"We Believe" - Local Churches v. Denomination

[Jon Twitchell]

Yes, this thread is inspired by a couple of other recent threads that involved looking at other websites.

Today, I found a website of a CotN, with the following statement of "Core Beliefs":

The Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative Word of God.
There is only one God, eternally existent in three persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His personal future return to this earth in power and glory to rule a thousand years.
In the blessed hope - the rapture of the Church at Christ's coming.
The only means of being cleansed from sin is through repentance and faith in the precious blood of Christ.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for personal salvation.
The redemptive work of Christ on the cross provides healing of the human body in answer to believing prayer.
In the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy life.
In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting damnation.


Oddly enough, I found statements of faith that were very similar on other church websites... for instance, this one (taken from an Assembly of God website):

We Believe

1. The Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative written Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

2. There is one God, eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19)

3. In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His personal future return to this earth in power and glory to rule a thousand years. (John 1:1)

4. In the blessed hope- the rapture of the Church at Christ's coming. (Titus 2:13)

5. The only means of being cleansed from sin is through repentance and faith in the precious blood of Christ. (John 14:6)

6. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for personal salvation. (Titus 3:5)

7. In water baptism by immersion. (Matthew 28:19)

8. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross provides healing of the human body in answer to believing prayer. (1 Peter 2:24)

9. The baptism in the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to believers who ask for it.

10. In the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy life. (Galatians 5:16-25).

11. In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting damnation. (Revelation 20:11-15)


However, even those 11 statements don't seem to match the official AoG statement of doctrines.

Is it common for churches to write their own "Statement of Faith," instead of quoting from the denomination's official statement?

[Jon Twitchell]

Perhaps they wish to identify themselves with Jimmy Swaggart?

WE BELIEVE . . .
The Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative written Word of God. (Ps. 119; Mat. 4:4; Lk. 24:27)
There is one God, eternally co-existent in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (I Jn.5:7)
In the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Virgin Birth, in His Sinless Life, in His Miracles, in His Vicarious and atoning Death, in His Bodily Resurrection, in His Ascension to the Right Hand of the Father, in His personal future return to this Earth in Power and Glory to rule a thousand years.(Jn.1:1-4;Eph.2:13-18;Rev.Chpts.19-20)
In the Blessed Hope--the Rapture of the Church at Christ's Coming.(I Thess.4:13-18)
The only means of being cleansed from sin is through Repentance and Faith in the Precious Blood of Christ.(Rom.5:1;Eph.2:8-9,13-18)
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for personal Salvation.(Jn.3:5-8;Titus 3:5)
The Redemptive Work of Christ on the Cross provides healing of the human body in answer to believing prayer.(Ex.15:25-26;James 5:14-15;I Pet.2:24)
The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to Believers who ask for it.(Acts 2:4;10:44-46;19:1-7)
In the Sanctifying Power of the Holy Spirit by Whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy life.(Rom.6:3-14;8:1-2,11)
In the Resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to Everlasting Life and the other to everlasting damnation.(Rev.20:5-6,11-15)

[Jon Twitchell]

So... does anyone know the origin of that "statement of faith"?

Can anyone tell me why any Church of the Nazarene would choose to use that "statement of faith" instead of our own?

Am I the only one bothered by this? :D

[Eric Frey]

I surely hope not! My view is if you can't accept them as stated in the Articals of faith you are not a Church of the Nazarene. In other words, local churches are bound together by this shared belief and if they don't share the belief, then they don't share in the community.

[Paul Whitaker]

Yes, this thread is inspired by a couple of other recent threads that involved looking at other websites.

Today, I found a website of a CotN, with the following statement of "Core Beliefs":

Oddly enough, I found statements of faith that were very similar on other church websites... for instance, this one (taken from an Assembly of God website):

However, even those 11 statements don't seem to match the official AoG statement of doctrines.

Is it common for churches to write their own "Statement of Faith," instead of quoting from the denomination's official statement?

Almost sounds like plagurism.:basic04

[Jon Twitchell]

The example I posted yesterday, I had a problem with their statement on "The Trinity." Someone else identified that they appear to only baptise by immersion.

The problem I have with this statement is their statement on Millenialism and the Rapture. While it is perfectly acceptable for their pastor to hold those views, or for members or board members to hold those views... I don't believe it's acceptable for them to state those positions as the official positions of their church.

And yet, I don't know that there is any legal provision in the Manual preventing them from doing this.

[Jon Twitchell]

I surely hope not! My view is if you can't accept them as stated in the Articals of faith you are not a Church of the Nazarene. In other words, local churches are bound together by this shared belief and if they don't share the belief, then they don't share in the community.

Ok... so what is the response?

(I have to be honest... what I want to do is create a website called renegadenazarenes, and start calling out churches which do stuff like this...

But the better angel on my right shoulder tells me that would probably not be a good idea...)

[Ryan Scott]

All it would take is for the Advisory Board to say, "I see you don't affirm the Article of Faith in the Nazarene Manual, we'd like our building back, please."

