BGS Statement of Affirmation

[Scott Sherwood]

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?sid=10000023&id=10009167

Quite a while ago I had asked for my NazNet profile to be deleted due to what I saw as a slowness to censor or censure personally derogatory statements about our global Nazarene leaders. I did not then and do not now want to be associated with discussion that stoops to personal attack, demeaning characterizations, or disrespect of God-placed leaders. I am all for disagreement and dialogue. I have continued to read and learn a great deal from the vast majority of the issue-oriented respectful dialogue for which this site is known.

After reading this statement from our Board of General Superintendents, I was motivated to re-enter the fray and be the first to say that in my opinion this statement is much needed and outstanding. I will be glad to discuss the specifics as appropriate. For now, here is what I posted on my facebook about it:


"Outstanding! Our global leadership is on-target, on-mission, and on-message. I am behind them 100%. If you ever here noise from disenchanted far flung fringe voices on either extreme that tell you differently, consider the source and consider the fruit."

Thoughts?

[Ryan Scott]

I think it's important for our leadership to continually affirm those things we believe, even if they are often deemed "common knowledge." Re-enacting our faith, even in simply stating our beliefs, is an important spiritual discipline. I was going to comment that this really isn't anything new - and it isn't - but it is foundational. I am happy for leadership that continues to make our foundational beliefs our most important beliefs.

[Kevin Rector]

Hey Scott, good to see you back. I appreciate the General Superintendents restating again the basic fundamentals of our church.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I love our agreed statement of faith, so simple, yet gets right to the heart of the fundamentals of the faith while leaving plenty of room for opinion on the non-essentials.

My only question with the BOGS statement is with, "We believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We hold that the Word of God is the primary source of revelation for knowing God. Dr. H. Orton Wiley, who helped shape our theology in our formative years, wrote: "We conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration ... in the manner that and to the degree that the Bible becomes the infallible word of God, the authoritative Rule of Faith and Practice in the Church" (Christian Theology, Vol. 1, p. 170)." My question arises from Wiley's use of "Infallible". Do the BOGS intend this to be an affirmation of Article IV of the articles of faith or to mean something more. I, personally affirm Article IV. Maybe the ambiguity resides with me.

[Ryan Scott]

I think "rule of faith and practice" is the key phrase in that sentence, which does align it with the Manual statement.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think "rule of faith and practice" is the key phrase in that sentence, which does align it with the Manual statement.

Thank you. I was leaning that way myself. I didn't think that the BOGS would make a statement that conflicted with what Article IV states, especially since there was an attempt to change that article this past GA.

[Ryan Scott]

Thank you. I was leaning that way myself. I didn't think that the BOGS would make a statement that conflicted with what Article IV states, especially since there was an attempt to change that article this past GA.

I believe in these recent statement the BGS is search for ways to avoid alienating anyone, but affirm the necessity of a big tent. They're taking a stand against exclusionary language while attempting to be as inclusive as possible.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The real genius of the Agreed Statement of Belief, and the BOGs affirmation of it as the heart of the CofN, does not really lie in what the eight statements affirm, but in what they do NOT say. The affirmations are basic Christian doctrine. What is not said, and therefore not essential for this particular "culturally conditioned form" of the Church, includes most of those secondary issues that some have elevated to primary status and serve to divide many Christians, even within this community of Faith.

I have long argued that these eight statements provide the essential definition for what it means to be Christian within a Nazarene fellowship. I am pleased that the BOGs have stated this publically. It will not make the battles go away. But it moves us further toward clarifying what is essential, and provides a basis to distinguish essential from what is secondary and therefore personal opinion.

I think it is also a good move toward a possible affirmation that personal opinion cannot be the standard of faith and practice within this community, no matter how passionately held. While some might see that as restrictive, I think it is necessary in analogous ways to the practices of Ezra and Nehemiah that clearly defined the community of Faith that was under attack from both within and without. As Bob McClain says about business, "If you try to be everything to everyone, you’ll be nothing to no one." That may have application for the Church in a postmodern world.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm very happy to see them align with the Agreed Statement of Belief, and put that to the forefront again. That's wonderful.

This goes a long way to define what is essential in our church and what isn't.

[Mike Schutz]

Scott, Thanks for posting this. Just sent it out to my church email list, as well as posted it on Fb.

Not surprising, Sherwood leads and I follow.

[Eric Frey]

I am always curious about statements such as these. They leave out many of the Articles of Faith. Does that mean those Articles not included are not to be understood as "Agreed Statements of Belief"? Are they less important? Are they not required for a person to believe in? Are they not necessary for membership?

