wants us to have right here and now. To me, that truth is the ultimate good news.

Ryan, I really like this explanation of our message. You are right that it is not a regular part of the 'kerygma' of the Church of the Nazarene.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess what I have seen is trying to be relevant at the expense of being the 'called out ones'.


You're right. These things don't have to (and shouldn't) be mutually exclusive, but a lot of people have been good at making them that way.

[Hans Deventer]

BTW the gospel of affirmation draws more attendance usually. That's why many pastors preach it. Code word: Seeker friendly

If you distinguish between this and the fact that God indeed loves us and accepts us just as we are, in order to start transforming us, I agree.

[Hans Deventer]

If we don't want to be known as Nazarenes, those that don't should start an independent or non denominational church and let the COTN be the COTN-my opinion.

We've had several church plant attempts in our district that didn't work out because of one reason: it was to be a part of the CotN. People like the pastor, the preaching, the theology, the fellowship, but did not want to be part of "organised religion".

So when the Lord returns and wonders why we didn't make disciples in our own nations, you'll answer that it was because those disciples didn't want to become members of the CotN? Not sure if that is an answer He'll be too happy with.

The crucial question of course is, what is the real issue? Adding to the membership of the CotN or the Kingdom of God?

The church existed for 1900 years without the CotN. It can do so again. We're not here to maintain our cherished denomination. I think Jesus had a different command.

[Billy Cox]

We've had several church plant attempts in our district that didn't work out because of one reason: it was to be a part of the CotN. People like the pastor, the preaching, the theology, the fellowship, but did not want to be part of "organised religion".


This is noteworthy to me, not so much because of the question of 'Nazarene' as a poison pill, but ever since I heard Reggie McNeal at M7 and moreso with the book I am reading now, my appraisal of house church has evolved from, "what a dumb idea" to "okay, it's a good idea" to "maybe I should start a house church".

I'm far from figuring out what it needs to look like, but there is part of me that says it wouldn't necessarily have any affiliation with the Church of the Nazarene except by virtue of being led by a lifelong Nazarene. I'm trying to decide if that voice is my disappointment with my local experience of the Nazarene Church or whether house churches really don't have any use for hierarchy.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm far from figuring out what it needs to look like, but there is part of me that says it wouldn't necessarily have any affiliation with the Church of the Nazarene except by virtue of being led by a lifelong Nazarene. I'm trying to decide if that voice is my disappointment with my local experience of the Nazarene Church or whether house churches really don't have any use for hierarchy.


We've been having some of this conversation after a recent discussion at the district level about how to encourage "organic" ministries.

I think the distinction people are having a problem with is what exactly it means to be affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene. Some people are stuck on pieces of paper and spreadsheets where every piece of data fits into a specific category.

I'm a member of the Church of the Nazarene, but I think we're quickly approaching a time when we won't be able to connect that membership with a specific congregation. Ministry is becoming too varied as it should to properly engage a wide variety of contexts.

I see connection with the Church of the Nazarene becoming more of a theological connection. We have an agreed statement of belief and if we can subscribe to it, we can be Nazarene. This is why Hans' proposal of defining essentials is so important.

[Roland Hearn]

As I commented a few days ago I have some thoughts on this subject that I want to put down. I have been thinking about how to best express them over the last week or so. I am not sure I even now have thought through it enough to do justice to what I see as vital. I really appreciate Ryan’s emphasis here and some of the challengers we see as a church.

Some of the things I see us struggling with are denominational loyalty, branding, modus operandi, clarity of theology, reason for existence and worship style. Ryan hit at the core when he basically said that those that have gone before have got to trust that those that are coming on have as much access to the grace of God as they did. Those aren’t his words so much as what I understand him to be saying. With this sentiment I agree completely because I see in his heart the same thing I see in my kids, a willingness to explore the grace of God. I am confident the CON only exists to the extent it is an adequate expression of the grace of God. If it is God’s grace that we are giving expression to then we can have confidence that whatever it was we were at the beginning is what will result even now and a hundred years from now. I am not certain, however that we are always as clear that it is the grace of God that we are championing as our own understanding of the appropriate expression of that grace. However I still have confidence that as long as there are those that are passionate about grace within the confines of our church the CON will have a place to play in the kingdom of God.