Not that I would advocate them doing that, but we don't need an extra stipulation that says "all local congregations must agree with our Articles of Faith."

If it's word for word from Jimmy Swaggart chances are they've had those lying around for 25 years and no one's ever thought to check up on them.

[Ryan Scott]

It might not be a bad idea to make a list on the things you find and contact them over it. Don't we have a responsibility to those in our denomination?

[Jon Twitchell]

All it would take is for the Advisory Board to say, "I see you don't affirm the Article of Faith in the Nazarene Manual, we'd like our building back, please."

Not that I would advocate them doing that, but we don't need an extra stipulation that says "all local congregations must agree with our Articles of Faith."

You would think that it would go without saying, right?



If it's word for word from Jimmy Swaggart chances are they've had those lying around for 25 years and no one's ever thought to check up on them.

Oddly enough... I'm pretty sure that the statement came with the pastor.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Ok... so what is the response?

(I have to be honest... what I want to do is create a website called renegadenazarenes, and start calling out churches which do stuff like this...

But the better angel on my right shoulder tells me that would probably not be a good idea...)

Ah...but some of us might seek to be on a list if it's called "renegadenazarenes".

Perhaps you could call it "notreallynazarenes.com"

[Susan Unger]

Ah...but some of us might seek to be on a list if it's called "renegadenazarenes".

Perhaps you could call it "notreallynazarenes.com"

Or NINO [Nazarene in Name only?] Sorry, couldn't help myself...it is an election year afterall :o

[Susan Unger]

Am I the only one bothered by this? :D

I am bothered by it but can't do anything about so I try not to dwell on it.

[Mike Schutz]

A few random remarks (They aren't thought out enough to be worthy of the moniker "comments"):

1. Many churches do not have anyone in the church who would consider themselves competent enough to challenge the pastor on theological issues. They might not be comfortable with them, but they don't want to go toe-to-toe with the pastor over them.
2. I do have folks in my church who sometimes challenge me over the "Nazarene-ness" of what I preach and teach.(One dear saint has asked how I was ever ordained. I said, "I have pictures." She didn't laugh.) However, those folks have never been on the internet, so even if our advertised AoF differed in substance from those of the denomination, they wouldn't know about it.
3. You will notice that I said "in substance." I have, in many times and places, changed the wording to make them even reasonably useful for folks to understand. I consider this to be part of what a pastor is supposed to do - place truth "on the bottom shelf," where folks can get to it. Now, this may be what is happening in the situations here - but they have gone too far. In the case of our good friends who are playing fast and loose with the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to be attempting to simplify the language and we all know what happens when you attempt such a stunt with that particular doctrine. In a systematic theology class I teach one exam question is "Explain the Trinity to an intelligent 16 year old without committing a heresy." Many folks have problems with it. In the cases on this thread folks have added to our doctrine by saying what they believe, not just what we believe. This happens every Sunday in churches of the Nazarene - if not from the pulpit then certainly in SS classes.
4. Above I mentioned a class I teach. This is part of the problem. I'm teaching systematic theology to adults involved in ministry and pursuing ordination. These folks should be taking classes from Tom Oord, Henry Spaulding, Steve McCormick, Mike Lodahl, Diane LeClerc, Dean Blevins, Andy Johnson, and so many other smart folks. Instead they get me. This is not a put down of the many smart folks who are teaching courses in the district programs, but when you have multiple delivery systems, quality control becomes a real issue. I truly believe some pastors don't know our theology well enough to interpret it for their people.

[Jon Twitchell]

A few random remarks (They aren't thought out enough to be worthy of the moniker "comments"):

1. Many churches do not have anyone in the church who would consider themselves competent enough to challenge the pastor on theological issues. They might not be comfortable with them, but they don't want to go toe-to-toe with the pastor over them.
2. I do have folks in my church who sometimes challenge me over the "Nazarene-ness" of what I preach and teach.(One dear saint has asked how I was ever ordained. I said, "I have pictures." She didn't laugh.) However, those folks have never been on the internet, so even if our advertised AoF differed in substance from those of the denomination, they wouldn't know about it.
3. You will notice that I said "in substance." I have, in many times and places, changed the wording to make them even reasonably useful for folks to understand. I consider this to be part of what a pastor is supposed to do - place truth "on the bottom shelf," where folks can get to it. Now, this may be what is happening in the situations here - but they have gone too far. In the case of our good friends who are playing fast and loose with the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to be attempting to simplify the language and we all know what happens when you attempt such a stunt with that particular doctrine. In a systematic theology class I teach one exam question is "Explain the Trinity to an intelligent 16 year old without committing a heresy." Many folks have problems with it. In the cases on this thread folks have added to our doctrine by saying what they believe, not just what we believe. This happens every Sunday in churches of the Nazarene - if not from the pulpit then certainly in SS classes.
4. Above I mentioned a class I teach. This is part of the problem. I'm teaching systematic theology to adults involved in ministry and pursuing ordination. These folks should be taking classes from Tom Oord, Henry Spaulding, Steve McCormick, Mike Lodahl, Diane LeClerc, Dean Blevins, Andy Johnson, and so many other smart folks. Instead they get me. This is not a put down of the many smart folks who are teaching courses in the district programs, but when you have multiple delivery systems, quality control becomes a real issue. I truly believe some pastors don't know our theology well enough to interpret it for their people.