I understand the desire for simplicity and clarity, but in my mind such "agreed statements" that are not correspondent to the "Articles of Faith" cause more questions than they answer. How do you all view the relationship between "Agreed Statements of Belief" and "Articles of Faith"?

[Hans Deventer]

I am always curious about statements such as these. They leave out many of the Articles of Faith. Does that mean those Articles not included are not to be understood as "Agreed Statements of Belief"?

That's correct.



Are they less important?

I don't know if they are less important, but they have never been required for membership.


Are they not required for a person to believe in? Are they not necessary for membership?

That's right. You can check the Manuals of the CotN from 1898 to today. We have never required adherence to the Articles of Faith. In fact, up till 2005 we required another creed in stead of the Agreed Statement of Belief even! Pretty amazing.


I understand the desire for simplicity and clarity, but in my mind such "agreed statements" that are not correspondent to the "Articles of Faith" cause more questions than they answer. How do you all view the relationship between "Agreed Statements of Belief" and "Articles of Faith"?

I think the AoF explain the ASoB as the subsequent GA's have understood them. But, those very same GA's did not require adherence to the AoF. I guess the main issue is what you find at the start of the ASoB:

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.

We have (thankfully) always closely linked doctrinal orthodoxy with orthopraxis. The goal of orthodoxy is indeed orthopraxis. Hence, we only require what is needed for the latter.

[Ryan Scott]

I am always curious about statements such as these. They leave out many of the Articles of Faith. Does that mean those Articles not included are not to be understood as "Agreed Statements of Belief"? Are they less important? Are they not required for a person to believe in? Are they not necessary for membership?

I'll echo what Hans has said, but with one caveat. We are in contradiction with ourselves because the given membership ritual includes a promise to follow the entire Manual, when the Manual itself doesn't require this. I haven't been in a position to receive members, but if and when I am in such a position, I'll probably come up with a different ritual to more accurately reflect our requirements.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'll echo what Hans has said, but with one caveat. We are in contradiction with ourselves because the given membership ritual includes a promise to follow the entire Manual, when the Manual itself doesn't require this. I haven't been in a position to receive members, but if and when I am in such a position, I'll probably come up with a different ritual to more accurately reflect our requirements.

I really wish THAT contradiction would get resolved at a future General Assembly!

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'll echo what Hans has said, but with one caveat. We are in contradiction with ourselves because the given membership ritual includes a promise to follow the entire Manual, when the Manual itself doesn't require this. I haven't been in a position to receive members, but if and when I am in such a position, I'll probably come up with a different ritual to more accurately reflect our requirements.

I too echo Hans statement, he said it so much better that I could have.

Concerning the given membership ritual; In my reading of the Manual only acceptance of the Agreed Statement of Belief is required for membership. Yet I have known Elders who were chastised for granting membership to people who acknowledged that they had the occasional drink. It seems that in Nazarene culture we expect new members to come to us entirely sanctified. This seems wrong and not in line with the requirement stated in paragraph 26.

I agree an new ritual needs to be developed which reflects our actual requirements for membership. Also, the culture within the CotN needs to move to reflect our actual requirements and no longer expect people to come to us entirely sanctified.

[Rich Schmidt]

I too echo Hans statement, he said it so much better that I could have.

Concerning the given membership ritual; In my reading of the Manual only acceptance of the Agreed Statement of Belief is required for membership. Yet I have known Elders who were chastised for granting membership to people who acknowledged that they had the occasional drink. It seems that in Nazarene culture we expect new members to come to us entirely sanctified. This seems wrong and not in line with the requirement stated in paragraph 26.

I agree an new ritual needs to be developed which reflects our actual requirements for membership. Also, the culture within the CotN needs to move to reflect our actual requirements and no longer expect people to come to us entirely sanctified.

And this is why I would like to see the contradiction resolved by a General Assembly. Because if the Covenant of Christian Conduct is not for members... who is it for?

Unfortunately, if it gets resolved, I fear that it would be resolved in the direction of requiring more, not less, of members. I fear that paragraph 26 is a holdover from earlier Manuals, and that the move would be to bring it in line with the rest of the Manual, not the other way around.

[Paul DeBaufer]

And this is why I would like to see the contradiction resolved by a General Assembly. Because if the Covenant of Christian Conduct is not for members... who is it for?

Unfortunately, if it gets resolved, I fear that it would be resolved in the direction of requiring more, not less, of members. I fear that paragraph 26 is a holdover from earlier Manuals, and that the move would be to bring it in line with the rest of the Manual, not the other way around.