Now having said that let me say this; everything we worry about is subordinate to one reality, or at least it should be. If we can keep those things subordinate we can not only survive as a church we can thrive. I am still a Nazarene because I believe in that one thing and I want to play a part in making sure it is kept the focus as a church. We have existence in order that we may call the greater church and the world beyond to a consideration of that one thing. As long as we do that we should exist, when we look at lesser things as important we should cease to exist, which we will do whether we choose to or not.

Ryan did a good job at giving expression to that one thing in his original article. The one thing is the message of holiness not as an ideal to be striven for but as a present transformational reality. There is certainly much debate about the reality of a present crisis experience that we call entire sanctification but for the most part we agree on the goal of our existence. It is the essential nature of the present reality of a heart made perfect in love that gives us the imperative for existence.

Can I make a short case for crisis experience at this point? Of course keeping it short is the great challenge. The word “crisis” is in many ways the point of struggle for us. Most are familiar with the most popular definition for “crisis”, dictionary.com had this to say: a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life. That is what we tend to expect. Some dramatic moment of turmoil and struggle when everything erupts in one decisive moment. Many testimonies have reflected that kind of understanding of crisis. However from the same source I found this definition and it is the one that we intend this word to convey: a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. We believe that the life of holiness is not something the we enter by accident or that we grow into. We believe that holiness is the product of a transformed life the product in turn of the expression of our will. We will to be like Christ. We will to submit completely to His understanding of our lives. We will to live with His love at the core of our being. Now the reality is that such a willing goes against the core of our psyche, our self protection and our self commitment to adequacy and worth. Our self identity rests upon all that we know of the world and ourselves. It takes a life time of development, it is all we know about ourselves and shapes all we know of the world around us. To surrender all we know is to go against our very essence. It is to enter utterly into the unknown. It is not a place we arrive at easily or naturally. It is to go against the very essence of our being as we understand it. So for many such a point of crisis does occur in the midst of great climatic struggle. However for many it is in the middle of long periods of processing. But there is a point of peace where it could be said, “ I know that I am wholly His and He is wholly mine.” I believe it was one of John Wesley’s comments when he said something to the effect that when someone is caring for a dying patient and the end finally comes they may not be aware of the point through the night that the individual past but there is certainty that this one is gone. So it is true of the heart surrendered to the life of holiness. There may not be an awareness of when the core issues were settled but there is an awareness that they have been settled. The result is an individual that stands as one who reacts out of love, grace and peace not self protection and fear. This is a transformation indeed. You don’t have to wonder about such a transformation it is evident in the life lived. This is not a perfect individual, nor necessarily a sinless individual but this is a transformed individual. Their life is free of superficial constructs of spirituality, their life easily expresses grace and love and hope.

In our struggle to make sure we get the proclamation right we have some how failed to confidently call individuals to such a state of grace. We have stood in judgment of expressions and terminology and articulations but failed to witness overwhelming transformation. Our ambivalence about the issues I mentioned in the second paragraph comes from a lack of clarity regarding genuine transformation. One of the impetuses of the early holiness movement was the excessive emphasis on naming and claiming such an experience. The push was on, so to speak, to make sure people “got the glory down.” There was, however, a positive side to such an emphasis. Many people even though their theologising of the experience may have been inadequate, their experience of grace was not. In latter days we have reacted against such “enthusiasm” which would not be inappropriate except that we have failed to effectively lead people into such a state of grace. I am not advocating a return to such practices, I think they were culturally conditioned.

What I think is absolutely essential is a return to a confidence that God does indeed transform to the uttermost. He takes our self that is oriented towards our fears, hopes, pains and desires and the concomitant dysfunctions and replaces these things with a heart that is centred on Him and His grace. We arrive at such a place by decision and we live in such a place by decision. It may be simplistic to suggest that everything would be resolved by such a focus but such a focus would create a momentum that would give us the resources to solve most of our struggles.