Thanks Mike.... I appreciate your comments... errr... remarks. :)

I don't really question the motives/intent of the pastors or church leaders who have done this.

In fact, I can't ascertain what their motive/intent is....

I guess, perhaps, I should ask, huh?

[David Parker]

Here is the "Our Beliefs" page in its entirety from the website of one of the largest and fastest growing Nazarene churches:

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

Our Beliefs

THE TRINITY: Three Faces of God
There is one God who is eternal and holy. He exists as three distinct, but equal, Divine Persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Spirit (Holy Spirit). God's unmistakable presence is evident in the wonders of nature and the inner voice of our conscience.

God, the Father
God created the heavens and Earth and is ruler over all creation. Every life and every circumstance is under His power. He is omnipotent (all powerful), omniPaige_Hemmisesent (all present He exists everywhere simultaneously) and omniscient (all knowing).

God, the Son
God came to the Earth in the form of a man, Jesus. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, and served as the ultimate sacrifice for the past, present, and future sins of the world when He died a gruesome death on the cross. Just as prophesy foretold, Jesus later rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Jesus promised to return to Earth someday in the same manner He departed.

God, the Spirit
The Holy Spirit, the gift of God's presence, dwells within those who are in relationship with God. He guides us into wisdom, convicts us of sin, empowers us spiritually, and ministers to us with peace.

THE BIBLE: God's Holy Scriptures
Many writers wrote the Bible as they were prompted and inspired by God. These Scriptures comprise sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament and reveal God's plan for our lives. The Bible was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and was written without error in the original writings. It is the final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

SIN: Our Disobedience towards God
Sin is any behavior that displeases God and contradicts His law. It may be a thought, word, or act. Sin made its debut into the world when the first human beings, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Our sin separates us from God, inhibits us from experiencing God's full blessing, and, apart from God's forgiveness, dooms us to eternal anguish.

ATONEMENT: The Payment for Sin
Jesus' death on the cross paid the full price for the consequences of our sin. If we accept His suffering and death on the cross as payment for our sins, and ask for forgiveness, we receive God's gift of eternal life. Neither commitment to good deeds nor practice of religious rituals grants us salvation. Our trust in Christ is what alone determines our destiny. No person is too bad to be forgiven from sin and welcomed into God's Kingdom as a child of God.

GRACE: A Free Gift
Humans possess the ability to choose between right and wrong, but we are not able to follow God and live in complete obedience on our own power. Justification is an act of God, undeserved by us, by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and release from the penalty for our sins. God's grace allows us to live lives that are pleasing to Him.

REPENTANCE: Confession of Sin
We must confess our sinful nature to God to receive His forgiveness. This confession must be a sincere change of heart and desire for spiritual transformation. Our obedience to God is necessary for a changed life to follow.

JESUS' RETURN: The Second Coming
As predicted in the Bible and spoken by Jesus, He will return to raise up all believers, judge the world and establish His glorious kingdom.

SPIRIT WORLD: The Unseen Realm
There is an invisible dimension inhabited by spiritual beings who battle for control of our lives. Angels are God's servants who actively serve and mediate on our behalf. The Bible indicates that these spirit beings do not always remain invisible. Some people see angels and interact with them. Angels often function as messengers and protectors. Satan Once a powerful angel, Satan rebelled against God and now works vigorously against God to destroy us through deception, lies, and temptation. Jesus defeated Satan's power by His death and resurrection. In the meantime, Satan operates as a powerful, yet defeated, adversary who will ultimately be sentenced to an eternity of severe punishment.

BAPTISM: A Statement of Faith
Baptism is a public profession of our faith. A person who is baptized is immersed in water momentarily to symbolize the death of his or her sinful nature and the end of the old way of life. He or she is then raised up to symbolize the beginning of a new life in a relationship with Jesus.

COMMUNION: The Last Supper
Communion is a symbolic act reminiscent of The Last Supper, in which Jesus took the Passover bread and wine and presented it to His disciples before His betrayal and death. Jesus offered the bread as a symbol of His body, which would be broken for them. He gave the cup of wine as a representation of His blood, which would be shed on their behalf. To commemorate this event, we share bread and wine (grape juice) in remembrance of Him.

HEALING: God's Divine Touch
God has the power to heal us whether we need a divine touch on our physical body, mental state, emotional wellbeing, or spiritual intervention. Prayer is our direct communication line to God we can ask Him for anything and believe that He will grant us our requests, according to His will and plan for our lives.