I think the Covenant of Christian Conduct is for members, something for us to strive for, not a requirement for initial membership. The action within seems to me to reflect a sanctified life and we are all in process of Entire Sanctification. I think that holding CCC as a requirement of initial membership a hold over from the American Holiness movement of the 19th & 20th century and less reflective of the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification.

that said, I do believe that you are right that IF the GA would take up this issue they would move in the direction Rich suggests.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think the Covenant of Christian Conduct is for members, something for us to strive for, not a requirement for initial membership. The action within seems to me to reflect a sanctified life and we are all in process of Entire Sanctification. I think that holding CCC as a requirement of initial membership a hold over from the American Holiness movement of the 19th & 20th century and less reflective of the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification.

that said, I do believe that you are right that IF the GA would take up this issue they would move in the direction Rich suggests.

I just thought of something that is relevant to my quoted post.

While it appears that the Covenant of Christian Conduct doesn't (and shouldn't) apply to those joining the church, because, n my opinion, they represent a entirely sanctified life (or are supposed to) they must be adhered to for people desiring to enter into leadership in whatever role. The Manual tells us that entire sanctification in necessary for board members, the issuance of a local license, etc. I feel that if one accepts one of these roles that they need to abide by that CCC whether or not they agree with them.

[Billy Cox]

This part was profoundly troubling.


The Christian Church has faced withering attacks from professed atheists without, and the horrific challenges of scandal within. Clearly, the world deserves a response.

I recently heard a piece on NPR about the Catholic Church's response to scandal, and how it was calibrated to be a defense against the 'barbarians at the gates' rather than dealing with the scoundrels within.

I hear echoes of this in the BGS statement. Oh well, no big deal. What else would they say and what difference would it make anyway?

[Rich Schmidt]

This part was profoundly troubling.



That part doesn't appear to be part of the statement from the BGS, but part of the (anonymous) introduction. It seems they (whoever "they" are) wanted to give it some context.... but it seems to me that they've given it a context other than what is given in the statement itself, which says:

In these days of theological experimentation and inquiry, it seems prudent to the Board of General Superintendents to lay special emphasis on some of these agreed beliefs.
I can't help but hear that in the context of the questions many Nazarenes have had about things like open theism, emergent church stuff, spiritual formation, evolution, our view of Scripture, etc. -- in other words, the things that "Concerned Nazarenes" are asking about. There's a lot of "theological experimentation" going on in the world and in the church at large, some of it by theologians in our universities, as they attempt to glean what is helpful from the various experiments taking place, and that has led to "inquiry" by people who feel uneasy (or worse) about that experimentation.

Personally, I am not concerned about any of the things I listed above. I believe that our Nazarene theologians are doing their job well, loving God with all their mind as we are commanded by Christ. But some have felt that we are wandering away from who we are. So I see this statement as reaffirming who we are and what we believe, the "nonnegotiable elements... of biblical faith" that bind us together as Nazarenes.

[Scott Sherwood]

Rich, I think you have nailed the intent. That is how I understood it as well.

[Hans Deventer]

I fear that paragraph 26 is a holdover from earlier Manuals, and that the move would be to bring it in line with the rest of the Manual, not the other way around.

Well, that's exactly why I am so grateful with the statement from the BoGS. They pulled par 26 out of the shadows, so to speak, and put it in the forefront. That leaves us with many questions as to what we should do with all the other doctrinal statements in the Manual, but at least they did define our essential doctrines and did not expand them more than necessary. I appreciate that very much.

[Gene Tatsch]

... What else would they say and what difference would it make anyway?I'm troubled to have to agree ... might there be some change that would make such statements "come alive" at our level? Business organizations somehow are doing it. I see a disconnect between attempts at spiritual leadership and translating it into functional changes that impact actions in my grass roots.

[Billy Cox]

That part doesn't appear to be part of the statement from the BGS, but part of the (anonymous) introduction. It seems they (whoever "they" are) wanted to give it some context.... but it seems to me that they've given it a context other than what is given in the statement itself, which says:

Reading it more closely, I see where the introduction starts and the statement begins...sort of.


Personally, I am not concerned about any of the things I listed above.

Me neither, but it's not due to my faith in our theologians or in the wisdom of our leaders. The denomination is in good hands and it's not so easy to kill one after it gets off the ground anyway.



But some have felt that we are wandering away from who we are. So I see this statement as reaffirming who we are and what we believe, the "nonnegotiable elements... of biblical faith" that bind us together as Nazarenes.

Agreed. Churches generally come under attack not from those who want it to be more doctrinally generous, but by those who think it is already far too generous. Those types eventually give up and go start their own thing.