I am still a Nazarene because I think this message is the message that the world seeks and the church needs. I can live and preach this message without the Church of the Nazarene but if I could be a part of repositioning this message back to the priority that it genuinely deserves in our denomination then I will have been a part of something far more significant than if I go it alone or become a part of a church that does not have the same emphasis.

[Billy Cox]

We've been having some of this conversation after a recent discussion at the district level about how to encourage "organic" ministries.

I think the distinction people are having a problem with is what exactly it means to be affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene. Some people are stuck on pieces of paper and spreadsheets where every piece of data fits into a specific category.

I'm a member of the Church of the Nazarene, but I think we're quickly approaching a time when we won't be able to connect that membership with a specific congregation. Ministry is becoming too varied as it should to properly engage a wide variety of contexts.

I see connection with the Church of the Nazarene becoming more of a theological connection. We have an agreed statement of belief and if we can subscribe to it, we can be Nazarene. This is why Hans' proposal of defining essentials is so important.


This redefinition of affiliation is already happening, although most Nazarene churches are tethered financially and legally to the denomination.

I think that a house church has to at least be prepared to answer the affiliation question. In an age of hucksters and cults, people will ask.

[Hans Deventer]

Cutting to the chase.....

Yes indeed. Why don't people just trust fellow Nazarenes? Why is there always this paranoid tendency to control others? Why can't we say, "Hey, if in your situation, you are being helped in reaching people for Christ by not adding the name of the CotN to each and every pamphlet or bulletin, go ahead! It's about making disciples anyway!"

But no sir. We don't trust fellow Nazarenes, sanctified and all.

[Ryan Scott]

Cutting to the chase.....
If you are a COTN why can't you just say that you are one? Saying anything else is deceptive. If you don't want to be a COTN then call yourself whatever you want to call yourself. I don't think this is difficult. The problem is that we are getting outreach and discipleship confused. Your outreach may not be called a COTN because if doesn't actually function as the Church. The Church is the discipleship and the Body of Christ.
Now house church seems to be a great idea and one that I have toyed with myself at various times. It seems to be a good match for homeschoolers who are drawn to something more 'separatist' in nature. I tend to me more of a separatist than a puritan. There is probably room for both in the Body of Christ.


In my mind it helps to go the extreme and work backward with the logic.

If I host ten people each week in my home and we worship together and seek to live out Christ's love in our community. I'm probably not going to call that a "Church of the Nazarene" in the strict sense. It just doesn't fit the category. However, because of our shared beliefs, we are very much Nazarene, whether there is any public acknowledgment of that fact is less than relevant.

If there is a more traditional congregation, organized officially as a "Church of the Nazarene," preaching the message of holiness and living such out in community. Why does the name necessarily have to be at the forefront? We're not know by what we call ourselves, but by our actions. If the legal connection is there and the theology is Nazarene, they are Nazarene no matter what is on the sign.

Forcing congregations to advertise the denomination is putting the perpetuation of the denomination ahead of living out the message of holiness. I struggle with where the priority of the denomination does lie, but am relieved when I remember, it does in fact lie in the hands of the individual members (even if that process is convoluted).

[Billy Cox]

Now house church seems to be a great idea and one that I have toyed with myself at various times. It seems to be a good match for homeschoolers who are drawn to something more 'separatist' in nature. I tend to me more of a separatist than a puritan. There is probably room for both in the Body of Christ.

My interest in house churches has *nothing* to do with separatism. From what I have learned thusfar, house churches are founded on the idea that Christianity is a conversation, not a presentation. It is also a back-to-basics effort to reclaim what gets lost when ministry does not grow at the same pace as the fundraising to pay for buildings and salaries.

I am not a booster for homeschooling. I think that for every homeschooling success story there are five homeschoolers that try it just long enough to set their kid(s) 2-3 years behind in school, stunting their learning and harming the very family they were trying to protect.