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

[John Kennedy]

"A person who is baptized is immersed...."

Well, looks like a lot of you guys are out of luck.

The 'stealth Baptists' strike again.

[David Parker]

Yup....and no sanctification that I could find....

[John Kennedy]

Would it be some sort of a breach of ethics to give a URL to the church's website?

[Jon Twitchell]

John...

I wondered about that when I started this thread...

In fact, in my "Trinity" thread, I went and removed the link from my opening post (although it is quoted later on, and I can't edit those).

On the one hand, I wanted to cite my source. On the other hand, I didn't want it to look like I was creating a "Wall of Shame" or trying to call them out.

So... for me, I guess I've settled on the idea that I won't post any links unless I've first spoken to the pastor to express my concerns.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm REALLY uncomfortable with the "Three Faces of God" language that they use to explain the Trinity. That sounds SO similar to the "masks" of modalism.

(To me, this stuff is in a completely different league than choosing not to have "Church of the Nazarene" on a sign or letterhead.)

[Greg Farra]

A few random remarks (They aren't thought out enough to be worthy of the moniker "comments"):

1. Many churches do not have anyone in the church who would consider themselves competent enough to challenge the pastor on theological issues. They might not be comfortable with them, but they don't want to go toe-to-toe with the pastor over them.
2. I do have folks in my church who sometimes challenge me over the "Nazarene-ness" of what I preach and teach.(One dear saint has asked how I was ever ordained. I said, "I have pictures." She didn't laugh.) However, those folks have never been on the internet, so even if our advertised AoF differed in substance from those of the denomination, they wouldn't know about it.
3. You will notice that I said "in substance." I have, in many times and places, changed the wording to make them even reasonably useful for folks to understand. I consider this to be part of what a pastor is supposed to do - place truth "on the bottom shelf," where folks can get to it. Now, this may be what is happening in the situations here - but they have gone too far. In the case of our good friends who are playing fast and loose with the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to be attempting to simplify the language and we all know what happens when you attempt such a stunt with that particular doctrine. In a systematic theology class I teach one exam question is "Explain the Trinity to an intelligent 16 year old without committing a heresy." Many folks have problems with it. In the cases on this thread folks have added to our doctrine by saying what they believe, not just what we believe. This happens every Sunday in churches of the Nazarene - if not from the pulpit then certainly in SS classes.
4. Above I mentioned a class I teach. This is part of the problem. I'm teaching systematic theology to adults involved in ministry and pursuing ordination. These folks should be taking classes from Tom Oord, Henry Spaulding, Steve McCormick, Mike Lodahl, Diane LeClerc, Dean Blevins, Andy Johnson, and so many other smart folks. Instead they get me. This is not a put down of the many smart folks who are teaching courses in the district programs, but when you have multiple delivery systems, quality control becomes a real issue. I truly believe some pastors don't know our theology well enough to interpret it for their people.

Mike,

I wouldn't feel so bad about people learning from you. Too many get their theology from Oprah Winfrey,Joyce Meyer,Ken Copeland and whoever else is popular in the media. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Greg Farra]

Would it be some sort of a breach of ethics to give a URL to the church's website?

No. It's a public site with it's beliefs out therte for anyone to read. Go for it!!!

[Ryan Scott]

That "Our Beliefs" section is pretty crazy. There's no way those could be identified as Nazarene. Have we perhaps sacrificed some of the theological distinctives for increasing numbers?

[Susan Unger]

That "Our Beliefs" section is pretty crazy. There's no way those could be identified as Nazarene. Have we perhaps sacrificed some of the theological distinctives for increasing numbers?

I would think so. When I read it, I felt I was reading a friend's baptist church's beliefs.

[David Parker]

That "Our Beliefs" section is pretty crazy. There's no way those could be identified as Nazarene. Have we perhaps sacrificed some of the theological distinctives for increasing numbers?

Absolutely. But I'm not saying that is a bad thing. That church has a powerful ministry and is changing many lives. Without churches like that, the Nazarene denomination would have an even smaller average size and less spiritual influence than it currently does. That church spiritually dominates their community. Could it be as large and effective if it preached infant baptism and entire sanctification? I have no idea....I just know that what they are doing is working to bring God into the lives of thousands.

There is an old marriage counseling slogan: "Do you want to be right, or happy?" Most of us married folks decided along time ago that being happy was more important than being right all the time. I see a similar idea here. Do you try to exert possessive control on all the Nazarene churches to make sure they are theologically "right" (assuming that everyone could even agree on a standard) all the time, or grant some freedom to respond to their communities with some leeway in the non-essentials?

Some of you may think you have all the nuances of theology nailed down perfect, but I won't even pretend to, and I'm not so sure I care. The church my family attends preaches some doctrine that I don't quite agree with. But the fact that The Spirit of God is moving powerfully in that place, bringing hundreds into the kingdom regularly and experiencing regular "signs, wonders, & miracles" in peoples lives completely overshadows my little doctrinal disagreements. The difference I have seen in my teenage boys in the year we have attended there makes my doctrinal quibbles meaningless.

I think it essentially comes down to the ol' "If God be for it....." attitude.

[John Kennedy]

Joh -

I guess I'm not following the logic in not revealing the identity of this church. They've put themselve on the web and, in so doing, lost any reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don't see it as attempting to 'call them out' or place them on some 'wall of shame'.

[Hans Deventer]

Here is the "Our Beliefs" page in its entirety from the website of one of the largest and fastest growing Nazarene churches:

That's not a Nazarene Church.

[Susan Unger]

That's not a Nazarene Church. That's a good way of putting it. A Nazarene Church that doesn't emphasize entire sanctification can't be a Nazarene Church.

[Jon Twitchell]

Joh -

I guess I'm not following the logic in not revealing the identity of this church. They've put themselve on the web and, in so doing, lost any reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don't see it as attempting to 'call them out' or place them on some 'wall of shame'.

It's fine that you don't see it that way... And I'm certainly not saying that anyone else can't post links if they want. It's just that I did not feel right about posting the URL in question until (or if) I had spoken with the pastor first. You may not feel that it would be wrong... but I feel as though my attitude and motives would be wrong.

[Jon Twitchell]

That's not a Nazarene Church.

Not even a "Church of the Nazarene"??? :D

[Jon Twitchell]

Absolutely. But I'm not saying that is a bad thing. That church has a powerful ministry and is changing many lives. Without churches like that, the Nazarene denomination would have an even smaller average size and less spiritual influence than it currently does. That church spiritually dominates their community. Could it be as large and effective if it preached infant baptism and entire sanctification? I have no idea....I just know that what they are doing is working to bring God into the lives of thousands.

There is an old marriage counseling slogan: "Do you want to be right, or happy?" Most of us married folks decided along time ago that being happy was more important than being right all the time. I see a similar idea here. Do you try to exert possessive control on all the Nazarene churches to make sure they are theologically "right" (assuming that everyone could even agree on a standard) all the time, or grant some freedom to respond to their communities with some leeway in the non-essentials?

Some of you may think you have all the nuances of theology nailed down perfect, but I won't even pretend to, and I'm not so sure I care. The church my family attends preaches some doctrine that I don't quite agree with. But the fact that The Spirit of God is moving powerfully in that place, bringing hundreds into the kingdom regularly and experiencing regular "signs, wonders, & miracles" in peoples lives completely overshadows my little doctrinal disagreements. The difference I have seen in my teenage boys in the year we have attended there makes my doctrinal quibbles meaningless.

I think it essentially comes down to the ol' "If God be for it....." attitude.

I know that not every pastor has quite the same theological or doctinal perspective (after all, this theology board might not exist otherwise!). And I can understand shelving some "doctrinal quibbles" with the pastor because it's better to be working together for the Kingdom than to be right.

But I don't even understand the thinking behind writing a doctrinal statement for a local church, when one is already provided by that local church's Constitution and Bylaws. I especially don't understand writing a doctrinal statement for a local church that contradicts the statement provided in its own Constitution and Bylaws.

[Ken Pell]

Yes, this thread is inspired by a couple of other recent threads that involved looking at other websites.

Today, I found a website of a CotN, with the following statement of "Core Beliefs":


The website is public right?

Why not give us the source?

[Jon Twitchell]

The website is public right?

Why not give us the source?

http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=202040&postcount=30

[Ryan Scott]

Absolutely. But I'm not saying that is a bad thing. That church has a powerful ministry and is changing many lives. Without churches like that, the Nazarene denomination would have an even smaller average size and less spiritual influence than it currently does. That church spiritually dominates their community. Could it be as large and effective if it preached infant baptism and entire sanctification? I have no idea....I just know that what they are doing is working to bring God into the lives of thousands.

There is an old marriage counseling slogan: "Do you want to be right, or happy?" Most of us married folks decided along time ago that being happy was more important than being right all the time. I see a similar idea here. Do you try to exert possessive control on all the Nazarene churches to make sure they are theologically "right" (assuming that everyone could even agree on a standard) all the time, or grant some freedom to respond to their communities with some leeway in the non-essentials?

Some of you may think you have all the nuances of theology nailed down perfect, but I won't even pretend to, and I'm not so sure I care. The church my family attends preaches some doctrine that I don't quite agree with. But the fact that The Spirit of God is moving powerfully in that place, bringing hundreds into the kingdom regularly and experiencing regular "signs, wonders, & miracles" in peoples lives completely overshadows my little doctrinal disagreements. The difference I have seen in my teenage boys in the year we have attended there makes my doctrinal quibbles meaningless.

I think it essentially comes down to the ol' "If God be for it....." attitude.



No, you're right. I've been thinking about this a lot since I posted last night. I am a firm believer that there is a lot more leeway we can give for different views on many theological matters, even some of those within our articles of faith. We need to work together to better live out Christ's example in our world.