It really doesn't matter if there is room in the Body of Christ for separatists because they will do their own thing regardless.

[Barbara Moulton]

Relevant many times means the gospel of affirmation. God accepts you as you are and just wants to affirm you. The Gospel of Transformation is what I am into. God takes you as you are but you must desire a change in your life (repentance) so that God can transform you. This Gospel is not the popular one but it is the only one that really works. BTW the gospel of affirmation draws more attendance usually. That's why many pastors preach it. Code word: Seeker friendly


I have never heard anyone preach that God affirms everyone just as they are when they come to Him. I have heard it preached that God loves everyone and accepts them just as they when they come to Him.

But acceptance and transformation are not mutually exclusive. When my children were little and had been playing out in the dirt, they would come running home afterwards. I loved and accepted them, dirt and all.

But I didn't leave them that way.

[Gina Stevenson]

Holiness by definition is very restricting. Very few want to follow the pathway of holiness. But holiness is the only way to heaven. I don't think you have to put up high fences to keep people out but I don't think you need to dumb down the clear message of holiness to attract the masses.

But not only "very restricting." John 10:10 isn't about restrictions, but a lifestyle that's to free us from many things, to live an "abundant" life (yes, I do still feel like I'm not, due to several extenuating circumstances, however we're talking theoretically now, I guess, until more reality may be attained).

Also, agreed that it does not need to be dumbed down ... yet "restricting" seems to be a description that would turn many off, if used at all with those whom we are trying to reach. Come to think of it, "restrictions" can be "freeing," tho' the general seeker might not think of them in this manner, so terminology used might be something to consider. For instance, aren't we told that children feel "freer" to roam, etc, when they know exactly where their boundaries/fences are ... one example given of those on a playground who will go right up to a "restricting" fence, but stay away from the outer boundaries if there is no fence.

Perhaps while that "abundant life" is found within "restrictive (holiness) boundaries," the restrictiveness---which to the unsaved might seem only as bondage---language can be used with care ... or described in great detail, lest it be misunderstood.

I think the problem is the avoidance of the branding. Why are you avoiding the branding if COTN is what you are happy to be? If what you are doing is a COTN then let it be obvious.
Ok. Let's start a church---a COMMUNITY Church. Get all the people in there that don't like a branded church. 'We're a COMMUNITY CHURCH. Not one of the bad branded churches. Come join us!"
(whisper: 'But we really are affiliated with the COTN)
Is that hypocrisy? Is that deception?

Not necessarily. People seeking "something" usually know it has something to do with God ... with "the church." Yet, they are wary of strange (to them) names with which they are not familiar. If one is a "community" church, they may feel comfortable enough to check it out, and then learn that "those Nazarenes" aren't strange folks, after all, tho' they've a strange name (if they're not Biblically versed at all, not having any idea Jesus was from Nazareth & was called "a Nazarene"). Might, on the other hand, drive right by, if they see in large letters, 'CotNazarene.'

But no sir. We don't trust fellow Nazarenes, sanctified and all.

Right. However, there's something to be said for being affiliated with a group larger than oneself ... accountability. Do agree, tho', that the brand name doesn't have to be overpowering, when it is Christ's church, and not something belonging to "just those who call themselves 'Nazarene'," because Jesus was called the same.

[Judy McDonald]

Is there a quick and easy way to print out this entire discussion? This would be a great discussion starter for a small group, Sunday school class, etc. Our church is now a mix of former Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists and various "charismatic" groups. Many of them only known Nazarenes as those who "used to" oppose movies and dancing. I've heard rumors that some of our newest members have a drink once in awhile, speak in a "prayer language" in their private devotions, etc. Many of our newcomers, and long-timers, still struggle with the practical application of Christian perfection, backsliding versus eternal security, etc. We saw a new church going up a few miles away with the name, "Son Life Fellowship" or something like that.....Now what does that say about who they are? I guess they believe in Jesus, but so do the Mormons....Get what I mean?