I think the problem I have is with individual congregations in the Church of the Nazarene narrowing the focus of the Article of Faith. We've intentionally set many of these with a wide berth, allowing for a diverse spectrum of belief on a number of issues. When an individual congregation narrows those definitions, they are leaving behind the same spirit of unity for which we (at our best moments) strive.

[Ryan Scott]

The website is public right?

Why not give us the source?


I found the congregation David quoted by searching in google for "The Trinity: Three Faces of God" you may be able to find other congregations using a similar system.

[David Parker]

That's not a Nazarene Church.

Actually, it is.

It is the #1 church in attendance in the Los Angeles district.

Top 5 by District (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top5byDistrict1.pdf)

New Life Community Church
(http://newlifepismo.com/)

[Hans Deventer]

Actually, it is.

I'm sorry, David, but it's not. It may have the name and everything, but in my view, it is not a Church of the Nazarene.

Or how would you define a CotN?

[David Parker]

I'm sorry, David, but it's not. It may have the name and everything, but in my view, it is not a Church of the Nazarene.

Or how would you define a CotN?

Well, I'm probably not qualified to say...but I would imagine that being a church that is part of the Nazarene denomination makes it a Nazarene church. ;)

It is #10 in the top 100 Nazarene churches in the world (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Top100World1.pdf).

As to differences, I remember the dramatic difference in Nazarene churches when I moved from our small town Oklahoma Nazarene church to Pasadena First Church (California) in the early 70's. The "west coast Nazarenes" were certainly different than what I had known in the Midwest.

[Scott Daniels]

David,
You made me interested in looking through some of the other large churches on the list. The language regarding the scripture is intersting in many of them. For example,

"We believe the Bible is inspired and without error or failure of basic contents and meaning in the original manuscripts..."

It is interesting the way that we have picked up the language of inerrancy when we aren't an inerrancy tradition.

[David Parker]

David,
You made me interested in looking through some of the other large churches on the list. The language regarding the scripture is intersting in many of them. For example,

"We believe the Bible is inspired and without error or failure of basic contents and meaning in the original manuscripts..."

It is interesting the way that we have picked up the language of inerrancy when we aren't an inerrancy tradition.

Good point.

If you don't mind me asking, are your "Eight Agreed Statements" (http://www.paznaz.org/ourbeliefs.htm) your composition or from HQ?

[Hans Deventer]

Well, I'm probably not qualified to say...but I would imagine that being a church that is part of the Nazarene denomination makes it a Nazarene church. ;)

I'm glad this isn't a serious statement. I'm sure you'll agree there is more to it than a name tag.

This isn't a difference on applications. The very heart is cut out of what it means to be a Nazarene. That statement of faith is simply a generic evangelical church. Could have been Southern Baptist.

[John Kennedy]

Many people don't realize it, but the largest denomination in the US isn't Roman Catholic, United Methodist, Presbyterian or Southern Baptist. It is 'stealth Baptist'. They are ubiquitous - and besides that, they're all over the place.

I tend to agree with you. I grew up Nazarene and have been a part of Nazarene churches in several parts of the country. There certainly are generational as well as regional differences. The Washington and California churches cited certainly go far beyond any generational or regional variation.

I am a part of a Congregational church. It is just what the name implies. It advertises itself as a 'free and independent church in the Congregational tradition'. Although it is a part of a national association of similar churches, it is completely autonomous.

It's statement of belief is a product of the local church. There may be, and are, other Congregational churches that have similar statement, but that is because the local congregation decided to. This statement is not being made to enter into some discussion about the relative merits of this, that or the other form of church polity. The church's polity is not the primary reason for my being a part of the body. I agree with their statement of belief and have found a spiritual home there.

The Church of the Nazarene, however, is a connectional body. The denomination's core body of belief is a part of the package. The denomination has established procedures for altering its statement of belief. The local congregation's aldherence to the denomination's statement of belief is, IMO, an implicit part of the local body's affilaition with the denomination. For a local body to unilaterally, without the due process established, alter that statement would seem to seriously threaten the integrity of the connection.

This one doesn't walk like, quack like, or have feathers like. IMO, it probably isn't.

[Roland Hearn]

When I was pastoring the NewStart church in Frisco Brad and I had a shot at rewriting the articles of faith in easier language for a novice to understand. However, we put a disclaimer on what we wrote saying that it was simply an attempt to make things more available and that the church's official position was the articles of faith of the CON and we put a link to those statements. I obviously think it is fine to try and make things simpler but there is nothing gained from a local church "believing" something that is at odds with what we as a denomination believe. I agree with Hans on this there are plenty of things up for grabs in the CON but what we believe that defines us as a part of this denomination should not be among them.

[Crystal Lutton]

XVI. Resurrection, Judgment, and Destiny

20. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, that the bodies both of the just and of the unjust shall be raised to life and united with their spirits-"they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

21. We believe in future judgment in which every person shall appear before God to be judged according to his or her deeds in this life.

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.I wonder if some of the churches are attempting to express the official COTN position in a culturally relevant language to their area? If so, could the language have been approved by someone higher up in the District than the individual pastor or board?

Our expression of the COTN doctrine is very much altered in language, though I do not believe at all in content. And while I personally find myself bothered with some of the language in the shared SOF's I wonder if I were in an area where Baptist language were the predominant shared language would I be able and willing to express what we believe to that audience in words they could understand?

[Ryan Scott]

I'm wondering why you specifically quoted Article XVI above? I know, this is the AoF I have the most trouble with; did you mean to imply something about this specifically?

[Eric Frey]

I wonder if some of the churches are attempting to express the official COTN position in a culturally relevant language to their area? If so, could the language have been approved by someone higher up in the District than the individual pastor or board?

Our expression of the COTN doctrine is very much altered in language, though I do not believe at all in content. And while I personally find myself bothered with some of the language in the shared SOF's I wonder if I were in an area where Baptist language were the predominant shared language would I be able and willing to express what we believe to that audience in words they could understand?

Do you have a link to your "adaptation"?

[Crystal Lutton]

Ryan--I picked that one because it was the language I was the most scratching my head about in the SOF's offered in the first two posts. Talking about the "rapture" etc.

As for our AOF http://bethsimchat.com/?page_id=9

[Scott Daniels]

Good point.

If you don't mind me asking, are your "Eight Agreed Statements" (http://www.paznaz.org/ourbeliefs.htm) your composition or from HQ?

I'm embarrassed to admit that until this thread was posted I hadn't even paid attention to the "what we believe" portion of the website. I had assumed that the articles of faith were there.

How numb-headed am I?! Wherever they came from, I'm glad they aren't too bad. But I've been checkint into their origin.

So thanks for the thread.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm embarrassed to admit that until this thread was posted I hadn't even paid attention to the "what we believe" portion of the website. I had assumed that the articles of faith were there.

How numb-headed am I?! Wherever they came from, I'm glad they aren't too bad. But I've been checkint into their origin.

So thanks for the thread.

Scott,

Rest easy...

Those are the "Eight Agreed Statements of Belief" from the Manual. (Also, from http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/beliefs/display.aspx)

I'm not entirely sure of the legal relationship between this document and our Articles of Faith.

Actually, I think that the 8 Agreed Statements of Belief is probably intended for things like websites and short publications.

[Eric Vail]

Scott,

Rest easy...

Those are the "Eight Agreed Statements of Belief" from the Manual. (Also, from http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/beliefs/display.aspx)

I'm not entirely sure of the legal relationship between this document and our Articles of Faith.

Actually, I think that the 8 Agreed Statements of Belief is probably intended for things like websites and short publications.

It does seem that there is some confusion about these matters. We do have our articles of faith that are part of the list in the preamble to our church constitution of things we "do hereby ordain, adopt, and set forth as the fundamental law or Constitution of the Church of the Nazarene." However, in the section following the articles of faith where the 8 agreed statements of belief are found it says in paragraph 26: "Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate, we would require only such avowals of belief as are essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient." If you put the preamble together with paragraph 26 it could be interpreted that we will operate by the Articles of Faith, but you only have to believe in the 8 Agreed Statements of Belief to be a member; this is confusing.

It is not clarified well under the section on membership where there is an inconsistency in terms. People can become members after declaring "their belief in the doctrines of the Church of the Nazarene" (par. 107). Does the word "doctrines" refer to articles of faith or statements of belief? Neither one had been called "doctrines" earlier. Is this a requirement above and beyond what was mentioned in par. 26? Par. 107.1 says that people are to be taught the articles of faith before becoming members, but this is only called "indoctrination and orientation"; it does not mention acceptance.

Lastly, the whole matter is further confused in the ritual for receiving members (par 801). The minister is to ask those being received whether they believe a list of things. The wording of that list is different from both our articles of faith and the 8 brief statements of belief. There are things added that are not included in the 8 brief statements (e.g., "We especially emphasize the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit") and things left out (e.g., no mention of scripture).

So... What do we agree to when we become members? The Articles? The Eight Brief Statements? Or, what the minister asks us when we become members? (Being ordained in the CotN is a different matter and requires a full acceptance of the Articles.) I can see in our Manual where things could get very confusing. I can also see why there are some places in the USA and places around the world where people say they don't have to stand by the Articles of Faith because they never agreed to believe them when becoming members.

I do not personally count myself among those who do not submit to the Articles of Faith (since they are part of our church's Constitution). However, aligning these divergent sections of our Manual in their terminology and specific wording on beliefs would be extremely helpful. Is there anyone out there on a resolutions committee who wants to address this? One resolution could be to make par. 801 follow the wording of par. 26.1-8. A separate resolution could make the requirements of belief for church membership consistent between par. 26 and the section on church membership.

[Jon Twitchell]

Eric,

I've struggled with that same issue... and then when you add the Covenants of Christian Character and Conduct into the mix, membership can be a bit confusing...

This is what I've told my prospective members:

1) You have to affirm the 8 Agreed Statements in order to become Nazarenes. That's the minimum standard of belief, that's the ticket to ride.

2) You have to understand the basics of the Articles of Faith in order to become a members. That's what the denomination teaches, that's where the train is going. You may disagree with a finer point of those Articles, but you need to understand that's what we teach, and be satisfied to be a part of a church that teaches those things.

I use the similar "ticket to ride" and "destination of the train" language to explain the relationship between the Covenant of Christian Character (that's the "ticket to ride," you must agree to live by these standards), and the Covenant of Christian Conduct (that's the "destination of the train," that's what we're going to call you to move your life toward).

Now... that's not to say that I am confident that this is the intent of those statements... or that it's truly the legal interpretation of membership... but as you've pointed out, the relationship between the AoF and the 8 Statements is murky at best. This is just the manner in which I've attempted to negotiate and explain that relationship.

[Ryan Scott]

Being ordained in the CotN is a different matter and requires a full acceptance of the Articles.


How exactly does or should this work in practice? We've had plenty of discussion here regarding elements of the Articles of Faith that various people disagree with (even some ordained elders). I can tell you I affirm the general meaning and intent of all the AoF, but the specifics of some of them I just don't believe (at least as they are currently worded).

The things is, there's isn't some denomination out there with specific beliefs framed in exactly the way I would like them to be. Beyond being a scary thought, it's just not a reality.

Where and how is that line drawn even for ordination?

[Eric Vail]

How exactly does or should this work in practice? We've had plenty of discussion here regarding elements of the Articles of Faith that various people disagree with (even some ordained elders). I can tell you I affirm the general meaning and intent of all the AoF, but the specifics of some of them I just don't believe (at least as they are currently worded).

The things is, there's isn't some denomination out there with specific beliefs framed in exactly the way I would like them to be. Beyond being a scary thought, it's just not a reality.

Where and how is that line drawn even for ordination?

We could go with Kant's centuries-old ideas. Regardless of our personal feelings, we do what is required of us by our duty to our occupation/employer. That, however, does not preclude us from working--outside of and beyond our duties as a minister in the CotN--through scholarship and collaboration to seek out optimal adjustments to the structures/frameworks in which we work. Thus, you always submit to the authority of the structures, even if on your own time you press for change. The difficult line is not to allow the work toward change to affect your ministry or what you communicate to those you serve as a representative of the church; if you cross the line, then you've failed in your duties to your occupation/employer. That is at least one way to look at it.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

How exactly does or should this work in practice? We've had plenty of discussion here regarding elements of the Articles of Faith that various people disagree with (even some ordained elders). I can tell you I affirm the general meaning and intent of all the AoF, but the specifics of some of them I just don't believe (at least as they are currently worded).

The things is, there's isn't some denomination out there with specific beliefs framed in exactly the way I would like them to be. Beyond being a scary thought, it's just not a reality.

Where and how is that line drawn even for ordination?

2) You have to understand the basics of the Articles of Faith in order to become a members. That's what the denomination teaches, that's where the train is going. You may disagree with a finer point of those Articles, but you need to understand that's what we teach, and be satisfied to be a part of a church that teaches those things.

I don't know if I've shared this on Naznet yet or not, but the day prior to ordination, I asked the presiding GS pretty much the same question that Ryan asks above. I said that as one whose life has been greatly shaped by Jesus' words to the Samaritan woman in John 4, I try to live and speak "in spirit and in truth" (with all that I have and like I mean it). So if he was going to ask me, "On the day that you find yourself in disharmony with the blah blah blah of the CotN", I wanted to be able to answer...well...in spirit and in truth.

I said that I love and affirm the Articles of Faith and for the most part, the whole of the Manual, but that there were certainly details over which I would disagree or seek change.

The answer he gave me was very similar to Jon's approach above, especially the bold part.

Dr. Cunningham asked me if, though I may disagree or think that things should be reworded, "Could I support the church in those areas anyway, as a minister of the CotN?" I'd already answered that for myself, so it was an easy answer.

Will I seek change where I think it is needed? Yes. But until then, I should affirm and be able to submit to the community of which I'm a part (the CotN).

God forbid the day if and when the line is pushed too far for my ability to affirm "in spirit and in truth."

[Ryan Scott]

I'll have to struggle with that. It's really just Article XVI for me. There are others I'd like to see re-worded, but none that preclude my understanding or things or present anything I would consider untrue. I appreciate that most of our Articles of Faith use biblical language and make room for a variety of interpretation. That last one doesn't, at least not enough, in my opinion.

I've made plenty of interpretive leaps in agreeing with the Manual, but I'm not sure I can make them in that Article and maintain integrity.

That being said, that's a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of things and it's not like I could go to some other denomination and fit in as well. Yet at the same time, I would have to disagree with some of the wording in those sections, even as I affirm the overall perspective.